This man Spudias and I, men of the jury, are married to two sisters, daughters of Polyeuctus. Polyeuctus having died without male issue, I am forced to go to law with the defendant in regard to the property which has been left. And if, men of the jury, I had not shown all zeal and eagerness in my desire to find a settlement and to submit the matters at issue to our friends, I should have blamed myself for not choosing to suffer a trifling loss rather than engage in a troublesome lawsuit. [2] But, as it is, the more gentleness and consideration I used in talking with the defendant, the more contempt he showed toward me. And now it appears that in my contest with him we are in no sense on equal terms, but he can take the matter lightly, since he has been accustomed to come often before you, whereas I fear this very thing, that because of my lack of experience I may prove unable to explain my case to you. None the less, men of the jury, I beg you to give heed. [3]

Polyeuctus was a man of Teithras,1 not unknown, it may well be, to some of you. This Polyeuctus, since he had no male children, adopted Leocrates, the brother of his own wife; but since he had two daughters by the sister of Leocrates, he gave the elder to me in marriage with a portion of forty minae, and the younger to Leocrates.2 [4] So matters stood, when a quarrel came about between Polyeuctus and Leocrates, as to the nature of which I know of nothing which it is incumbent upon me to relate, and Polyeuctus took away his daughter3 and gave her in marriage to this man Spudias. After this Leocrates, being greatly incensed, brought suit against Polyeuctus and Spudias here, and they were forced to render an accounting in regard to all the matters at issue, and in the end a settlement was reached on the terms that Leocrates, on receiving back all that he had brought into the estate, should be reconciled with Polyeuctus, and that final releases should be given from all demands made by each upon the other. [5] Now, why is it, men of the jury, that I have told you this? Because I did not receive the whole of my wife's portion, but a thousand drachmae were left unpaid with the understanding that I should receive them on the death of Polyeuctus; and so long as Leocrates was the heir of Polyeuctus, it was he who was responsible to me for the debt; but when Leocrates had left the family, and Polyeuctus was seriously ill, then, men of the jury, to secure the ten minae, I took a mortgage on this house, the rents accruing from which Spudias seeks to prevent me from collecting. [6] In the first place, then, I shall bring before you as witnesses those who were present when Polyeuctus betrothed his daughter to me with a portion of forty minae; then I shall prove that what I received was less by a thousand drachmae; and further that Polyeuctus always admitted that he was in my debt, and that he introduced to me Leocrates as guarantor4; and that at his death he directed by his will that pillars should be set up on the house in my favor for a thousand drachmae due on account of my wife's portion.

Please call the witnesses.“ Witnesses ” [7]

This, then, men of the jury, is one of the charges which I make against Spudias. And in this matter what stronger or more solid ground could I have in coming before you than the law which expressly ordains that, in all cases where men have given a mortgage, there shall be no right of action for them or for their heirs? But nevertheless it is to dispute this just provision that Spudias has come here. [8] A second claim, men of the jury, is the following: Aristogenes has deposed that Polyeuctus, when about to die, charged that there were due him from Spudias two minae with interest （this was the price of a domestic slave whom the defendant had bought from Polyeuctus, but had neither paid the money nor has now entered it in the general account）; and furthermore there are eighteen hundred drachmae, regarding which I am myself at a loss to know what reasonable thing he will have to say. [9] He had borrowed the money from the wife of Polyeuctus, and there are papers which that lady left behind at her death, and the lady's brothers are witnesses, for they were present at all times and questioned her on every point, that there might be no unpleasantness between us. It is, then, an outrageous and cruel thing, men of the jury, when I on my part, for everything which I either bought from Polyeuctus during his lifetime or received from his wife, have duly paid the price and the interest as well, and am now bringing into the general account everything which I owed, [10] that this fellow should show no regard either for your laws or for the will of Polyeuctus, or for the papers which have been left, or for those who knew the facts, but in the face of all this should have come into court to contest my plea.

Please take first the law which denies the right of action for mortgaged property against the holders of the mortgage, then the papers which were left, and the deposition of Aristogenes.“ Law ”“ Papers ”“ Deposition ” [11]

I wish now, men of the jury, to instruct you in detail also regarding the other claims which I make. They received from the wife of Polyeuctus a bowl, which they pawned together with some pieces of jewelry, and this they have not redeemed and brought into the general account, as Demophilus, to whom it was pawned, will testify. They have also some stuff for hangings,5 which they received, but they do not account for this either; and many more articles of the same sort. And finally, although my wife advanced a mina of silver and expended it on her father's behalf for the feast of the dead,6 the defendant refuses to contribute his share even of this; nay, what he has received he keeps; of other items he receives his due portion; but these claims he thus openly refuses to meet.

Now that these matters too may not be left neglected, take, please, the depositions regarding them all.“ Depositions ” [12]

It may well be, men of the jury, that Spudias will make no statement to meet these facts; for he will not be able to do so, clever though he is; but will accuse Polyeuctus and his wife, and will declare that they did all these things under my influence and as favors to me, and that he is being greatly injured in many other respects, and has brought action against me; for this is what he undertook to say before the arbitrator also. [13] But for my part, men of the jury, in the first place I do not think that a defence of that sort is legitimate, or that it is proper, when one is manifestly shown to be in the wrong, for him to shift the charges and have recourse to accusation and calumny; nay, for his counter-charges, if he is suffering any wrong, he will plainly receive satisfaction, but for the claims made on him, he will give it. For how could I now defend myself against the slanders of these men, if I passed over the matters upon which you are to give your verdict? [14] In the next place I wonder, if he had true and just demands to make, why it was that, when our friends wished to settle our differences, and many conferences were held, he could not abide by their decision. And yet who could better have exposed the baselessness of claims advanced by him or by me than those who were present at all these transactions, who knew the facts as well as we did ourselves, and who were impartial friends of us both? [15] But this was plainly not to the interest of my opponent—that he should be openly convicted by our friends and find a settlement in this way. For do not imagine, men of the jury, that men who know all these facts, and who now at their own risk are giving testimony in my favor, would then, when they had been put under oath, have formed a different conclusion about them. However, though you had none of these facts to aid you, even so it is not difficult to form an opinion as to which of the two parties is speaking the truth. [16] For regarding the house, if he maintains that Polyeuctus was induced by me to order that mortgage-pillars be set up for the thousand drachmae, yet surely, Spudias, I did not use my influence to induce the witnesses to give false testimony in my interest,—witnesses who were present when he betrothed to me his daughter, who knew that I received less than the entire marriage portion, who heard him when he acknowledged that he was in my debt and also when he had introduced Leocrates as the one who should make payment, and who finally were present when the will was made. For with all these persons it was no longer a question of favoring me in these matters, but of risking a charge of giving false testimony, if they deposed to what was not the truth. Let us, then, have no more of that matter; but what will you say to this, Spudias? [17] And see that you give these gentlemen a precise answer. If he does not, do you all demand it of him. For, when Polyeuctus gave these directions in his will, the defendant's wife was present, and you may be sure that she reported to him the will of her father, especially if he did not receive an equal share, but was at a disadvantage in all respects; and the defendant himself was invited to be present, so that it is not open to him to say that we managed this in secret and kept them in the dark. For although he was invited to be present, he said that he was busy himself, but that it would be enough if his wife were there. What more would you have? [18] When Aristogenes gave him an exact account of all these matters, even then he made no comment, and though Polyeuctus lived on more than five days after this, he neither showed any vexation on going to the house, nor made any protest, nor did his wife, who was present from the first on all these occasions. It would appear, then, that Polyeuctus was not induced by me to favor me in these matters; the act was your own. Keep these facts, then, clearly in your minds, men of the jury, and if he now tries to make any slanderous statements about the matter, confront him with them.

But first, that you may be fully assured that matters are as I have stated, hear the witnesses. Read.“ Witnesses ” [19]

Well then, men of the jury, in the matter of the one thousand drachmae, to prove that Polyeuctus mortgaged the house to me honestly, and for an existing debt, I have the testimony of my opponent himself and his wife in addition to these other witnesses whose depositions have been put in; for they concurred at the time, and made no objection either to Polyeuctus who lived so many days after, or to Aristogenes, when they first heard of the will. But assuredly, if the house was honestly mortgaged, it is impossible for you, if you bear the law in mind, to acquit Spudias as to this part of the case. [20] Now consider also the matter of the twenty minae, which he does not bring into the account; for in this again the defendant himself will be my strongest witness—not by words, heaven knows, such as he utters now in opposing my suit—words are a criterion of no worth—but by manifest act. By doing what, men of the jury? To this I bid you now to give close heed, in order that, if he really dares to utter any slanders about the mother of our wives or about the documents, your knowledge of the facts may make it impossible for him to deceive you by his talk. [21]

These papers were left by the wife of Polyeuctus, as I just now said. The seals being acknowledged both by the defendant's wife and by mine, we both, being present, broke them and took copies, and then sealed up the papers again, and deposited them in the hands of Aristogenes. [22] Now, note this, men of the jury, note this, I beg of you. There was in the papers mention of the two minae, the price of the slave—and it was not only Polyeuctus on his death-bed who had made this claim—and there was mention of the eighteen hundred drachmae. When he read this, if what was written did not concern him at all and was untrue, why pray did he not at once protest about it? Why did he join in sealing again papers which were false and of no worth? This of course no one in the world would do, if he did not concur in all that was written. [23] But surely, men of the jury, this is an outrageous thing if these men are to be permitted now to dispute matters to which they have themselves given assent, and you are to find no basis for judgement in the fact that all of us are wont, when charges are made against us that are unjust and untrue, not to keep silent, but to dispute them on the spot, and that those who do not do this, if they contest them subsequently, are accounted rascals and tricksters. [24] Now Spudias knows this as well as I, and I think even better, inasmuch as he comes oftener before your court, yet he feels no shame in saying things that contradict all that he has himself done. And yet full often when you become conscious of one single piece of fraud, you treat it as evidence against the other charges; but the defendant is found to have been convicted by himself of falsehood on every point.

Take, please, the deposition, proving that the seals of the papers were acknowledged at the time by the wife of the defendant, and that the papers are now deposited, sealed by Spudias.“ Deposition ” [25]

Since, then, these facts have been so convincingly established, there is no further need, I think, of more words. For when I am able to produce both laws and witnesses in support of everything that I have said, and also admissions made in my favor by my opponent himself, what further need can there be for a long argument? However, if Spudias perchance waxes indignant about the marriage portion and maintains that he is being defrauded to the amount of one thousand drachmae, he will be lying. For, while he disputes my claim to this sum, he has received not less, but more, as will presently be made clear to you. [26] Nay more, even if all these statements of his were indeed true, it is not just, I take it, if the laws are good for anything, that I should lose the marriage portion which was promised me, or that Polyeuctus, if he chose to give a smaller portion to one daughter and a larger to the other, should now be thwarted. For it was open to you, Spudias, not to marry his daughter, unless the thousand drachmae were given to you as well as to me. However you received no less than I, as I shall show.

But, first, take the deposition which shows on what terms the lady was given to him.“ Deposition ” [27]

But how can it be that he has received as much as I, one may ask, if in his case the jewelry and the apparel, to the value of a thousand drachmae, were reckoned in the forty minae, while to me the ten minae were paid separately and in addition? This is precisely what I am going to explain. For Spudias, men of the jury, received his wife from Leocrates with the jewelry and apparel on which Polyeuctus set a value to Leocrates of more than a thousand drachmae, while in my case, if you set what was sent to me over and above the marriage portion—all that I have in my possession—over against what was given to Spudias, you will find them practically equal over and above what was reckoned in the thousand drachmae; [28] so that it was only fair that these articles should be included in the forty minae, seeing that Polyeuctus had charged them against Leocrates, and they were more than had been given me.

Now please take this inventory and read to the jurymen what each of us has in his possession; after that, read the deposition of the arbitrators, that they may see that Spudias has received even far more than I, and that Leocrates made complaint regarding this, and that the arbitrators rendered this decision.“ Inventory ”“ Deposition ” [29]

Is it not plain, then, that the defendant has long had in his possession forty minae as his wife's marriage portion, whereas I received the thirty minae, just as he did, but not only did not receive the thousand drachmae, but am now actually in jeopardy regarding them, charged with possessing them wrongfully. It was for this reason, men of the jury, that Spudias would not leave to our friends the settlement of his claims against me, since the result would have been that all these falsehoods of his would have been exposed, for they had been present at all these transactions and knew all about them, and would therefore not have permitted him to say whatever he pleased; whereas in your court he thinks that by his falsehoods he will get the better of me and my statement of the truth. [30] And yet I have set forth to you clearly all my charges, as well as I could do it myself, while my opponent evaded coming before those acquainted with the facts thinking that he would be unable to lead them astray. Do not you, then, men of the jury, do not you any more than they suffer him to have recourse to lies and calumnies, but bear in mind what you have heard; for you know all the facts of the case, unless perhaps I have omitted something, since I have been forced to speak with but scant water in the water-clock.

1 Teithras was a deme of the tribe Oeneïs.

2 Marriage between uncle and niece was allowed in ancient Athens. A man might even marry his half-sister （See Dem. 57.2）.

3 This can mean only that he induced his daughter to go before the Archon and demand a divorce.

4 That is, as the person who would be responsible for payment after his own death.

5 The word literally means “tent,” and it is so rendered by some scholars in this passage. Harpocration takes it to mean “a parasol.”

6 Properly, “the Nemeseia,” a festival celebrated every year on the fifth day of the month Boedromion （September）.

I invoke many blessings, men of the jury, first upon all of you, and then also upon Solon, who established the law about the exchange of estates. For if he had not clearly defined for us what is the first thing to be done by those who have offered an exchange, and what the second, and so on in due order, I do not know to what lengths the audacity of this man Phaenippus would have gone, when even as it is, notwithstanding that the law prescribes all these things for us, he has nevertheless disregarded its just provisions, and instead of giving me the inventory of his property as the law prescribes within three days after he took the oath, or if he did not wish to do so then, giving it at least on the sixth day of the month Boedromion,1 which date was fixed upon at his request, and on which he promised to deliver the inventory, he did neither the one thing nor the other, [2] but, showing contempt both for me and for the law, he has delivered his inventory a month later, only two or three days before the case was brought into court, and all the rest of the time has kept himself out of sight; and instead of leaving untouched the seals which I had put upon the buildings, he went into the country, opened the buildings, and carried off the barley and other things, just as if the law had granted him the privilege of doing whatever he pleases, and not what is right. [3] For my part, men of the jury, I should be most happy to see myself enjoying the material prosperity which was mine before, and remaining in the group of the Three Hundred,2 but since, partly through having to share in the misfortunes common to all those who are engaged in mining works, and partly through having met heavy reverses in my private business, I have lost my estate, and now at the last must pay three talents to the state, a talent for each share （for I too was a partner, as I wish I had not been, in the confiscated mine）,3 I am compelled to try to substitute in my place a man who is not only richer than I am now, but was richer even before my losses, and who has never borne any state services, nor made any contribution to the state. [4] I therefore beg of you all, men of the jury, that, if I prove that Phaenippus here has both transgressed the just provisions of the law and is a richer man than myself, you will succor me, and appoint him in the list of the Three Hundred in my stead; for it is on this account that the laws every year provide for the tendering of exchanges, because to enjoy unbroken prosperity is not wont to be the permanent fortune of any large number of our citizens. But I will tell you all that has been done regarding the exchange from the very beginning. [5]

On the second day of the month Metageitnion,4 men of the jury, the generals appointed a court for the Three Hundred for the tendering of exchanges. Among these I cited this man Phaenippus as the law provides. After citing him, I took some of my friends and relatives, and proceeded to his outlying farm at Cytherus.5 And first I led them around the farm, the circuit of which was more than forty stades,6 and pointed out to them, and called them to witness in the presence of Phaenippus, that there were no mortgage-pillars7 on the farm, and I bade Phaenippus, if he said there were, to declare it at once and point them out to me, for fear some debt existing against the property might be brought to light later on. [6] Then I sealed the buildings, and bade Phaenippus to proceed to my property. After this I asked him where his threshed grain was, for by the gods and goddesses, men of the jury, there were two threshing-floors there, each one of nearly a plethron in extent.8 He answered me that some of the grain had been sold, and that some was stored within. [7] Finally, to make a long story short, I stationed men inside to keep watch, and by Zeus I gave strict orders to the ass-drivers and made them stop carrying off timber from the farm （for in addition to the rest of his property Phaenippus has also this very considerable source of revenue: six asses carry off wood the whole year through, and he receives more than twelve drachmae a day）. I forbade the ass-drivers, as I said, to touch the wood, and after giving notice to Phaenippus to attend the sacrifice,9 as the law commands, I went back to the city. [8]

First, now, I will produce for you the depositions substantiating what I have said, and then you shall hear the entire truth about the other aspects of the case. For you will find, men of the jury, that this fellow Phaenippus began from the very first day to act in utter disregard of right. I sealed the buildings, as the law permitted me; he opened them. And he acknowledges that he removed the seal, but does not acknowledge that he opened the door, as if men removed the seals for any other purpose than to open the doors. [9] Then I had forbidden that wood should be carried off; he carried it off every day except that on which I issued the order. There was no debt charged against the farm; he now reports a number of debts. In a word, he does just what he pleases, not what the laws bid him do.

Read the depositions, first those concerning the mine, and then the others as well.“ Depositions ” [10]

The wrongs, therefore, which Phaenippus began to do to me beginning with the very first day after the tendering of the exchanges, you have heard, men of Athens, both from myself and from the witnesses; but the things which he did after this have been offences, not against me only, but also against the laws, to the defence of which you are all bound to rally. [11] For although he had sworn on the eleventh of the month Boedromion to give me a true and just inventory of his property, and the law expressly declares that the inventory shall be given within three days after one takes the oath, he came up to me in front of the courtrooms with Polyeuctus of Crioa10 and some others, and begged me, first to have a conference with him regarding a settlement, assuring me that he would do everything that was right; and, secondly, to put off the declaration regarding the property for a few days only （for he said he understood my position）. [12] I, on my part, thinking it was becoming to a good citizen who wished to avoid quarrels not to rush headlong into court, was persuaded （for why should I multiply words?） to consent that the conference regarding a settlement should take place on the twenty-third of the month Boedromion, and the declaration regarding the property on the twenty-fifth.11 Yet, although he had obtained both his requests from me, Phaenippus did not present himself on either of these days; instead, he now appears before you as one who has transgressed two laws instead of one;—first, that which declares that the inventory shall be presented within three days after that on which one takes the oath, and, secondly, that which declares that mutual covenants, agreed upon in the presence of witnesses, shall be binding. [13] Yet, men of the jury, who among you does not know that the day fixed by law and that agreed upon by the contending parties are equally binding? Why, very often, although the thirtieth day is appointed by law, we fix upon another by mutual agreement; and in all the offices the magistrates put off trials and judgements for the contestants, when these have come to a mutual agreement; and if anyone should hold that the agreement thus entered upon was to be of no effect, you would despise him as a cheat without equal. [14] Well then, Phaenippus, just as though the law enjoined that one should do nothing that one had agreed to, from the day on which he promised to meet me for a settlement and to give me an inventory of his property and receive from me one of mine, never put in an appearance; but I, when I saw that he was paying no heed to me or to the laws, gave in my inventory at the office of the generals, whereas Phaenippus, as I said a moment ago, gave me a paper only the other day with no other purpose than that he might appear to have given me his inventory, but that I should be unable to make any use of its contents. [15] But, men of the jury, you should not grant more than their due to those who hold their own shamelessness to be stronger than the laws; if you do, you will multiply the numbers of those who mock at the just provisions of the laws. No; you should succor those who regard the voice of the laws as your voice, and the day appointed for coming into court as established in the interest of those who have been wronged, not of those who have done wrong. [16]

Read the depositions in support of what I have just said, and the laws.“ Depositions ”“ Laws ”

Having, then, been thus treated by Phaenippus, men of the jury, I reported to the generals the following inventory of my property. Read.“ Inventory ” [17]

How else, then, in the name of the gods and divinities, men of the jury, should one prove that Phaenippus is liable under the laws which have been read, than precisely in the way in which I am proving it? Yet Phaenippus has none the less brought a counter-charge against me that I am not rendering a just inventory of my property; so easy is it for men of his stamp to make false statements before you; and he complains of the oath which I took before filing the inventory, asserting that I undertook to report all the rest of my property except that in the mining-works;—as if to swear according to law were a matter for complaint! [18] But you know the law, men of the jury, for you enacted it, that which expressly makes this provision, that those tendering exchanges to one another, when they under oath report their inventories, shall swear also the following oath: “I will give a true and honest inventory of my property except that in the silver mines, all of which the laws have made exempt from taxes.” [19] But, rather, read the law itself. Yet, stop a moment, please. For I made this offer before to Phaenippus, and now again, men of the jury, I tender it freely:—I will surrender to him all my property including that in the mining works, if he will hand over to me the farm alone free from all encumbrances as it was when I first went to it with witnesses, and will replace as they were before the grain and wine and the other things which he has carried away from the buildings after removing the seals from the doors. [20] Why, pray, do you keep on talking and crying out? From my silver mines, Phaenippus, I formerly by my own bodily toil and labor reaped a large profit. I confess it. But now I have lost all but a small portion of my gains. You, on the contrary, since you sell from your farm your barley at a price of eighteen drachmae and your wine at a price of twelve, are a rich man, naturally, for you make more than a thousand medimni12 of grain and above eight hundred measures13 of wine. [21] Ought I, then, to continue in the same class, when the same fortune does not attend me now as formerly? Do not demand that; it would not be just. No; do you also take your turn and share for a little while in the class that performs public services, since those engaged in mining have suffered reverses while you farmers are prospering beyond what is your due. For a considerable time you have enjoyed the income of two estates, that of your natural father, Callippus, and that of him who adopted you, Philostratus, the orator, and you have never done anything for your fellow-citizens here.14 [22] Yet my father left to each of us, my brother and myself, an estate of forty-five minae merely, on which it is not easy to live, while your fathers were possessed of such wealth that each of them set up a tripod in honor of choregic victories at the Dionysia. And I do not begrudge them this, for it is the duty of the wealthy to render service to the state. Do you, therefore, show that you have expended one single copper coin on the state—you, who have inherited two estates which performed public services. [23] But you cannot show it, for you have learned secrecy and evasion and how to do everything to escape rendering service to your fellow-citizens here. But I will show that I have expended large sums—I, who inherited that slender estate from my father.

Now read me first that law which declares that no mining property shall be included in the inventory, and the challenge and then the depositions proving that this fellow Phaenippus has inherited two estates that performed public services.“ Law ”“ Challenge ”“ Depositions ” [24]

There is one thing only, men of the jury, in which anyone could show that this man Phaenippus has been ambitious of honor from you: he is an able and ambitious breeder of horses,15 being young and rich and vigorous. What is a convincing proof of this? He has given up riding on horseback, has sold his war horse, and in his place has bought himself a chariot—he, at his age!—that he may not have to travel on foot; such is the luxury that fills him. This chariot he has included in his inventory to me, but of the barley and wine and the rest of the farm-produce not a tenth part. [25] He deserves then, does he not, to be let off now, seeing that he has been so public-spirited and ambitious to serve both with his property and his person? No; far from it. For it is the duty of honest jurymen to give respite to those citizens, when they have need of such help, who, when prosperous, willingly perform public services and remain in the list of the Three Hundred; but as to those who consider as lost whatever money they spend upon the state, you should bring them into the list of those who make advance contributions, and not suffer them to run away from their duty.

Read first the deposition, and then his declaration.“ Deposition ”“ Declaration ” [26]

Enough of that. Yet Phaenippus, men of the jury, opened the rooms that had been sealed and carried off much that was within, as the witnesses have testified to you, leaving behind just what he pleased; and one month after the law prescribes gave me the declaration regarding his property. Nevertheless, enough of that.

Read from the words, “Upon this property I owe the following debts.”“ Declaration ” [27]

Stop reading. This Aristonoê, men of the jury, is the daughter of Philostratus and mother of Phaenippus. He declares that a debt is owing to her for her marriage portion, but of this the laws make him the owner.16 His statement is therefore false, and he does not make a just declaration. For why is it that I, Phaenippus, while my mother—who brought with her a marriage portion—is living and dwelling in my house, do not declare the marriage portion as a debt due to her, and thus try to lead the jurymen astray, but permit her to share in all that I have, alike whether it shall prove to be the estate of Phaenippus or my own? Because the laws so command, my good Sir. But all that you do is contrary to the laws. Read on.“ Declaration ” [28]

You hear, men of the jury. He declares that he owes upon the land to Pamphilus and Pheidoleus of Rhamnus17 jointly a talent, and to Aeantides of Phlyus18 four thousand drachmae, and to Aristomenes of Anagyrus19 fourteen minae. Why, then, Phaenippus, when I asked you in the presence of witnesses whether you owed anything on your farm, and bade you show me the pillar of mortgage, if one were set up anywhere upon it, and and adjured you not to have any fictitious creditors to be brought to light later on to my prejudice—why, pray, did you not reveal any of these debts then? And why, when you have been a month late in giving me your declaration, though the law bids that it be given within three days, have creditors and debts for more than three talents now come on the scene? [29] Because, my good Sir, it is merely this that you are contriving, that you may now have private debts equal in amount to the public debt which I have incurred to the state. But that your statement is false, Phaenippus, and that you have come before these gentlemen as a perjured man, I shall straightway prove beyond all question.

Please, clerk, take the deposition of Aeantides and Theoteles to whom this fellow has declared that he owes four thousand drachmae. His declaration is false, and he long ago paid the debt, not willingly, but after a judgement had been secured against him. Read.“ Deposition ” [30]

Well, then, men of the jury, when a man has made out a declaration that is so manifestly false in all points and has shown no regard for the laws which define the time within which the declaration must be made out, or to the private agreements which we hold to be equally binding; when besides this he has opened the seals of the buildings and carried off the grain and wine from within, and furthermore has after the offer to exchange sold the cut timber to the value of more than thirty minae; and when （worst of all） he has concocted false debts for the purpose of the exchange—will you decide by your votes that this man has made a just declaration? Surely not, men of the jury. [31] For where is one to turn if he fails of a verdict from you, when men of wealth who have never been of any service to you, who produce large quantities of grain and wine and dispose of this at three times its former price, have an advantage in your courts? Let not this happen now, I beg of you; but, as you have given public aid to all those engaged in mining, so now give aid to me as a private citizen. [32] For, if I had been your slave and not a citizen, seeing my industry and my goodwill toward you, you would have given me respite from my expenditures and would have turned to one of the rest who was running away from his duty. In the same manner, when I shall have paid the three talents for which I became liable to you, and shall have recovered my losses, you will relieve some other person among those in distress and turn to me. But for the present discharge me, men of the jury, I beg of you all; and since I have spoken only what is just, I implore you to come to my aid, and not to suffer me to be harried by these men.

1 The month Boedromion corresponds to the latter half of September and the prior half of October.

2 Each of the ten Athenian tribes reported a list of its wealthiest citizens to the number of 120. The resulting body of 1200 was divided into four groups of 300 each （for the division into symmories, see note on vol. 1. p. 10）, and these groups, being made up of the richest citizens, naturally bore the heaviest burdens, and in times of crisis might be called upon to advance the entire amount of money required. See Boeckh, Publ. Econ., Book 6, chapter 13, and Gilbert, Gk. Const. Ant. pp. 368-374 （English Trans.）.

3 The mine had apparently been taken over by the state because of non-payment of the rental, and to recover possession the lessees had to make the payment specified. On the general subject of the mining business in ancient Athens see Dem. 37 with the Introduction and notes.

4 The month Metageitnion corresponds to the latter half of August and the prior half of September.

5 Cytherus was a deme of the tribe Pandionis.

6 The stade was roughly a furlong.

7 Inscribed pillars were set up to indicate that a piece of property was mortgaged. See Dem. 31 passim.

8 That is, in diameter. The speaker evidently expected to find large quantities of threshed grain, owing to the size of the threshing floors. The plethron was about 100 feet.

9 Evidently for the purpose of taking the oath.

10 Crioa was a deme of the tribe Antiochis.

11 Literally the 8th and the 6th of the last group of ten days in the month, which was counted backward.

12 The medimnus was roughly equivalent to a bushel and a half.

13 The metretes was roughly equivalent to nine gallons.

14 i.e. the members of the jury.

15 Only well-to-do persons in Athens owned horses, and only the wealthy possessed stock-farms.

16 After the death of her husband a woman might return to the house of her κύριος（nearest male relative）, or, if there were children, she might live with them in her husband's house. In this case the marriage portion became the property of her son. In return he was bound to give his mother maintenance, but the portion could not be counted a lien upon his property.

17 Rhamnus was a deme of the tribe Aeantis.

18 Phlyus was a deme of the tribe Cecropis.

19 Anagyrus was a deme of the tribe Erectheïs.

Since we have had suits before now, men of the jury, against these same men regarding the estate of Hagnias, and they do not cease from their lawless and violent conduct, endeavoring by hook or crook to keep what does not belong to them, it is perhaps necessary to set forth all that has been done from the beginning; for you, men of the jury, will thus more easily follow the course of the whole argument, [2] and these men will be exhibited in their true character, and you will see that they began long ago and still continue to play their tricks, and to think that they may do whatever occurs to them. We therefore beg of you, men of the jury, to listen to our arguments with goodwill, and to follow with close attention. And I, on my part, will endeavor to give you the clearest information I can concerning the facts. [3]

The mother of this boy, men of the jury, being the nearest of kin to Hagnias of Oeon,1 had the estate of Hagnias adjudged to her according to your laws; and of those who then made counter-claims to this estate not one ventured to swear that he was nearer of kin than the lady （for it was admitted by all that the inheritance belonged to her by virtue of nearest kinship）, [4] but Glaucus of Oeon and Glaucon his brother presented themselves, having concocted a spurious will, and Theopompus, the father of Macartatus here, joined with them in getting up this whole scheme, and was their witness in most of the depositions that were put in. The will which they then produced was proved to be spurious, and they not only lost their case, but went out of court completely disgraced. [5] And Theopompus, the father of Macartatus here, although he was in town when the herald asked by proclamation whether anyone wished to lay claim to the estate of Hagnias by virtue of kinship or under a will, or to deposit security for the costs of such claim, yet did not venture to make a deposit, but by his own act gave judgement against himself that he had no conceivable claim on the estate of Hagnias. [6] But, although the mother of this boy here became possessed of the inheritance, since she had prevailed in the suit over all those who disputed her claim, these men are abominable, as you see, and imagine that they need obey neither your laws nor the decisions of your courts, but they are trying by fair means or foul once more to take away from the lady the inheritance which you awarded to her. [7] A conspiracy was formed, and a written agreement entered into, and deposited with Medeius of Hagnus,2 by Theopompus, the father of Macartatus here, and by Glaucon and the Glaucus who was worsted in the former suit; and they added to themselves as a fourth another of their friends （Eupolemus was his name）. All these men, having in common formed their plot, cited the lady before the archon for the adjudication of claims to the estate of Hagnias, declaring that the law prescribed that if anyone wished to enter a claim, citation should be made of the one to whom the estate had been adjudged and who had it in his possession. [8] And when the archon brought the case into court, and the trial was to be held, they had everything cleverly arranged for the trial, and in particular the water which was to measure their speeches was four times as much as that allowed to us. For the archon, men of the jury, was obliged to pour into the water-clock an amphora3 of water for each claimant, and three choes4 for the reply; [9] so that I, who acted as pleader for the lady, was not only unable to explain to the jurymen the relationship and other matters as clearly as I could have wished, but could not even defend myself against the smallest fraction of the lies which they told about us; for I had but a fifth part of the water. Their scheme was this: to tell a wholly false story about us, but to back one another up and agree in everything. [10] So, since they had formed their plot in this way, and each backed up the other's charges against us, when the four ballot-boxes5 were set out according to law, the jurymen, naturally enough, as I think, were deceived and could not agree with one another, and being led astray by this trick, they voted each as chance determined. And there were a very few more votes—some three or four—in the box of Theopompus than in that of the lady. [11]

This, then, was what took place at that time. But when this boy was born, and it seemed a fitting time, I, being in no way incensed at what had happened, but considering that the former jurymen had met with a very natural experience, introduced this boy here to the clansmen of Hagnias in the interest of Eubulides, seeing that the boy was the son of his daughter, in order that the family might not become extinct. [12] For the elder Eubulides, men of the jury, who was next of kin to Hagnias, prayed to the gods above all else that a son might be born to him as a daughter had been, the mother of this boy; but since he failed of this hope and not a single male child was born to him, his next dearest wish was that a son of his daughter should be adopted into his own family and that of Hagnias and should be introduced to the members of his clan; for he thought, men of the jury, that of his surviving relatives this boy was nearest to him, and that in this way their house would best be preserved and kept from extinction. [13] And I was the one to render him this service, since I was husband to the daughter of Eubulides, she having been adjudged to me as being the nearest of kin, and I introduced this boy to the clansmen of Hagnias and Eubulides, to which fellowship Theopompus, the father of Macartatus here, belonged during his lifetime, and to which Macartatus now belongs. [14] And the fellow-clansmen of Macartatus here, who knew better than any others the pedigree of the family, seeing that he himself did not choose to risk a contest and did not remove the victim from the altar, as he should have done had the introduction of this boy not been legitimate, but demanded that they commit perjury,6 took the ballot while the victims were still burning, and carried it from the altar of Zeus Phatrius6 in the presence of the defendant Macartatus, and gave a just verdict, men of the jury—that this boy was duly and rightfully introduced as the adopted son of Eubulides into the family of Hagnias. [15] But when the fellow-clansmen of the defendant Macartatus had passed this vote, this boy, as the son of Eubulides, cited the defendant Macartatus for an adjudication of claims for the estate of Hagnias, and had a day appointed by the archon for the hearing, inscribing his brother's name as his guardian; for it was no longer open to me, men of the jury, to stand inscribed as guardian, since I had got the boy adopted into the family of Eubulides. And the citation was made by this boy according to the same laws in accordance with which these men had cited his mother, who had won the former suit in court, and was in possession of the estate of Hagnias. [16]

Please read the law which ordains that citation shall be made of the person possessing the inheritance.“Law

If any person shall claim the inheritance or the heiress after adjudication has been made, let him cite before the archon the person who has obtained the adjudication just as in other suits, and a deposit to cover costs shall be made by the claimant. And if he wins an adjudication without citation, the adjudication of the estate shall be of no effect. And if the person who has had the estate adjudged to him be not living, let the claimant cite in like manner the successor, provided that the period covered by the statute of limitations has not expired.7 And the claim upon the possessor shall be that he shall show on what terms the person whose property he holds had it adjudged to him.” [17]

You have heard the law, and it is a reasonable request I make of you, men of the jury. If I shall prove to you that this boy Eubulides here and Phylomachê, who is the mother of the boy and the daughter of Eubulides, are nearer of kin to Hagnias than Theopompus, the father of Macartatus, and not only that they are nearest of kin, but that there is absolutely no human being belonging to the house of Hagnias except the mother of this boy and the boy himself,—if I shall prove this, I beg of you, men of the jury, to give your aid to us. [18]

At the first, men of the jury, it was my intention to write on a board all the kinsfolk of Hagnias, and thus to exhibit them to you one by one; but when I saw plainly that not all the jurymen would have an equally good view, but that those sitting at a distance would be at a disadvantage, it is perhaps necessary to instruct you by word of mouth, for thus all will be on the same footing. I, on my part, will endeavor to the best of my ability to inform you regarding the family of Hagnias in the fewest words possible. [19]

Buselus, men of the jury, was a member of the deme Oeon, and to him were born five sons, Hagnias and Eubulides and Stratius and Habron and Cleocritus. And all these sons of Buselus grew up to manhood, and their father Buselus divided his property among them all fairly and equitably, as was fitting. And when they had divided the property among themselves, each of them married a wife according to your laws, and sons and grandsons were born to them all, and there sprang up five households from the single one of Buselus; and they dwelt apart, each one having his own home and begetting his descendants. [20] Now with regard to three of the brothers, sons of Buselus, and the descendants born to them, why should I trouble you, men of the jury, or myself by going into particulars about each one? For although they are in the same degree of relationship as Theopompus, and are as near of kin to Hagnias, whose estate is in question, not one of them has ever troubled us either at an earlier time or now, nor has made any claim to the estate of Hagnias or to the woman who is the heiress, who was assigned in marriage to me; for they considered that they had no claim whatever to anything belonging to Hagnias. [21] It seems to me therefore that it would be entirely superfluous to say anything about them save only what I cannot help mentioning. Of Theopompus, however, the father of Macartatus, and of Macartatus the defendant himself, it is necessary for me to speak. Yet the story, men of the jury, is a short one. As you have just heard, Buselus had five sons. One of these was Stratius, the ancestor of Macartatus, and another was Hagnias, the ancestor of this boy. [22] To Hagnias was born a son, Polemon, and a daughter, Phylomachê, sister of Polemon by the same father and the same mother; and to Stratius, the brother of Hagnias, there were born Phanostratus and Charidemus, the grandfather of the defendant Macartatus. Now I ask you, men of the jury, which is nearer of kin and more closely related to Hagnias, his son Polemon and his daughter Phylomachê, or Charidemus, the son of Stratius, and nephew of Hagnias? For my part I think that to every one of us his son and daughter are more nearly related than his nephew; and not only with us does this hold good, but also among all other people whether Greeks or barbarians. [23] Since, then, this is admitted, you will now easily follow the rest of the argument men of the jury, and you will see how arbitrary and how reckless these men are. To Polemon, son of Hagnias, was born a son, Hagnias, having the name of his grandfather Hagnias, and this second Hagnias died without issue. [24] But from Phylomachê, the sister of Polemon, and Philagrus, to whom her brother Polemon had given her in marriage, he being his first cousin （for Philagrus was the son of Eubulides, the brother of Hagnias）—from Philagrus, I say, the cousin of Polemon, and Phylomachê the sister of Polemon, there was born Eubulides the father of this boy's mother. These sons, then, were born to Polemon and to Polemon's sister Phylomachê. But to Charidemus, the son of Stratius, there was born a son Theopompus, the father of the defendant Macartatus. [25] Again, then, I ask you, men of the jury, which is nearer of kin and more closely related to the first Hagnias, Hagnias, the son of Polemon, and Eubulides, the son of Phylomachê and Philagrus, or Theopompus, the son of Charidemus and grandson of Stratius? I am of the opinion, men of the jury, that if the son and the daughter are the nearest of kin, so, too, the son's son and the daughter's son are more nearly related than the son of a nephew and one who is a member of another branch of the family. [26] Well, to Theopompus was born a son, Macartatus, the defendant, and to Eubulides, the son of Phylomachê, and cousin of Hagnias on his father's side; this boy, who is to Hagnias the son of a first cousin on the father's side; since Phylomachê, the mother of Eubulides and Polemon, the father of Hagnias, were brother and sister, born of the same father and the same mother. But to Macartatus here, the son of Theopompus, there has been no issue which is both in the family of Hagnias and in that of Stratius. [27] Such being the facts, this boy here has one of the titles mentioned in the law, and up to which the law ordains that the right of succession should extend; for he is the child of the first cousin of Hagnias, since his father Eubulides was cousin to Hagnias, whose inheritance is in question. Theopompus, on the contrary, the father of the defendant Macartatus, could not have appropriated to himself any one of the titles mentioned in the law, for he belonged to another branch of the family, that of Stratius. [28] But it is not fitting, men of the jury, that any man whatsoever should possess the estate of Hagnias, one who belongs to another branch, so long as there is left any one of those born of the branch of Hagnias; no, nor is it right to expel such person by violence, as these men are trying to do, while they are themselves more distantly related, and not of the same branch of the family. For this, men of the jury, is the point upon which Theopompus, the father of the defendant Macartatus, misled the jury. [29] Who, then, are those still surviving in the branch of Hagnias? Phylomachê, my wife, who is the daughter of Eubulides, the cousin of Hagnias, and this boy, who has been adopted into the family of Eubulides and Hagnias. Theopompus, however, the father of the defendant Macartatus, not being himself of the branch of Hagnias, told the jurymen a monstrous lie regarding Phylomachê, the sister of Polemon and the aunt of Hagnias, alleging that she was not the sister of Polemon, the son of Hagnias, by the same father and mother, and another in pretending that he himself was of the same family as Hagnias, whereas he had never belonged to it. [30] All these assertions Theopompus made fearlessly, not producing any witness who would have been responsible to us, but having only his associates to corroborate what he said; for they were leagued with one another and did everything in concert, in order to rob the lady, the mother of this boy here, of the inheritance which you by your votes had decided to be hers. [31] I wish now, men of the jury, to produce witnesses in support of the statements which I have made to you—first, to prove that Phylomachê, the daughter of Eubulides, won judgement for the estate of Hagnias as being the nearest of kin, and then to establish the rest of the facts.

Read the deposition.“Deposition

The deponents state that they were present before the arbitrator in the archonship of Nicophemus,8 when Phylomachê, the daughter of Eubulides, won judgement for the estate of Hagnias against all who disputed her title.” [32]

That Phylomachê, the daughter of Eubulides, won judgement for the estate of Hagnias, you have heard, men of the jury. And she won it, not by wrongful trickery or conspiracy, but in the fairest manner possible, since we proved that she was nearest of kin to Hagnias, whose estate is in question, being the daughter of his cousin on his father's side, and being of the same branch as Hagnias. [33] When, therefore, Macartatus says that his father Theopompus won judgement for this estate, make answer to him on your part, men of the jury, that the lady also won judgement before Theopompus, the defendant's father, and that the lady won her case fairly, since she was of the same branch as Hagnias, being the daughter of Eubulides, the cousin of Hagnias, but that Theopompus did not win the suit, but prevailed by trickery, being himself in no sense whatever of the branch of Hagnias. [34] Make this reply to him yourselves, men of the jury, and also state that against this boy Eubulides, son of Eubulides, son of the first cousin on his father's side of Hagnias, whose estate is in question, neither Theopompus, the father of Macartatus, nor any other man ever at any time won a judgement. At the present time the contest and the trial to adjudge the estate of Hagnias are between this son of Eubulides and the defendant Macartatus, the son of Theopompus; and whichever of these two shall in your judgement speak most in harmony with justice and the laws, to him, it is plain, you jurymen will give your votes. [35]

Read the remaining depositions; first, those proving that Phylomachê, the aunt of Hagnias, was sister by the same father and the same mother to Polemon, the father of Hagnias; after that he shall read all the other depositions which have to do with the pedigree.“Depositions

The deponents testify that they are fellow-demesmen of Philagrus, the father of Eubulides, and Polemon, the father of Hagnias, and that they know that Phylomachê, the mother of Eubulides, was considered to be the sister of Polemon, the father of Hagnias, by the same father and the same mother, and that they never heard from anyone that Polemon, the son of Hagnias, had a brother.” [36] “Another

The deponents testify that Oenanthê, the mother of their grandfather Stratonides, was first cousin to Polemon, the father of Hagnias, their fathers having been brothers, and that they heard from their own father that Polemon, the father of Hagnias, never had any brother, but had a sister, born of the same father and the same mother, namely Phylomachê, the mother of Eubulides, the father of Phylomachê, wife of Sositheus.”“Another

The deponent testifies that he is a relative and fellow-clansman and fellow-demesman of Hagnias and Eubulides, and that he heard from his own father and other relatives that Polemon, the father of Hagnias, never had any brother, but had a sister, born of the same father and the same mother, namely Phylomachê, the mother of Eubulides, the father of Phylomachê, wife of Sositheus.” [37] “Another

The deponent testifies that Archimachus was his grandfather and adopted him as his son, and that he was a relative of Polemon, the father of Hagnias, and that he heard from Archimachus and his other relatives that Polemon, the father of Hagnias, never had any brother, but had a sister, born of the same father and the same mother, namely Phylomachê, the mother of Eubulides, the father of Phylomachê, wife of Sositheus.”“Another

The deponent testifies that his wife's father Callistratus was first cousin to Polemon, the father of Hagnias, and to Charidemus, the father of Theopompus, their fathers having been brothers, and that his mother was daughter of a first cousin to Polemon, and that their mother often said to them that Phylomachê, the mother of Eubulides, was sister of Polemon, the father of Hagnias, born of the same father and the same mother, and that Polemon, the father of Hagnias, never had any brother.” [38]

In the former trial, men of the jury, when these men formed their conspiracy with one another and acted in concert, the whole group of them, in their contest against the lady, we, on our part, men of the jury, neither prepared depositions regarding facts that were admitted, nor summoned witnesses, but thought that in these matters at least we were perfectly safe; whereas our opponents had equipped themselves with all manner of shameless artifices for the trial, and had their minds set upon this thing alone—to deceive the jurymen for the moment. [39] They had the audacity to assert that Polemon, the father of Hagnias, had no sister at all born of the same father and the same mother; so abominably impudent were they, seeking to mislead the jurymen in a matter of such importance and so well-known, and they spent all their efforts and strove beyond all else to establish this. We have, however, on this present occasion produced this host of witnesses regarding the sister of Polemon and aunt of Hagnias. [40] On the defendant's side let whoever will give evidence either that Polemon and Phylomachê were not brother and sister, born of the same father and the same mother, or that Polemon was not the son, and Phylomachê not the daughter, of Hagnias, the son of Buselus; or that Polemon was not the father of Hagnias, [41] whose estate is in question, and Phylomachê, the sister of Polemon, not his aunt; or that Eubulides was not the son of Phylomachê, or of Philagrus, the cousin of Hagnias; or this, that the still-living Phylomachê is not the daughter of Eubulides, the cousin of Hagnias, and this boy not his son, adopted according to your laws into the family of Eubulides or that Theopompus, the father of the defendant, Macartatus, belonged to the branch of Hagnias. Let anyone give testimony in his favor on whatever one of these points he chooses. But I know well that no mortal man will be so daring or so senseless. [42]

However, that it may be the more clear to you, men of the jury, that in the former trial they got the upper hand through their shameless audacity, and that they advanced no just arguments, read all the depositions that remain.“Depositions

The deponent testifies that he is a relative of Polemon, the father of Hagnias, and that he heard from his father that Philagrus, the father of Eubulides, and Phanostratus, the father of Stratius, and Callistratus, the father of the wife of Sosias, and Euctemon, who was king,9 and Charidemus, the father of Theopompus and Stratocles, were first cousins to Polemon, their fathers all having been brothers, and that Eubulides, with reference to his father Philagrus, stood in the same degree of relationship as the sons of these men and Hagnias, while with reference to his mother Phylomachê, he was recognized as the first cousin of Hagnias on his father's side, since he was the son of the paternal aunt of Hagnias.” [43] “Another

The deponents testify that they are relatives of Polemon, the father of Hagnias, and of Philagrus, the father of Eubulides, and of Euctemon, who was king, and that they know that Euctemon was brother by the same father to Philagrus, the father of Eubulides, and that when suit for the adjudication of the estate of Hagnias was instituted by Eubulides against Glaucon, Euctemon was still living, being first cousin to Polemon, the father of Hagnias, their fathers having been brothers, and that Euctemon did not dispute with Eubulides his title to the estate of Hagnias, nor did anyone else on the score of kinship on that occasion.” [44] “Another

The deponents testify that their father Strato was a relative of Polemon, the father of Hagnias, and of Charidemus, the father of Theopompus, and of Philagrus, the father of Eubulides, and that they heard from their father that Philagrus took for his first wife Phylomachê, the sister of Polemon, the father of Hagnias, born of the same father and the same mother, and that Philagrus had by Phylomachê a son Eubulides, and that after the death of Phylomachê Philagrus took a second wife Telesippê, and there was born a brother to Eubulides, namely Menestheus, of the same father but not of the same mother; and that when Eubulides made claim to the estate of Hagnias on the score of kinship, Menestheus did not dispute his title to the estate of Hagnias, nor did Euctemon, the brother of Philagrus, nor did anyone else on the score of kinship dispute the title of Eubulides on that occasion.” [45] “Another

The deponent testifies that his father Archimachus was a relative of Polemon, the father of Hagnias, and of Charidemus, the father of Theopompus, and of Philagrus, the father of Eubulides, and that he heard from their father that Philagrus took for his first wife Phylomachê, the sister of Polemon, the father of Hagnias, born of the same father and the same mother, and that by Phylomachê he had a son Eubulides, and that after the death of Phylomachê Philagrus took a second wife Telesippê, and that Philagrus had by Telesippê a son Menestheus, a brother to Eubulides, of the same father but not of the same mother; and that when Eubulides. made claim to the estate of Hagnias on the score of kinship, Menestheus did not dispute his claim to the estate, nor did Euctemon, the brother of Philagrus, nor did anyone else on the score of kinship dispute the title of Eubulides on that occasion.” [46] “Another

The deponent testifies that his mother's father Callistratus was brother to Euctemon, who was king, and to Philagrus, the father of Eubulides, and that these men were first cousins to Polemon the father of Hagnias, and to Charidemus, the father of Theopompus, and that he heard from his mother that Polemon, the father of Hagnias, had no brother, but had a sister Phylomachê, born of the same father and the same mother, and that Philagrus married this Phylomachê, and they had a son Eubulides, the father of Phylomachê, the wife of Sositheus.” [47]

It was necessary to read these depositions, men of the jury, in order that we might not suffer the same experience as before, by being caught by these men unprepared. But far more convincing even than these shall be the testimony that Macartatus will give against himself, proving that neither his father Theopompus nor himself has any claim whatever to inherit anything from Hagnias, Theopompus being less near of kin, and belonging to quite a different branch of the family. [48] For suppose one should ask, men of the jury, Who is the person who disputes this boy's title to the estate of Hagnias? I know well that he would say, Macartatus. Born of what father? Theopompus. And of what mother? Apolexis, daughter of a Prospaltian,10 and sister of Macartatus, also a Prospaltian. And who was the father of Theopompus? Charidemus. And of whom was Charidemus the son? Of Stratius. And of whom Stratius? Of Buselus. This, men of the jury, is the branch of Stratius, one of the sons of Buselus; and these whose names you have heard are descendants of Stratius; and among them there is not one single name of those belonging to the branch of Hagnias, or even one that is similar. [49] Now again I shall question this boy, asking who he is who contests the claim of Macartatus to the estate of Hagnias. The boy can make no other possible answer, men of the jury, than that he is Eubulides. The son of what father? Of Eubulides, the cousin of Hagnias. And of what mother? Of Phylomachê, who was the daughter of a first cousin to Hagnias on the father's side. But of whom was Eubulides the son? Of Philagrus, the cousin of Hagnias. And of what mother? Of Phylomachê, the aunt of Hagnias. [50] And of whom was Hagnias the son? Of Polemon. And of whom Polemon? Of Hagnias. And of whom Hagnias? Of Buselus. This is another branch, that of Hagnias, one of the sons of Buselus, and here there occurs not a single name identical with those of the descendants in the branch of Stratius, or even one that is similar; but they proceed in the branch of Hagnias with their own series of names, receiving them from one another. In every respect, then, and in every way it is proved that these men belong to another branch of the family and are more remote of kin, and that they are not entitled to inherit anything of the estate of Hagnias. For to show you to whom the law-giver grants the right of succession and inheritance, the clerk will read you these laws. [51] “Law

Whenever a man dies without making a will, if he leaves female children his estate shall go with them, but if not, the persons herein mentioned shall be entitled to his property: if there be brothers by the same father, and if there be lawfully born sons of brothers, they shall take the share of the father. But if there are no brothers or sons of brothers, their descendants shall inherit it in like manner; but males and the sons of males shall take precedence, if they are of the same ancestors, even though they be more remote of kin.11 If there are no relatives on the father's side within the degree of children of cousins, those on the mother's side shall inherit in like manner. But if there shall be no relatives on either side within the degree mentioned, the nearest of kin on the father's side shall inherit. But no illegitimate child of either sex shall have the right of succession either to religious rites or civic privileges, from the time of the archonship of Eucleides.12” [52]

The law, men of the jury, expressly declares to whom the inheritance shall go. Not, by Heaven, to Theopompus nor to Macartatus, the son of Theopompus, who are in no sense whatever of the family of Hagnias. But to whom does it give the inheritance? To the descendants of Hagnias, to those who are in his branch of the family. This is what the law says, and this is what justice demands. [53]

Now, then, men of the jury, the law-giver has not given these rights to the relatives without imposing upon them in the law a large number of duties, which the relatives must of necessity perform. No; there are full many obligations laid upon the relatives to perform for which the law admits of no excuse; they must absolutely be performed.

But, preferably, read the law itself—the first one. [54] “Law

In regard to all heiresses who are classified as Thetes,13 if the nearest of kin does not wish to marry one, let him give her in marriage with a portion of five hundred drachmae, if he be of the class of Pentacosiomedimni, if of the class of Knights, with a portion of three hundred, and if of the class of Zeugitae, with one hundred and fifty, in addition to what is her own. If there are several kinsmen in the same degree of relationship, each one of them shall contribute to the portion of the heiress according to his due share. And if there be several heiresses, it shall not be necessary for a single kinsman to give in marriage more than one, but the next of kin shall in each case give her in marriage or marry her himself. And if the nearest of kin does not marry her or give her in marriage, the archon shall compel him either to marry her himself or give her in marriage. And if the archon shall not compel him, let him be fined a thousand drachmae, which are to be consecrate to Hera. And let any person who chooses denounce to the archon any person who disobeys this law.” [55]

You hear what the law says, men of the jury. But when it became necessary to sue for the hand of the heiress Phylomachê, the mother of this boy and the daughter of the first cousin of Hagnias on his father's side, I came forward out of respect for the law and preferred my suit as being next of kin; but Theopompus, the father of Macartatus, neither came forward nor in any way disputed my claim, because he had no semblance of right, although he was of the same age as she. [56] And yet, men of the jury, how can you fail to think it strange that Theopompus never made any claim for the hand of the heiress, who was the daughter of the first cousin of Hagnias on his father's side, and yet demands to have the estate of Hagnias contrary to the laws? Could there be persons more shameless or more abominable than these?

Read the other laws also. [57] “Laws

Proclamation shall be made in the market-place to the shedder of blood by a kinsman within the degree of cousin and cousinship, and cousins and sons of cousins and sons-in-law and fathers-in-law and clansmen shall join in the pursuit. To secure condonation, if there be father or brother or sons, all must concur, or whoever opposes shall prevail. And if there be none of these and the slaying was involuntary, and the Fifty-one, the Ephetae,14 shall agree that the slaying was involuntary, let the clansmen, ten in number, grant the right of entrance to the shedder of blood, if they see fit; and let these be chosen by the Fifty-one according to rank. And those who had shed blood before the enactment of this statute shall be bound by its provisions.—And when persons die in the demes and no one takes them up for burial, let the Demarch give notice to the relatives to take them up and bury them, and to purify the deme on the day on which each of them dies.” [58] “In the case of slaves he shall give notice to their masters, and in the case of freemen to those possessing their property; and if the deceased had no property, the Demarch shall give notice to the relatives of the deceased. And if, after the Demarch shall have given notice, the relatives do not take up the body, the Demarch shall contract for the taking up and burial of the body, and for the purification of the deme on the same day at the lowest possible cost. And if he shall not so contract, he shall be bound to pay a thousand drachmae into the public treasury. And whatsoever he shall expend, he shall exact double the amount from those liable; and if he does not exact it he shall himself be under obligation to repay it to the demesmen. And those who do not pay the rents due for the lands of the goddess or of the gods and the eponymous heroes shall be disenfranchised, themselves and their family and their heirs, until they shall make payment.” [59]

All these duties which the laws lay upon relatives to perform, they lay upon us, and compel us to perform them, men of the jury. But to Macartatus here they say not a word, nor to Theopompus, his father; for they belong in no sense to the family of Hagnias. Why, then, should the laws lay any duties upon them? [60]

But the defendant, men of the jury, while he has no just argument whatever to make against the laws and the depositions which we produce, makes a show of indignation, and says he is being cruelly treated because, his father being dead, it falls to him to be defendant in this suit. But he does not bear in mind, men of the jury, that his father was a mortal man, and has met his end along with many others both younger and older than himself. Yet if Theopompus, the father of the defendant, is dead, the laws are not dead, nor is justice, nor are the jurymen with whom the verdict rests. [61] The present contest and the present trial are not to decide whether one man has died before or after another, but whether or not it is right that the kinsmen of Hagnias, cousins and children of cousins to Hagnias on his father's side, should be driven out from the family of Hagnias by persons belonging to the family of Stratius, who have no shadow of right to inherit the estate of Hagnias, but are more remote of kin. This is the question at issue in the present trial. [62]

You will see even more clearly, men of the jury, from the following law, that the lawgiver Solon is very much in earnest in regard to those who are relatives, and not only gives them the property left by the deceased, but also lays upon them all the burdensome obligations.

Read the law.“Law

The deceased shall be laid out in the house in any way one chooses, and they shall carry out the deceased on the day after that on which they lay him out, before the sun rises. And the men shall walk in front, when they carry him out, and the women behind. And no woman less than sixty years of age shall be permitted to enter the chamber of the deceased, or to follow the deceased when he is carried to the tomb, except those who are within the degree of children of cousins; nor shall any woman be permitted to enter the chamber of the deceased when the body is carried out, except those who are within the degree of children of cousins.” [63]

The law does not allow any woman except female relatives within the degree of cousinship to enter the chamber where the deceased lies, and it permits these same women to follow to the tomb. Now Phylomachê, the sister of Polemon, the father of Hagnias, was not cousin to Hagnias, but aunt; for she was sister to Polemon, the father of Hagnias. But Eubulides, the son of this woman, was cousin on his father's side to Hagnias, whose inheritance is in question. And the mother of this boy here was the daughter of Eubulides. [64] These female relatives the law commanded to be present at the laying out of the deceased, and to follow to the tomb, not the mother of Macartatus nor the wife of Theopompus; for she was in no way related to Hagnias, but was of another tribe, the Acamantis, and of another deme, that of Prospalta, so that she was not even apprised in any way at the time Hagnias lay dead. [65] It is surely a most outrageous result that these men are scheming to bring about, that forsooth we and the women of our family should inherit the body of Hagnias, when he was dead, and should perform all the proper rites, as being relatives and nearest of kin, but that Macartatus should claim the right to possess the estate of the dead Hagnias, though he belongs to the house of Stratius and is descended from Apolexis, daughter of the Prospaltian and sister of Macartatus. But this is neither just nor righteous, men of the jury. [66]

Now please read the words of the oracle brought from Delphi, from the shrine of the god, that you may see that it speaks in the same terms concerning relatives as do the laws of Solon. “Oracle

May good fortune attend you. The people of the Athenians make inquiry about the sign which has appeared in the heavens, asking what the Athenians should do, or to what god they should offer sacrifice or make prayer, in order that the issue of the sign may be for their advantage. It will be well for the Athenians with reference to the sign which has appeared in the heavens that they sacrifice with happy auspices to Zeus most high, to Athena most high, to Heracles, to Apollo the deliverer, and that they send due offerings to the Amphiones;15 that they sacrifice for good fortune to Apollo, god of the ways, to Leto and to Artemis, and that they make the streets steam with the savour of sacrifice; that they set forth bowls of wine and institute choruses and wreathe themselves with garlands after the custom of their fathers, in honor of all the Olympian gods and goddesses, lifting up the right hand and the left, and that they be mindful to bring gifts of thanksgiving after the custom of their fathers. And ye shall offer sacrificial gifts after the custom of your fathers to the hero-founder after whom ye are named; and for the dead their relatives shall make offerings on the appointed day according to established custom.” unknown [67]

You hear, men of the jury, that Solon in the laws and the god in the oracle use the same language, bidding the relatives to perform rites for the departed on the proper days. But neither Theopompus nor the defendant Macartatus cared at all for these things; they cared only for this, that they might retain possession of what does not belong to them, and to complain that after having had the estate for so long, they must now defend their title to it. I should have thought, men of the jury, that one who unjustly keeps in his possession the property of another, should not make complaints if he has kept it in his possession longer than is right, but should be grateful, not to us, but to fortune, that so many unavoidable delays have occurred in the interim, so that he is not brought to trial until now. [68]

Our opponents, then, men of the jury, are men of this stamp; they care nothing either for the extinction of the house of Hagnias, or for all the rest of their lawless deeds; men, who, O Zeus and the gods—but why should one mention the other things relative to them? There would be much indeed to tell of. But one thing which they have brought to pass is the most lawless and the most abominable, and most clearly proves that they care for nothing except their profit. [69] For no sooner had Theopompus got the award of the estate of Hagnias in the manner which you have heard, than he at once gave proof that he knew well that he was in possession of what in no sense belonged to him. The thing which was of the greatest value on the farms belonging to Hagnias, and which was most admired by the neighbors and by everybody else, was the olive trees. These they dug up and rooted out, more than a thousand trees, from which a large quantity of oil was produced. These trees our opponents rooted out and sold, and received a huge sum of money. And they did this while the estate of Hagnias was still subject to adjudication in accordance with the very law which had permitted them to cite the mother of this boy here. [70]

To prove that I speak the truth in this, that they rooted up the olive trees from the farms which Hagnias left, I will produce for you as witnesses the neighbors and others whom we summoned, when we made a solemn protest against this action.

Read the deposition.“Deposition

The deponents testify that on being summoned by Sositheus they accompanied him to Araphen,16 to the lands of Hagnias, after Theopompus had had the estate of Hagnias adjudged to him, and that Sositheus showed them the olive trees being rooted up from the land of Hagnias.” [71]

If now, men of the jury, it were against the dead man only that they had committed an outrage in doing this, their conduct would have been disgraceful, though in a less degree; but in reality it is against the whole city that they have committed this outrage, and they have broken your laws. You will know this, when you have heard the law.

Read the law.“Law

If anyone shall dig up an olive tree at Athens, except it be for a sanctuary of the Athenian state or of one of its demes, or for his own use to the number of two olive trees each year, or except it be needful to use it for the service of one who is dead, he shall be fined one hundred drachmae, to he paid into the public treasury, for each tree, and the tenth part of this sum shall belong to the goddess. Furthermore he shall be obligated to pay to the private individual who prosecutes him one hundred drachmae for each olive tree. And suits concerning these matters shall be brought before the archons, according as they severally have jurisdiction. And the prosecutor shall deposit the court fees for his share. And when a person shall have been convicted, the archon before whom the case was brought shall make a report to the collectors of the amount due to the treasury, and of the amount due to the goddess, to the treasurers of the goddess. And if they fail to make such reports, they shall themselves be liable for the amount.” [72]

The law is thus severe. But pray ponder in your minds, men of the jury, what you must imagine us to have suffered in the past from these men and the insolence of these men, when they have shown contempt toward you, so great a people, and have done what the laws expressly forbid their doing, in thus contemptuously laying waste the farms which Hagnias left. The law forbids anyone to root up any of these things even out of his own land inherited from his fathers. Much indeed do these men care either about obedience to your laws or the saving of the house of Hagnias from extinction! [73]

I desire, men of the jury, to speak to you in a few words about myself, and to prove to you that I have, in a very different way from theirs, shown my concern that the house of Hagnias should not become extinct. For I, too, am myself of the family of Buselus. For Callistratus married the granddaughter of Habron, the son of Buselus, being himself the son of Eubulides and grandson of Buselus; and from the granddaughter of Habron and Callistratus, the nephew of Habron, our mother was born. [74] I myself, when I had been awarded the hand of the mother of this boy, and four sons and one daughter had been born to me, gave them, men of the jury, the following names: to the eldest I gave, as was fitting, the name of my father Sosias, and thus I gave to the eldest this name that was his due; to the son born next after him I gave the name Eubulides, which was the name of the father of this boy's mother; to the next after him I gave the name Menestheus, for Menestheus was a relative of my wife; and to the youngest I gave the name Callistratus, which was the name of my mother's father. In addition to all this, I did not give my daughter in marriage into another family, but to my own brother's son, in order that, if they had health, the children born of them should be of the same family as Hagnias. [75] I, then, administered matters in this way, in order that the families springing from Buselus should as completely as possible be preserved. As for our opponents, let us examine them once more.

And first of all read this law.“Law

Let the archon take charge of orphans and of heiresses and of families that are becoming extinct, and of all women who remain in the houses of their deceased husbands, declaring that they are pregnant. Let him take charge of these, and not suffer anyone to do any outrage to them. And if anyone shall commit any outrage or any lawless act against them, he shall have power to impose a fine upon such person up to the limit fixed by law. And if the offender shall seem to him to be deserving of a more severe punishment, let him summon such a person, giving him five days' notice, and bring him before the court of Heliaea, writing upon the indictment the penalty which he thinks is deserved. And if there be a conviction, let the court of Heliaea appoint for the one convicted what penalty he ought to suffer or pay.” [76]

How, now, could people more effectively bring a house to extinction than if, being themselves of another house, that of Stratius, they should dispossess those nearest of kin to Hagnias? Or again, if one should claim to possess the estate of Hagnias as being related by blood, when he bears a name that is not only not derived from the family of Hagnias, but not even from that of Stratius, the claimant's own ancestor—no, when he has not the name of any other of all the descendants of Buselus, many as they are? [77] Whence, then, does he get the name Macartatus? From his mother's family. For he was adopted into the family of Macartatus of Prospalta, who was his mother's brother, and he possesses that estate also. And so regardless of right is he that, when a son was born to him, he forgot to introduce him into the family of Hagnias, as a son to Hagnias, and that too while he was in possession of the estate of Hagnias, and claimed that he was related to him by male descent. [78] This son who was born to him Macartatus has introduced by his mother's descent into the Prospaltians, and has suffered the family of Hagnias to become extinct, so far as this boy is concerned; but he alleges that his own father Theopompus was related to Hagnias. Yet the law of Solon ordains that males and the sons of males shall have precedence; but the defendant has thus lightly shown contempt both for Hagnias and for the laws, and has had his son introduced into the family of his mother. How could there be people more scornful of law or more arbitrary than these? [79]

Now this is not the only thing, men of the jury. There is a place of burial common to all those descended from Buselus （it is called the burial-place of the Buselidae, a large area, enclosed, after the manner of the men of old）. In this burial-place lie all the other descendants of Buselus and Hagnias and Eubulides and Polemon, and all the rest of the host of those descended from Buselus, all these hold in common this place of burial. [80] But the father of the defendant Macartatus and the grandfather have no share in it, but they made for themselves a tomb apart, at a distance from that of the Buselidae. Do they appear to you, men of the jury, to belong in any sense to the house of Hagnias, except that they have seized and hold what does not belong to them? Whether the house of Hagnias and of Eubulides, the cousin of Hagnias, is to become extinct and have no name, has never in the least degree been an object of concern to them. [81]

I for my part, men of the jury, am defending to the full extent of my power the interest of those dead relatives, but it is not an easy task to contend against the intrigues of these men. I therefore deliver over to you this boy to be the object of your care in whatever way you may deem most just. He has been adopted into the house of Eubulides, and has been introduced to the clansmen, not mine, but those of Eubulides and Hagnias and the defendant, Macartatus. [82] And when he was being introduced, the rest of the clansmen cast their votes secretly, but the defendant Macartatus by an open vote declared that this boy was being rightly introduced as a son to Eubulides; for he did not wish to lay his hand upon the victim or to remove it from the altar, and thus make himself responsible; nay, he even received his portion of the flesh from the hand of this boy, and took it away with him, as did the rest of the clansmen. [83] Consider, men of the jury, that this boy is set before you as though he were the suppliant's wand, on behalf of the deceased Hagnias and Eubulides and the other descendants of Hagnias, and that they supplicate you jurymen not to allow their house to be brought to extinction by these loathsome monsters, who are of the house of Stratius, and never belonged to that of Hagnias. Do not suffer them to keep what is not their own, but compel them to give it back into the house of Hagnias for those who are his relatives. [84] I verily am defending the interests of those relatives who are dead, and the laws established to protect them, and I beg of you also, men of the jury, I beseech you, I implore you, do not shut your eyes to the outrage done to this boy by the defendants, nor suffer his ancestors to be treated with even greater indignity than before, as will be the case, if these men accomplish what they desire. No; rally to the defence of the laws, and take thought for the dead, that their house be not brought to extinction. By doing this you will render a verdict which is just and consonant with your oaths, and in the interest of your own selves.

1 There were two demes bearing the name Oeon, one belonging to the tribe Leontis, the other to the tribe Hippothontis.

2 Hagnus was a deme of the tribe Acamantis.

3 The amphora contained about nine gallons.

4 The chous contained about 1/12 of an amphora.

5 One ballot-box, that is, for each contestant. There were five in all, but the two brothers, Glaucus and Glaucon, were apparently counted as one, since their title was the same. This problem is discussed by Wyse in his introduction to Isaeus Hag..

6 So named, as god of the clan （phratry）—which was a religious institution.

7 This period was five years.

8 That is, in B.C. 361-360.

9 That is, king-archon.

10 Prospalta was a deme of the tribe Acamantis.

11 The text is not wholly certain, and the precise meaning is therefore open to debate. The law is quoted also in Isaeus 7.20, where the note of Wyse should be consulted. See also Meier and Schömann, Der Attisch Process, p. 586, and Savage, The Athenian Family, pp. 128 ff.

12 This was in 403 B.C.

13 Solon had divided the people into four classes: （1） Those who received from their land an income of five hundred measures of barley or wine. These were called the “Pentacosiomedimini,” or “five hundred measure men.” （2） those who received three hundred measures. These were assumed to be able to furnish a horse for the army, and were therefore called “Knights.” （3）Those who received two hundred measures. These could presumably own a yoke of oxen and were called “Zeugitae,” or “Yolk-men.” （4） those receiving less, or having no property in land. These were called “Thetes,” i.e. “Laborers” or “Serfs.”

14 The Ephetae formed a court of fifty-one nobles （Eupatridae） having jurisdiction over cases of homicide. See Aristot. Ath. Pol. 57, with Sandys's note.

15 Possibly, Amphion and Zethus; but their tomb was near Thebes. See Paus. 9.17.4

16 Araphen was a deme of the tribe Aegeïs.

It is the fault of Leochares, the defendant, men of the jury, that he is himself being brought to trial, and that I, despite my youth, am addressing you, for he claims the right to inherit what does not belong to him, and has made a false affidavit of objections before the archon in support of his claim. [2] It was incumbent upon us—since the law grants the right of succession to those nearest of kin, and we are relatives of Archiades, who originally left the estate—not to suffer his house to become extinct, and others, who had no right whatever to it, to inherit his property; while the defendant, who was neither a son by blood of the deceased nor a son adopted according to your laws, as I shall show, has thus recklessly made a false affidavit, and is seeking to rob me of the inheritance. [3] I beg you, men of the jury, to come to the aid of my father and myself, if our pleading shall seem just, and not suffer men who are poor and without influence to be crushed by the lawless men marshalled against us. For we have come before you relying upon the truth, well content if we are permitted to obtain our legal rights; while our adversaries have from the first never ceased to rely upon intrigue and the spending of money, and very naturally in my opinion; for they readily make expenditures from funds which belong to others, and so have provided themselves with a host of people who will speak in their behalf and give false testimony. [4] My father here （ for the truth shall be told you） comes into court with manifest signs that he is, as you are all aware, a poor man, and that he knows nothing of pleading in court; for he has long been a public crier in Peiraeus, and this is not only a sign of the poverty which is common to man, but also of the fact that he has no time to meddle with the law; for a man so employed has to spend the whole day in the market-place. If you bear this in mind, you will be forced to conclude that, if we did not rely upon the justice of our cause, we should never have come before you at all. [5]

With reference to matters of this nature you will gain clearer information in the course of my address, but I think I must now inform you about the affidavit and the case at issue. If, men of the jury, Leochares, basing his defence upon the affidavit itself, were going to prove that he is the lawfully born son of Archiades, there would be no need of many words, nor any need that I should trace our family line back to its origin; [6] but since the matters sworn to in the affidavit are of a different nature, and most of the arguments of our adversaries will be devoted to proving that they were adopted and should properly inherit the estate by right of descent as lawful children, it is necessary for this reason, men of the jury, to go back a little way and instruct you regarding the pedigree; for when you understand this matter clearly, there will be no danger of your being misled by their arguments. [7] Very well then, the case before you is one to settle the title to an inheritance. Our claim to the estate is based upon descent, theirs upon adoption. We admit here in your presence that all adoptions, if rightly made in accordance with the laws, ought to be valid. Bear in mind, therefore, the bases upon which our respective claims rest, and if they prove to you that the laws grant what they have sworn in their affidavit, adjudge the estate to them. [8] And even if they have not the support of the laws, but it seems to you that what they say is in accordance with justice and generosity, even so we withdraw our claim. However, that you may know that, while we are by descent the nearest of kin, we do not rest our case upon this alone, but upon all the other grounds as well, I will first instruct you regarding the family itself from which the inheritance comes; for I am sure that, if you follow with clear understanding this phase of the matter at issue, you will have no difficulty in grasping any of the other facts. [9]

To go back to the beginning, men of the jury, there were born to Euthymachus, of Otrynê,1 three sons, Meidylides and Archippus and Archiades, and a daughter whose name was Archidicê. After the death of their father the brothers gave Archidicê in marriage to Leostratus of Eleusis2 ; of the three brothers Archippus lost his life at Methymna3 while serving as trierarch, and Meidylides not long afterward married Mnesimache, the daughter of Lysippus of Crioa.4 [10] To him there was born a daughter, Cleitomachê by name, whom he wished to give in marriage to his own brother, who was still unmarried; but since Archiades declared that he did not wish to marry, and for this reason allowed the property to remain undivided, and lived by himself in Salamis, Meidylides at length gave his daughter in marriage to Aristoteles of Pallenê,5 my grandfather. Of them were born three sons, Aristodemus here, my father, and Habronichus, my uncle, and Meidylides, who is now dead. Our right of inheritance, based on kinship in the family to which the estate belongs, is, men of the jury, substantially this. [11] For we are the nearest of kin to Archiades in the male line, and, as we deemed it right according to this law that we should inherit his estate, and not allow the family to be brought to extinction, we brought suit for the inheritance before the archon. Our opponents, who hold the property without right, have now filed an affidavit of objections, basing their entire claim upon adoption, but alleging also that they are near of kin. [12] Now, with regard to this adoption, we will show you plainly later on what its character was; but with reference to blood relationship, I must prove to you that they are not nearer of kin than we. One thing is admitted, that in the matter of inheritance males and those descended from males have the precedence, for the law explicitly gives the inheritance as their due to the nearest of kin in the male line, when there are no children. Well, it is we who answer this description; for Archiades is admitted to have died without issue, and we are the nearest of kin to him in the male line. [13] And furthermore, we are also his nearest of kin in the female line; for Meidylides was the brother of Archiades, and the daughter of Meidylides was the mother of my father, so that Archiades, for whose inheritance we are now prosecuting our claim, is uncle （ their fathers having been brothers） to the mother of my father, having this relationship in the male line, not in the female line. But Leostratus here is in kinship further removed, and is related to Archiades on the female side; for the mother of Leocrates, the father of the defendant, was niece to the Archiades in question and to Meidylides, as descendants of whom we claim the right to win the inheritance. [14]

First, men of the jury, to prove that our pedigree is as I have stated, the clerk shall read you the depositions, and thereafter the law itself which awards inheritances to the families and to those nearest of kin in the male line. For, I take it, these are the essential points in the case and the matters upon which you cast your vote under oath.

Call the witnesses up here, please, and read the law.“ Witnesses ”“ Law ” [15]

Matters concerning their pedigree and concerning ours, men of the jury, stand thus, and so it is right that those who have proved on the basis of the affidavits themselves that they are nearer of kin, should have the inheritance, and that the madness of the one who made the affidavit of objections should not prove stronger than your laws. For if they lay stress on the adoption, the nature of which I shall make clear to you, yet surely after the death without issue of the adopted son, when the house up to the filing of our suit had become extinct, it is right that those who are nearest of kin should receive the inheritance, and that you should give your aid, not to those citizens who are able to get up the strongest backing, but to those who are suffering wrong. [16] If it had been in our power, after setting forth matters regarding the pedigree and the affidavit itself, to leave the platform, and to have no need of further words, since practically the most important arguments would have been advanced, we should not trouble you further. But since our opponents will not rely upon the laws, but through having forestalled us and got some control of the situation long ago, and through having entered into possession of the estate, will use these facts as proofs, and declare that they are the heirs, it is perhaps necessary to discuss these matters as well, and to prove that of all humankind our opponents are the most arbitrary. [17]

To go back to the beginning, men of the jury, Meidylides and Archiades gave their sister in marriage to Leostratus of Eleusis; and after a time from this sister of theirs, thus given in marriage, there was born Leocrates, the Iather of the defendant Leostratus; observe how distantly related he is to Archiades, regarding whom they have filed the affidavit of objections. When matters were as I have stated, Archiades did not marry, but his brother Meidylides, the grandfather of my father here, did marry. [18] They made as yet no division of the property, but, both having enough to live on, Meidylides continued to live in the city, and Archiades made his home in Salamis. Not long afterward, when Meidylides, my father's grandfather, happened to go on a journey out of the country, Archiades fell sick, and died during the absence of Meidylides, being still unmarried. What is the proof of this? A maiden bearing an urn for water6 stands upon the tomb of Archiades. [19] At this juncture Leocrates, the father of Leostratus here, on the pretext of his relationship on the female side, got himself adopted as son to Archiades, and so entered into possession of the estate, as though he had been adopted by Archiades during his lifetime. When Meidylides returned, he was incensed at what had been done, and was in a mood to enter suit against Leocrates; but under the persuasion of his relatives and their pleas that he should suffer Leocrates to remain in the family as the son by adoption of Archiades, he yielded the point,—not through losing his case in court, but absolutely through being deceived by these men here and partly also through giving way to the persuasion of his relatives. [20] After this experience Meidylides died, and Leocrates continued in possession of the estate of Archiades, and conducted himself as heir for many years, as being his adopted son; and we, on our part, inasmuch as Meidylides had made this concession, refrained from action. No long time afterwards, however,—and now, men of the jury, pay close heed to what I am about to say— [21] Leocrates, who had become son by adoption to Archiades, himself returned to the Eleusinians, to whom he originally belonged, leaving Leostratus here in the family as a lawfully born son. Even then we did not as yet disturb any of the arrangements regarding the estate, but continued as before. [22] Well now, Leostratus here, although he was an adopted son and had been left in the family of Archiades, himself returned, as his father had done, to the Eleusinians, leaving in his place a lawfully born son, and, in defiance of the laws, setting up the original adoption as valid through the lives of three persons. [23] For how could it be other than contrary to the laws, when one, being himself an adopted son, returned to his original family leaving adopted sons in his place? That is what Leostratus has done up to this day, and by this means they think to rob us of our inheritance, making profit from the estate of Archiades, and supporting their children by it, and always returning from it to the estate of their fathers, keeping that intact, while spending the other. [24]

Nevertheless, although matters were in this condition, as I have told you, we submitted to everything. Until when? Until Leocrates, who had been left by Leostratus in the house as a son, died without issue. But since he died without issue, we, who are nearest of kin to Archiades, claim to inherit the property; and we claim that the defendant cannot, in order to rob us of what is ours, give an adopted son to the dead man who was himself adopted. [25] For if Leocrates had himself adopted a son during his lifetime, even though the action was contrary to law, we should have made no protest; but since he had no son born to him, nor had adopted one during his lifetime, and as the law gives inheritances to the nearest of kin, how can it be other than right that we should not be robbed of this inheritance, to which we have a double title? [26] For we are nearest of kin to Archiades, to whom the property originally belonged, and also to the adopted Leocrates; for his father, seeing that he has returned to the Eleusinians,7 no longer retained his legal relationship, whereas we, to whose family he had come to belong, had the closest relationship, being children of that father's first cousin. So, if you like, we claim the inheritance as kinsmen of Archiades, or, if you like it better, as kinsmen of Leocrates; for since he died without issue, no one is nearer of kin than we. [27] So far as you are concerned, Leostratus, the family has become extinct; for you sought to maintain a relationship with the property, not with those who adopted you. After the death of Leocrates, so long as no one laid claim to the estate, you sought to get no one adopted as a son to Archiades; but now that we have come forward as kinsmen, then you get one adopted, that you may get possession of the property. And you declare that Archiades, into whose house you were adopted, had no property, yet you file an affidavit of objections against us, seeking to exclude his acknowledged kindred. If there is nothing in the estate, wherein do you suffer loss, if we inherit this nothing? [28] But the fact is, men of the jury, that his impudence and greed are such that he thinks it is legitimate for him to return to the Eleusinians and retain the estate of his fathers, and at the same time to be master of that into which he was introduced by adoption, there being no son in the family. And all this he easily managed, for over us, who are poor men and men without influence, he has a great advantage, since he is able to spend what belongs to others. I consider, therefore, that it is your duty, men of the jury, to give aid to us who are not seeking to gain an advantage over others, but who are content if we are allowed to win our legal rights. [29] For what are we to do, men of the jury? When the adoption has been continued through three persons, and the one last left in the family has died without issue, are we not at the last to recover what is our own? Well then, having this just claim, we brought suit for the inheritance before the archon. But this fellow Leochares here, having lightly sworn a false affidavit, thinks that he has the right to rob us of the inheritance in defiance of all the laws. [30]

First, then, to prove that what we have stated about the adoptions and the pedigree of these men is true, and that the water-bearer does stand upon the tomb of Archiades, we wish to read to you these depositions. After that we will instruct you plainly regarding the remaining matters as well, and so convict our opponents of having sworn a false affidavit.

Take, please, the depositions of which I speak.“ Depositions ” [31]

Such is the real meaning of this affair, men of the jury, and such the legal rights of inheritance, plainly stated; and you have also heard what amounts to a summary of all that has been done from the start. But I consider it necessary to tell you also of what they have done since the suit for the inheritance was instituted, and the manner in which they have treated us; for in my opinion no other people have ever in an inheritance suit been dealt with in a manner so contrary to law as we have been. [32] For when Leocrates died, and his funeral had taken place, and we went to take possession of his property, since he had died without issue and unmarried, Leostratus here ejected us, declaring that it belonged to him. Now his preventing us from performing any of the proper rites for the deceased is perhaps to be excused, seeing that he was his father, although the act was contrary to law; for it is proper that the care of the funeral should be committed to the natural father, but, next after him, also to us the members of the family to whom the deceased was related by virtue of the adoption. [33] But after the funeral rites were finished, what law will be found to justify him, when the family was extinct, in driving us, the nearest of kin, from the estate of the deceased? Because, they will say, he was father to the dead man. Yes, but he had returned to the family of his fathers, and was no longer master of the estate over which he had left his son in charge. Otherwise what is the use of the laws? [34] Well, after our ejectment had taken place （ to omit most of the details） we brought suit for the inheritance before the archon, inasmuch as the deceased had no son, as I stated, and had not adopted any according to the laws. After this, Leostratus here made a deposit for costs, as being the son of the aforesaid Archiades, not taking into account that he had returned to the Eleusinians, or that adopted children are made such, not by themselves but by those who adopt them. [35] But the truth is, I presume his one simple idea was that he must by fair means or foul lay claim to the property of others. And first he had the audacity to go and enroll himself on the assembly list8 of the Otrynians, although he was an Eleusinian, and managed to put this through; then, before his name was entered on the adult register9 of the Otrynians, he sought to claim a share in the public benefits in flagrant defiance of law, because of his greed for gain. [36] We, seeing what was going on, called witnesses and put a stop to it, holding the view that it was necessary that the right of inheritance should first be decided in your court before anyone should be named as the adopted son of Archiades. He was thwarted then, and convicted in the presence of many witnesses of fraudulent action, both in the matter of the list, and in the assembly for the election of the deme's officers, yet nevertheless he persisted in trying to force his way in, and by his intrigues to prove himself stronger than your laws. What is the proof of this? [37] He got together some of the Otrynians with the demarch, and persuaded them at the opening of the adult register to inscribe his name. And after that on the occasion of the great Panathenaea10 at the time of the distribution, he came to get his admission fee, and when the other demesmen were receiving it, he demanded that it be given him also, and that he should be entered on the register under the name of Archiades. But when we entered a solemn protest, and all the others declared that what he was doing was an outrage, he went away without either having his name inscribed or receiving the admission fee. [38]

Now do you not think that a man, who in defiance of your decree claimed the right to receive the admission fee before his name had been inscribed on the list of the Otrynians, belonging as he did to another deme, would lay claim to an inheritance in defiance of the laws? Or when a man, before the court has rendered its decision, schemes to get advantages so unjust, can you think it reasonable to assume that he relies upon the justice of his case? For he, who fraudulently claimed the right to receive the admission fee, has now obviously practised the same design regarding the inheritance. [39] Nay more, he even deceived the archon, when he made his deposit for costs to thwart us, and in his counter-statement declared that he was an Otrynian, when he was in fact a demesman among the Eleusinians. When, however, he failed in all these schemes, at the last election of officers the fellow got together some of the demesmen, and demanded that he be registered as the adopted son of Archiades. [40] Again we protested that the demesmen should give their votes only when the inheritance suit should have been decided, and not before; and to this they agreed, not on their own responsibility, but out of respect for the laws; for it seemed to them an outrageous thing that a man who had made a deposit for costs in an inheritance suit, should get himself adopted as a son while the matter was still undecided; but the thing which this fellow Leostratus contrived after this is the most outrageous of all. [41]

For when he failed to get his own name inscribed, he entered his own son Leochares as an adopted son of Archiades, in defiance of all the laws, before the scrutiny11 of the deme had taken place. But Leochares had not yet been introduced to the clansmen of Archiades; yet when his name had been entered on the list of the deme, only then did Leostratus, by bringing influence to bear upon a certain member of the clan, get the name inscribed upon the clan register.12 [42] And after that, in his affidavit before the archon he inscribed Leochares as being the lawfully born son of the man who had been dead many years past—Leochares, who had been registered with the clan only a day or two before! So it results that they both lay claim to the inheritance; for Leostratus here made the deposit for costs in the inheritance suit as being the lawfully born son of Archiades, and Leochares here has filed the affidavit, as being the lawfully born son of the same father! [43] And in neither case is it to a living man, but to one that is dead, that each of them makes himself an adopted son! But in our opinion, men of the jury, you ought, when you shall have cast your vote concerning the present case, then, and not till then, to find from among us, who are nearest of kin, an adopted son for the deceased, in order that the family may not become extinct. [44]

First, men of the jury, to prove that Leostratus here has returned to the Eleusinians from the demesmen of Otrynê, leaving a lawfully born son in the family of Archiades; and that his father at an earlier date had done this same thing; and that the son so left has died without issue; and that the one who has now sworn the affidavit was enrolled among the demesmen before he had been enrolled among the members of the clan—to prove these facts the clerk shall read you the depositions of the members of the clan and of the deme; and in proof of all the other things I have mentioned which these men have done I shall produce testimony concerning each several fact.

Please call the witnesses to come forward.“ Witnesses ” [45]

All the facts of the case, then, you have heard, men of the jury, all that took place at the first in connection with this inheritance, and all that occurred subsequently, as soon as we commenced our suit. It remains to speak of the affidavit itself and the laws in accordance with which we claim to inherit; and furthermore, if the water holds out and we shall not be troubling you too much, to refute the arguments which our opponents are going to advance, proving to you that they are neither just nor sound. And first let the clerk read the affidavit; and I beg you to give it close attention; for it is regarding this that your votes are presently to be cast.“ Affidavit ” [46]

Well, then, the defendant has sworn, as you have heard, “ that the inheritance of Archiades is not open to litigation, since he has children lawfully born and rightfully established according to the statute.” Let us, then, inquire if there are any, or if the defendant has sworn to what is false. The aforesaid Archiades, whose estate is in question, adopted as his son the grandfather of the one who has now sworn this affidavit; he, leaving a lawfully born son, Leostratus, the father of the defendant, returned to the Eleusinians. [47] After this, Leostratus here himself returned to the house of his fathers, leaving a son in the adoptive house; and the son whom he left, and who was the last of all the adopted children, has died without issue, so that the house thereby becomes extinct and the inheritance has reverted again to those originally nearest of kin. [48] How, then, could Archiades still have any sons, as the affidavit claims, when it is admitted that his adopted children returned to their original family and the last one left has died without issue? It follows, then, of necessity that the family is extinct. But when the family is extinct, there cannot be lawfully born sons still living. The fellow, then, has sworn that non-existent persons exist, and has written in the affidavit “ since he has children,” alleging that he himself is one of them. [49] But surely, when he says “ lawfully born and rightfully established according to the statute,” he is quibbling and defying the laws. For the “ lawfully born” exists, when it is born of the body; and the law bears testimony to this, when it says, “ Lawfully born are children of a woman whom her father or brother or grandfather has given in marriage.” But “ rightfully established” the lawgiver understood of adoptions, considering that when a man, being childless and master of his property, adopts a son, this action ought to be rightful. Well, our opponent says that Archiades had no son of the body, but in the affidavit he has sworn to the words “ since there are lawfully born children,” thus making a sworn statement that is contrary to the truth. [50] He admits that he is an adopted son, yet it is manifest that he was not adopted by the dead man himself; so how can you claim that this status is “ rightfilly established according to the statute” ? Because, he will say, he was registered as the son of Archiades. Yes, by the arbitrary act of these men, and that only the other day, when the suit for the estate had already been instituted. Surely it is not right for a man to regard as evidence his own illegal act. [51] For is it not an outrageous thing, men of tlie jury, that he should state—as he will presently in his speech—that he is an adopted son, while in his affidavit he did not dare to write this? Or that, while in the affidavit the protest is made as though for a son of the body, the speech that will presently be made will be on behalf of an adopted son? If they are going to make their defence conflict with the affidavit, surely either what they say, or what they swore, is false. It was with good reason that they did not add to the affidavit mention of the adoption, for in that case they would have had to add the words “ adopted by so-and-so.” But Archiades never did adopt them; they adopted themselves, in order to rob us of the inheritance. [52]

Now is not their next proceeding absurd as well as outrageous?—that Leostratus here should have made his deposit for costs in the inheritance suit before the archon, as being the son of Archiades （ while he was an Eleusinian, and Archiades of the deme Otrynê） , but that someone else should have sworn the affidavit, as you see for yourselves, alleging that he, too, was a son of Archiades? To which of the two should you pay attention, as telling the truth? [53] This very thing is the strongest proof of the falsehood of the affidavit—that it is not the same person who makes the claim about the same matter. And this is not strange for, I fancy, when Leostratus here made his deposit in the inheritance suit against us, the one who has now sworn the affidavit had not yet registered himself as a member of the deme. We should therefore be most cruelly treated if you should believe an affidavit made after the suit was begun. [54]

Nay more, Leochares has in the affidavit sworn to facts actually older than himself. For how could a person who was not yet a member of the house of Archiades when this suit for the inheritance was instituted, know anything about these matters? Moreover, if he had sworn it of himself alone, there would have been some sense in his action; he would have written what was false, but nevertheless his statement would have concerned one of an age to know. But as it is, he has written that the aforesaid Archiades had lawfully born sons, meaning, of course, his own father and the one made such by the original adoption, not taking cognizance of the fact that they had returned to their original family. It follows, then, of necessity that he has sworn to events older than himself, and not to things which have happened in his own day. Are you, then, to credit one who has dared a thing like that, as though he were speaking the truth? [55] Ah, but he will say that he has heard from his father the facts to which he has sworn. But the law does not admit hearsay evidence, save in the case of deceased persons; whereas this fellow has dared to swear to acts done by his father, while that father is still alive. Then again, why did Leostratus here inscribe on the affidavit the name, not of himself, but of the defendant? For the older facts should have been sworn to by the older man. It was, he might say, because I have had this youth adopted as son to Archiades. [56] Well then, you who had him adopted and concocted the whole affair ought to have rendered an account of it, and made yourself responsible for what you have done. You ought absolutely to have done so. But you evaded this, and wrote over the affidavit the name of your son here, who knew nothing of the matter. You see, then, men of the jury, that the statements in the affidavit are false, and they are admitted by these men themselves to be so. Why, it would even be right for you to refuse to listen to this man Leostratus, when he presently undertakes to make statements to which he did not venture to swear in the affidavit. [57]

Furthermore, that affidavits of objection are of all forms of trial the most unjust, and that those having recourse to them are most deserving of your resentment, one can see very clearly from the following facts. In the first place, they are not necessary as the other forms of procedure are, but they are instituted by the will and desire of the one swearing to them.13 If in the matter of disputed claims there is no other way of getting a judgement than by such an affidavit, it is perhaps necessary to make one. [58] But, if it is possible without an affidavit of objections to obtain a hearing before all tribunals, is not the use of one a mark of recklessness and utter desperation? For the lawgiver did not make it obligatory on the contending parties, but granted them the privilege of putting in such an affidavit, if they chose, as though he were testing the character of each one of us, to see how we stand with reference to a reckless procedure.14 [59] Further, if it rested with those who file these affidavits, there would be neither courts of justice nor trials; for the nature of affidavits of objections is to bIock all these things and to prevent all cases from being brought into the court-room—at least so far as the will of the one swearing the affidavit goes. Therefore I think we should regard such people as the common enemies of all men, and that they should never receive any indulgence when they are on trial before you; for each one of them comes into court, not under compulsion, but having chosen to incur the risk of the oath. [60]

Well then, that the affidavit is false, you have learned pretty definitely from the statements contained in it and from the arguments which you have heard. But that the laws also give us this inheritance as our right, men of the jury, I wish to prove in a few words—not as though this had not been made clear to you in what I said at the outset, but that you may the better bear in mind the justice of our case, and so meet the false statements of our opponents. [61]

To sum up the matter briefly, we, since we are the nearest of kin in the male line to Archiades, to whom this estate belonged, and since of the persons whom he adopted some have gone back to the family of their fathers, and the one last left had died without issue,—in these circumstances, we, I say, claim to inherit. [62] We are not depriving Leostratus of any property （ for these men hold what is their own） , but we claim the estate left by Archiades, which is ours according to the laws. For the law, men of the jury, ordains that males and the sons of males should have precedence; and such we are. Archiades had no children, and we are the ones nearest of kin to him. [63] Further, it is surely not just that an adopted son should bring other sons into a family by adoption; he may leave in it children born to him, but in default of these he must restore the inheritance to those related by blood. That is what the laws ordain.

For is it not plain that each one of you is excluded from the right of inheritance by direct descent, if this licence be granted to children by adoption? For you see that most people who adopt children do so through being cajoled by flattery and often in a spirit of contentiousness caused by family quarrels. But if an adopted son is to be permitted in defiance of the law to adopt whomsoever he pleases, inheritances will never be given to blood-relations. [64] It was to guard against this that the lawgiver forbade a person who was himself adopted to create a son by adoption. In what manner did he declare his view regarding this? When he says “ a man may return to his own family, leaving behind him a lawfully born son” he makes it plain, I take it, that it is not lawful for him to adopt; for it is impossible for a man to leave behind him a lawfully born son, unless he have a son born of his body. But you, Leostratus, claim the right to bring an adopted son into the inheritance of the dead man, who had himself been adopted into our family, just as though you were taking possession of your own property, and not that which the law declares shall be given to the nearest of kin. [65]

For ourselves, men of the jury, if the deceased had adopted anyone, even though the law does not allow it, we should have submitted; or, if he had left a will, we should also have been ready to abide by that; for from the beginning this has been our position; we made no objection to their holding the property and returning to their original family in whatever manner they pleased. [66] Now, however, that the affair has at length been exposed both by these men themselves and by the laws, we hold that it is right for us to inherit the estate of Archiades, and that the son to be adopted should come from us who have not been adopted before, and not from them. For it was just, in my opinion, that the lawgiver, as he laid upon the nearest of kin the duty of relieving the misfortunes of their relatives, and of giving in marriage their women-folk, so also has given to these same people as their due the right of inheriting and of sharing in the good things. [67] But that which is the most significant thing, and the thing best known to you, is this: the law of Solon does not allow an adopted son even to dispose by will of the property in the family into which he comes by adoption. And there is good reason for this, in my view; for a person who comes by legal adoption into possession of the property of another, ought not to deal with it as if it were his own private estate. No, he should act consistently with the laws, and do in each particular what the laws prescribe. [68] “All those who had not been adopted,” says the lawgiver,15“ at the time when Solon entered upon office, may bequeath their property by will, as they see fit,” thus indicating that those who were adopted might not so dispose of theirs, but that they might return to their families in their lifetime, leaving a lawfully born son in their place; otherwise, in case of death, they must give back the property to those who from the first were relatives of the adoptive father.

1 See note 1 above.

2 Eleusis was a deme of the tribe Hippothontis.

3 Methymna was a town in Lesbos.

4 Crioa was a deme of the tribe Antiochis.

5 Pallenê was a deme of the tribe Antiochis.

6 We are told by Pollux Onomasticon 8.66 that the figure of a maiden bearing a water-pitcher was placed over the tombs of men who died unmarried. Other authorities state that the figure was that of a youth, not of a maiden.

7 This does not indicate a mere change of residence. He renounced his membership in the deme Otrynê, and resumed membership in the Eleusinian deme. By so doing, he relinquished the former legal relationship.

8 This was a list of all those who had the right to vote in the popular assembly （ἐκκλησία） .

9 This was the official list of the members of the deme, in which every young man who passed the scrutiny was registered when he reached the age of eighteen. Each deme had its own assembly, presided over by the demarch, or borough-president.

10 The great Panathenea, the most important of all Athenian festivals, was held every four years in the month of Hecatombaeon （ July） .

11 For this scrutiny see note 3 of Dem. 27.

12 This should have normally have been done shortly after birth, for the enrollment in the clan marked the acceptance of the child as a member of the family, as the enrollment in the deme marked a youth's assumption of the status of citizenship.

13 The affidavit of objection （διαμαρτύρια） , like the special plea in bar of action （παραγραφή） , afforded a means by which the defendant could prevent a case from being tried upon its merits, and so could be regarded as a means of thwarting the course of justice.

14 There is, of course, the implication that those having recourse to this procedure thereby showed themselves either unscrupulous or in despair of their case.

15 This law is cited more fully in Dem. 46.14

Having been overwhelmed by false testimony, men of Athens, and having been outrageously and cruelly treated by Phormio, I have come to win in your court a verdict against those responsible for the wrong. I beg and beseech and implore you all, in the first place to give me a favorable hearing （for it is a great thing for those who have met with misfortune, as I have done, to be able to tell others of what they have suffered, and to find in you listeners who are kindly disposed）1; and in the second place, if I shall seem to you to be the victim of wrongdoing, to render me the aid which is my due. [2] I shall prove to you that this man Stephanus has both given false testimony, and has done this from a base desire for gain, and that he is convicted out of his own lips; so transparent is the case from every point of view. And I shall endeavor to relate to you in the fewest possible words all that has taken place between Phormio and myself from the first; and after hearing this you will be convinced both of the villainy of Phormio and that these men have borne false testimony. [3]

As for myself, men of the jury, a large property was left me by my father, and this was in the possession of Phormio, who furthermore had married my mother while I was out of the country on public business, serving as your trierarch. （How he managed it, perhaps it is not proper for a son fully to explain about his mother.） When I returned and learned of this and saw what had been done, although I was greatly incensed and took it much to heart, [4] I was unable to bring a private action （for there were no actions at that time, since you put off all such matters because of the war2）, but I indicted him before the Thesmothetae3 on the charge of outrage.4 However, time passed and the indictment was evaded （seeing that actions were not being held）, and moreover children were born by my mother to Phormio, and after this （for the whole truth shall be told you, men of the jury）, many kindly overtures were made on the part of my mother, and pleas on behalf of this man Phormio, and many overtures on the part of Phormio himself that were both moderate and humble in their terms. [5] However, to make the story brief, men of Athens, he would not do one of the things to which he had agreed, and tried to withhold from me the money which he held as capital in the bank; so then I was compelled to enter suit against him at the earliest opportunity. Phormio on his part, seeing that everything would be brought to light, and that he would be proved to have acted toward me as the basest of humankind, contrived and concocted this plot in furtherance of which the defendant Stephanus gave this false testimony against me. In the first place, he entered a special plea in the suit in which he was defendant, claiming that the suit was not admissible; and then he produced false witnesses who stated that I had given him a release from my claims, and who deposed to a forged lease and to a will which never existed. [6] He had the advantage over me in being the first speaker, because this was a special plea and the case was not coming to trial upon the real issue, and by reading these documents and making other false statements which he thought would favor his case, he made such an impression on the jury that they refused to hear a single word from me. I was fined one-sixth of the amount claimed,5 was denied the right of a hearing, and was treated with such contumely as I doubt if any other man ever was, and I went from the court, men of Athens, taking the matter bitterly and grievously to heart. [7] Upon going over it in my own mind, however, I see that there was abundant excuse for those who gave that verdict （for I do not know what other vote I could myself have given, if I had known nothing of the facts and had heard the testimony）, but that our anger should fall upon these men who by giving false testimony were responsible for this result. Of the others who have given testimony I shall speak when I proceed against them, but regarding the testimony of the defendant Stephanus I shall try to instruct you at once. [8]

Take the deposition itself, and read it, please, that from its very language I may prove my point.

Read; and do you check the water.“Deposition

Stephanus, son of Menecles, of Acharnae, Endius, son of Epigenes, of Lamptrae, Scythes, son of Harmateus, of Cydathenaeum6 depose that they were present before the arbitrator Teisias, of Acharnae, when Phormio challenged Apollodorus, if he declared that the document which Phormio put into the box was not a copy of the will of Pasio, to open the will of Pasio, which Amphias, brother-in-law of Cephisophon, submitted to the arbitrator; and that Apollodorus refused to open it; and that the document in question was a copy of the will of Pasio.” [9]

You have heard the deposition, men of the jury, and I think that even if you have noticed nothing else, this at least must have seemed strange to you, that it begins with a challenge and ends with a will. However, I on my part, count it right, when I shall have shown what may be called the main substance of the testimony to be false, then, and not till then, to say something also about matters of that sort. [10] Well, then, it is deposed by them that Phormio challenged me to open the will which Amphias, brother—in—law of Cephisophon, submitted to the arbitrator Teisias; and that I refused to open it; and that the will to which they themselves deposed was a copy of that original; and then follows a copy of the will. [11] Now as to whether Phormio tendered me this challenge or not, and whether the will is genuine or spurious I say nothing as yet; I will discuss these matters before you presently; but I will take up the testimony they have given, that I refused to open the document. I would have you look at the matter in this way—what reason would anyone have had for refusing to open it? In order, one may say, that the will might not be shown to the jury. [12] Well and good. If they had not deposed to the will as well as to the challenge, there would have been some reason in my refusing to open the document; but since they deposed to both, and the jurymen were going to hear the will in any case, what advantage was there for me in refusing? None, assuredly. Quite the contrary, men of Athens; even if these men had tendered no challenge, but had merely talked of the matter, and someone had delivered a document to them as a will, [13] it would have been my business to tender the challenge and to order them to open it, in order that, if the contents differed from the statements which these men had made in their deposition, I might have called a number of the bystanders as witnesses, and have used this fact as a proof that the rest of their story too was a fabrication; but, if the contents were the same, I might have required the one presenting it to give evidence himself. If he consented, I should have had a responsible witness, and, if he refused, this very fact again would have been a convincing proof for me that the affair had been concocted. And in the former case the result would have been that I had one person with whom to deal, whereas according to the depositions of these men I have many. Is there anyone among you who would have chosen the latter course? I think not one of you would have. [14] Well then, you ought not to believe it of anyone else either. For, men of Athens, in all courses of action which involve anger or some getting of gain or exasperation or a spirit of jealousy, different persons will act in different ways in accordance with their several dispositions; but in all cases where none of these things is involved, but merely a calm calculation of one's own interest, who would be so senseless as to dismiss what would help him and do what would make it more difficult for him to win his case? Yet a course of action which is neither natural nor reasonable, which, in short, no human being would have undertaken—this these witnesses have attributed to me. [15]

Moreover, it is not only from what they have stated in their deposition regarding my refusal to open the document that one can tell that they are lying, but also from the fact that they have deposed at one and the same time both to a challenge and to a will. For I think you are all aware that challenges were devised for all transactions which it is impossible to bring before you; [16] for instance, a man may not be put to torture in your presence—for this it is necessary that there be a challenge; again, if anything has been transacted and has taken place somewhere out of the country, it is necessary that for this too there should be a challenge to go by sea or land to the place where the thing was done; and so for other things of that sort. But in cases where it is possible to produce the things themselves before your eyes, what could be simpler than to produce them publicly? [17] Well, my father died at Athens, the arbitration took place in the Painted Stoa,7 and these men have deposed that Amphias produced the document before the arbitrator. Then, if it was genuine, the document ought to have been put into the box,8 and the one producing it should have so testified, in order that the jurymen might have reached a decision in accordance with the truth and after an inspection of the seals; and I, on my part, if anyone was wronging me, might have proceeded against him. [18] But, as it is, no one person has taken the whole matter upon himself or given straightforward testimony, as one would do in testifying to the truth, but each has deposed to a part of the story, fancying that he is very clever and that for this reason he will escape punishment,—one of them deposing that he holds a document on which is written “the will of Pasio”; another that, being sent by the former person, he produced this document, but had no knowledge as to whether it was genuine or spurious. [19] These men, who are here in court, using the challenge as a screen, deposed to a will in such a way that the jurymen believed this will to be my father's, and I was debarred from obtaining a hearing regarding my wrongs, but in such a way also that they on their part would most clearly be convicted of having given false testimony. And yet this was the very opposite of what they intended.

However, that you may know that I am speaking the truth in this, take the deposition of Cephisophon.“Deposition

Cephisophon, son of Cephalion, of Aphidna,9 deposes that a document was left him by his father, on which was inscribed “the will of Pasio.”” [20]

It was a simple thing, men of the jury, for the one who gave this testimony to add “and this is the document which the deponent exhibits,” and to put the document into the box. But, I presume, he thought that this falsehood would deserve your indignation, and that you would punish him for it, whereas to testify that a document had been bequeathed to him was a trifling matter and one of no consequence. And yet it is this very thing that makes the whole matter clear, and proves that they have concocted it. [21] For if the inscription on the will had been “the property of Pasio and Phormio” or “in the matter of Phormio,” or something of that sort, he would naturally have kept it for him; but if, as he has testified, the inscription was “the will of Pasio,” I should certainly have appropriated it, knowing that I was about to go to law, and knowing further that, if its contents were as represented, it was prejudicial to my interests; for I was the heir, and if the will was my father's, it belonged to me, as did also all the rest of my father's estate. [22] Well then, by its having been produced to Phormio, by its having been inscribed “the will of Pasio,” and yet ignored by me, it is proved that the will is a forgery and that the testimony of Cephisophon is false. But no more of Cephisophon; it is not with him that I have to do at present, and he has given no testimony as to the contents of the will. [23] And yet, men of Athens, I would have you consider how strong a proof this also is that these men have given false testimony. For when the witness who stated that he had the document in his own possession did not dare to say that the one produced by Phormio was a copy of the one in his own keeping; and when these men cannot state that they were present in the first instance or that they saw the document opened before the arbitrator, but have themselves actually deposed that I refused to open it, to have testified now that the one is a copy of the other, is not this to have accused themselves of falsifying? [24]

More than all this, men of Athens, any man by examining the wording of the deposition can see that it is nothing but a contrivance of theirs to the end that rightly or wrongly it may appear that my father made this will.

But take the deposition itself, and read, stopping wherever I bid you, that from its own wording I may prove my point.“Deposition

. . . depose that they were present before the arbitrator Teisias, when Phormio challenged Apollodorus, if he declared that the document was not a copy of the will of Pasio . . .” [25] Stop reading. Bear in mind that the words are “of the will of Pasio.” Now persons who wished to bear witness to the truth—assuming that it is absolutely established that the challenge was tendered, which it was not—ought to have given their testimony in the following way.

Read the deposition again from the beginning.“Deposition

. . . depose that they were present before the arbitrator Teisias . . .”

We do depose; for we were present. Read on.“

. . . when Phormio challenged Apollodorus . . .”

This, too, they might properly have stated, assuming that he really tendered the challenge.“

. . . if he declared that the document was not a copy of the will of Pasio . . .” [26]

Stop right there. There is not a person in the world, I presume, who would have proceeded to give this testimony, unless he had been present when my father drew up the will. Instead, he would have said at once, “How do we know if there is any will of Pasio's?”—and he would have demanded that Phormio write, as in the beginning of the challenge: “If I declared that the document was not a copy of the will which Phormio stated that Pasio had left,”—not “of the will of Pasio.” For this was to testify that there was a will （which was their intention）, the other that Phormio said that there was. And, I take it, there is a world of difference between a thing's being so, and Phormio's saying that it is. [27]

So, in order that you may know how many and how important objects were to be secured by the fabrication of the will, listen for a moment. The first, men of Athens, was this, that Phormio should escape paying the penalty for corrupting one whom it is not proper for me to name, but whom you know of yourselves, even if I do not name her10; next, that he might get possession of my father's property which was in my mother's keeping; and in addition to this, that he might become master of everything else which belonged to us. That this is so, you will be convinced when you hear the will. For it will be found, not like that of a father writing in the interest of his sons, but like that of a slave who has shamefully misused what belonged to his master, and who is seeking how he may escape punishment. [28]

Read them the will itself, to which these men have deposed along with the challenge; and do you mark well what I say.“Will

This is the will of Pasio of Acharnae. I give my wife Archippê to Phormio, and I give as dowry to Archippê the talent due to me at Peparethus,11 the talent due to me here in Athens, a lodging-house worth one hundred minae, the female slaves and jewelry, and all else that she has in the house. All these things I give to Archippê.”

You have heard, men of Athens, the large amount of the dowry,—a talent from Peparethus, a talent from Athens, a lodging-house worth a hundred minae, female slaves and jewelry, and all else that she has in her possession—I give it all, says the will; and by this clause he precludes us even from searching for any of the property that was left. [29]

Now let me show you the lease under which Phormio had taken the bank from my father; for from this also, spurious though it is, you will see that the will is fabrication through and through. I will set forth for you, not a different lease, but the one which Phormio produced, in which there is an added clause setting down my father as owing Phorniio eleven talents on the deposits. [30] This had, I think, the following purpose. Of the effects in the house he made himself master by the will, on the ground that they had been given as a dowry with my mother, as you have just heard; but the money in the bank, about which everybody knew, and which could not be hidden, he got into his hands by representing that our father owed it, so that whatever sums he might be proved to have in his possession he might claim to have received in payment. You have perhaps imagined, because he solecizes12 in his speech, that he is a barbarian and a man readily to be despised. The fellow is indeed a barbarian in that he hates those whom he ought to honor; but in villainy and in bringing matters to ruin13 he is second to none. [31]

Take the lease and read it—the lease which they put in, as they did the will, by means of a challenge.“Lease of The Bank

On the following terms Pasio has let the bank to Phormio: Phormio is to pay to the sons of Pasio as rental for the bank two talents and forty minae each year above the daily expenditure, and it shall not be lawful for Phormio to carry on a banking business independently unless he first obtains the consent of the sons of Pasio. And Pasio owes the bank eleven talents upon the deposits.” [32]

This, men of the jury, is the agreement which Phormio produced, alleging that he had leased the bank upon these terms. You learn from hearing it read that Phormio, over and above the daily expenditure, was to pay as rent two talents and forty minae each year, and that it was not to be permitted him to carry on a banking business, unless he obtained our consent; and there is added as a final statement, “Pasio owes eleven talents upon the deposits.” [33] Now, is there any man who would have submitted to the payment of so large a rental for the counter, the site, and the books? And is there any man who would have entrusted the rest of the assets to a man thanks to whom the bank had incurred so great a liability?14 For, if there was a shortage of so large an amount, it was incurred while Phormio was manager. For you all know that, while my father was engaged in the banking business, Phormio sat at the counter and was his manager; so that he ought rather to be in the mill15 than to become master of the rest of the property. [34] However, I pass over this and all else that I might find to say about the eleven talents, to show that my father did not owe them but that Phormio secretly appropriated them.

But let me remind you of the purpose for which I read the lease, namely, to prove that the will is spurious. For it stands written in the lease that it shall not be lawful for Phormio to engage in banking business, unless he obtains our consent. This clause absolutely proves the will to be spurious. For what man, who had taken precautions that the profits which Phormio might make by banking should accrue to his own children and not to Phormio himself, and to secure this end had stipulated that it should not be permitted him to engage in banking for himself, lest his interests might be separated from ours—what man, I ask, in these circumstances would have provided that Phormio should get possession of what he had himself won by his labor and left in his house? [35] And would he have begrudged him the banking business, in which he might have given him a share without disgrace, and yet have given him his wife, a bequest disgraceful above all others? Yes, after receiving from you the gift of citizenship, he gave his wife （if indeed he gave her） as a slave giving to his master, and not, on the contrary, as a master to a slave, and he added such a dowry as no man in Athens was ever known to give.16 [36] And yet, to have been honored with the hand of his mistress was of itself enough to make this fellow content, whereas in my father's case, even if he received as much money as these people allege that he gave, it was not reasonable for him to make this arrangement.17 Nevertheless, to things which are proved to be false by the probabilities, the dates and the facts, to these this man Stephanus has not hesitated to depose. [37]

Then he goes about, saying that Nicocles testified that he had served as guardian under the will, and Pasicles that he had lived as ward under the will. But for my part I hold that these very facts are proofs that neither these witnesses nor those have testified to the truth. For a person who testifies that he served as guardian under a will should certainly know what the nature of the will was, and a person who testifies that he lived as ward under a will should certainly know what the nature of the will was. [38] Why in the world, then, Stephanus, did you people depose to the will under the form of a challenge, instead of leaving the matter to them? If they on their part shall declare that they do not know the contents of the will, how is it possible for you to know them, you who have never in any way been connected with the matter? Why, pray, is it that one group of witnesses testified to these facts, and another group to those? It is as I have already told you: they divided the fraud. The one so testifying saw no danger in deposing that he served as guardian under the will, or that he lived as ward under the will, [39] each one of them omitting to state what had been written in the will by Phormio,—no danger in deposing that one's father had left him a document with the word “will” written on it, or anything of that sort. But to testify to the existence of a will in which were involved the theft of such vast sums, the corruption of a lady, the marriage of a mistress with her slave, matters which entailed such shame and disgrace—nobody was ready to do this save these men who got up the challenge; and from them it is right to exact the penalty for the whole of this villainous fraud. [40]

Now, men of Athens, that it may be made clear to you that this fellow Stephanus has given false testimony—made clear not merely by my accusations and proofs, but also by the acts of the person who brought him forward as a witness—I wish to tell you what that person has done. As I said at the beginning of my speech, I shall show that they are their own accusers. In the suit in which this testimony was given, Phormio entered a special plea to estop me on the ground that the suit was not admissible, alleging that I had released him from all claims. [41] Now I myself know that this is false, and I shall prove it so when I proceed against those who gave this testimony; but Stephanus is not at liberty to say it is false. If, then, you should believe in the genuineness of the release, this, more than anything else, would prove that the fellow has given false testimony, and has deposed to a will that is forged. For who would be so senseless as to give a release in the presence of witnesses, that his discharge might be binding, and yet to suffer the articles of agreement, the will, and the other documents regarding which he gave the release, to remain under seal as evidence against himself? [42] The special plea, therefore, contradicts all the evidence, and the lease which I just now read to you contradicts this will; not one of their acts is either reasonable or straightforward or consistent with itself. In this manner their whole story is shown to be a fiction and a fraud. [43]

That the statements in the deposition are true I hold that neither Stephanus himself nor anyone else in his behalf will be able to prove. I hear, however, that he is prepared to make some such statement as this, that he is responsible for a challenge, not for a deposition, and that he should be held to account, not for everything written in it, but for two things only—whether Phormio tendered me this challenge or not, and whether I refused it; these matters and no more, he will say, were included in his deposition; as for the rest, Phormio covered them in his challenge, but whether they were true or not it was not the business of the witness to inquire. [44] In answer to this argument and to the man's impudence it is better that I say a few words to you in advance, that you be not taken at unawares and misled. In the first place, when he tries to bring forward the argument that he is not responsible for the entire content of the deposition, bear in mind that the reason why the law requires people to give evidence in written form is that it may not be open to them to strike out any part of what has been written, or add anything to it. He should at the time have demanded the erasure of the statements to which he will now deny having deposed, and not try now to brazen it out, while they stand in the document. [45] Moreover, consider this too, whether you would suffer me in your presence to take the document and add to it. Of course you would not. Well, then, neither is it fitting to suffer him to strike out any of its contents. For who will ever be convicted of giving false testimony, if he is to depose to what he pleases, and be accountable only for what he pleases? No, the law does not thus make a distinction in these matters, and you ought not to listen to such a thing either. The straightforward and honest course is this: “What stands written? To what have you deposed? Show that this is true. For you have written in your plea in answer to the complaint these words, 'I have given true testiniony in testifying to what is contained in the deposition'—not 'to this or that in the deposition.'” [46]

To prove that this is so, take, please, the plea itself. Read it.“Complaint and Counter-Plea

Apollodorus, son of Pasio, of Acharnae, sues Stephanus, son of Menecles, of Acharnae, for false testimony; damages one talent. Stephanus gave false testimony against me in testifying to that which is contained in the record.

I gave true testimony in testifying to that which is contained in the record.”

This is the plea which the defendant himself has entered. You must keep it in mind, and not regard the deceitful language which will soon be addressed to you as being more worthy of credence than the laws and what the defendant has written in his own plea. [47]

I learn that they are going to speak about my original suit and to denounce it as baseless and malicious. But I on my part have already mentioned to you and explained in detail the manner in which Phormio concocted the lease, in order to get into his possession the banking-stock, and I should be unable to speak of these other matters and at the same time convict these men of giving false testimony; for the amount of water allotted me is not sufficient. [48] And that you yourselves could not in fairness be willing to listen to them in regard to these matters you will see at once, if you reflect that it is no difficult matter to speak now about subjects concerning which no charge is made, just as it was no difficult matter for Phormio to get himself acquitted by reading false depositions. However, no man would say that either of these courses is right, but that course rather which I am about to propose. [49] Listen, and judge. I demand that they do not now seek for the proofs regarding my charges, proofs which should have been mentioned at the former trial, but of which they deprived me; but that they prove that the testimony by which they deprived me of them was true. If, when I bring in my suit, they are to demand that I refute their testimony, and, when I proceed against that, they are to bid me speak regarding my original charges, what they propose will be neither right nor in your interest. [50] For you have sworn to give a verdict, not in regard to matters upon which the defendant asks your decision, but in regard to those only which are raised by the prosecution. The cause of action must be made clear by the complaint of the prosecutor, and this in my case is a suit against this man for false testimony. Let him not, then, leave this and talk about matters regarding which I am not suing him; and do you, if he is so shameless, refuse to permit it. [51]

I imagine that, having no just argument to advance on any point, he will have recourse to this defence also—that it is absurd for me, after having been worsted in the case of the special plea, to sue those who gave evidence of a will; and he will maintain that the jurymen in that trial were led to vote in favor of Phormio, by the evidence of those who testified to the release rather than by that of those who testified to the will. But, men of Athens, I think you all know that it is your habit to examine the facts no less closely than the pleas which men make regarding them; and these men, by giving false testimony against me regarding the facts themselves, weakened my arguments on the special plea. [52] However, besides this, it is absurd, when all have given false evidence, to demonstrate who did the greatest amount of harm, instead of making each one prove that he has himself testified to the truth. It is not by proving that another has done more outrageous things than himself that a witness is to be let off, but by showing that he has himself given testimony that is true. [53]

Now, men of Athens, let me show you the thing for which more than anything else this fellow Stephanus deserves to be put to death. It is an awful thing to bear false witness against anyone whomsoever, but it is a thing more awful by far, and more deserving of indignation, to bear false witness against those of your own blood; for a man of that stamp violates, not the written laws alone, but also the ties of natural relationship. This, then, Stephanus shall be proved to have done. [54] For his mother and the father of my wife are a brother and sister, so that my wife is his first cousin, and the children born to her and to me are his cousin's children. Do you think, then, that this man, if he saw his female relatives driven by want to shameful actions, would give them in marriage and add marriage portions out of his own resources—a thing which many a man has done ere now—when he has chosen to give false testimony in order to prevent their getting what belongs to them, and has counted the wealth of Phormio of higher worth than the strong ties of kinship? [55]

However, to prove that I am telling the truth in this, take the deposition of Deinias and read it; and call Deinias.“Deposition

Deinias, son of Theomnestus, of Athmonon,18 deposes that he gave his daughter to Apollodorus to live with him as his wife according to the laws, and that he was never present when Apollodorus released Phormio from all claims, nor was ever aware that he had done so.” [56]

Deinias, men of the jury, is very like Stephanus, is he not?—Deinias, who on account of his relationship, refuses to testify against the defendant even to what is true, and on behalf of his daughter and his daughter's children, and me, his son-in-law!19 Not so Stephanus here. He did not hesitate to give false testimony against us; even respect for his own mother, if for no one else, did not keep him from bringing the extremest poverty upon those who through her were his relatives. [57]

I wish now, men of the jury, to tell you of the most a outrageous thing which has been done to me,—a thing which more than anything else overwhelmed me with dismay in the course of the trial; for you will thus see even more clearly the fellow's baseness, and I, by venting before you my grief for what has happened, shall find, as it were, a sort of relief. The deposition, which I thought was there, and which afforded the strongest evidence in support of my case, I did not find in the box. [58] At the time, dismayed by this misfortune, I could imagine nothing else than that the magistrate had wronged me and tampered with the box. Now, however, from what I have since learned, I find that the defendant Stephanus had filched the document away in the very presence of the arbitrator, when I had got up to put a witness on his oath. And to prove that I am speaking the truth in this, depositions shall first be offered you from those who were present at the time and saw it; for I do not think they will choose to take an oath of disclaimer. [59] But if they are shameless enough to do this the clerk shall read you a challenge by which you will catch them in the very act of perjury, and will know all the same that this man did steal the deposition. And yet, men of Athens, a person who would not shrink from being named as one who had stolen what was prejudicial to another—what do you suppose he would do in his own interest? [60]

Read the deposition, and then this challenge.“Deposition

The deponents testify that they are friends and associates of Phormio, and that they were present hefore the arbitrator Teisias when the announcement of the award was made in the suit between Apollodorus and Phormio, and that they know that Stephanus filched away the deposition which Apollodorus charges him, with having stolen.”

Either depose, or take the oath of disclaimer.“ Oath of Disclaimer ” [61]

It was plain enough, men of the jury, that they would do this—take the oath of disclaimer with eagerness. Well, then, that they may at once be convicted of perjury, take, please, this deposition and challenge. Read.“Deposition and Challenge

The deponents testify that they were present when Apollodorus challenged Stephanus to give up his attendant slave to be put to the torture concerning the theft of the document, and Apollodorus was ready to write out the conditions on which the torture was to be administered; and that when Apollodorus tendered this challenge, Stephanus refused to give up the slave, but replied to Apollodorus that he might bring suit, if he chose, if he maintained that he was being in any way wronged by him.” [62]

Who is there, men of the jury, who, on a charge like that, if he were sure of his innocence, would not have accepted the torture? Then, by refusing the torture, he is convicted of the theft. Now do you think that a man would be ashamed of the reputation of having borne false witness, who did not shrink from being proved a thief? Or that he would hesitate to give false witness at the request of another, when, at no man's bidding, he voluntarily committed a fraud? [63]

Now, men of the jury, while he might justly be made to pay the penalty for all these things, he deserves even more to be punished in your court for the rest of his conduct. Observe the kind of a life he has lived, and judge. For so long as it was the lot of Aristolochus, the banker, to enjoy prosperity, this fellow fawned upon him as he walked beside him, adapting his pace to his, and this is well known to many of you who are present here. [64] But when Aristolochus was ruined and lost his property, chiefly through having been plundered by this fellow and others of his stamp, Stephanus never stood by the son of Aristolochus, who was overburdened with lawsuits, nor aided him, but it was Apolexis20 or Solon or anybody else that helped him rather than he. Then he has courted Phormio and become intimate with him, choosing him out of all the Athenians; and he sailed to Byzantium21 as agent in his interest, when the Byzantines detained Phormio's vessels, and he pleaded his cause against the Calchedonians,22 and he has thus flagrantly given false witness against me. [65] A man, then, who is a flatterer of those in prosperity, and who betrays these same men if they fall into adversity; who out of all the host of good and worthy citizens of Athens deals with not a single one on the basis of equality, but willingly fawns upon people like Phormio; who takes no thought whether he is going to injure any of his kinsfolk by these actions, or whether he is going to win an evil reputation in the minds of other men, but thinks only of one thing, how he may enrich himself—ought you not to loathe this man as a common enemy of the whole human race? I certainly think so. [66] This course of action, involving so great disgrace, he has adopted, men of Athens, with a view to evading his duties to the state and to conceal his wealth, that he may make secret profits by means of the bank, and never serve as choregus or trierarch, or perform any other of the public duties which befit his station. And he has accomplished this object. Here is a proof. Although he has so large an estate that he gave his daughter a marriage portion of one hundred minae, he has never been seen by you to perform any public service whatever, even the very slightest. And yet how much more honorable it would have been to be proved a man of public spirit and one zealous in the performance of his duties to the state, than a flatterer and a bearer of false testimony! But the fellow would do anything to get money. [67] Surely, men of Athens, you ought to feel indignation rather toward those who are rascals in wealth than toward those who are such in poverty. In the case of the latter the pressure of their needy state affords them some excuse in the eyes of those who look on the matter with human sympathy, whereas those who, like this fellow, are rascals while possessing abundance, could find no reasonable excuse to offer, but will be shown to act as they do from a spirit of shameful greed and covetousness and insolence, and a resolve to make their own plots stronger than the laws. Not one of these things is to your interest, but rather that the weak, if he suffers wrong, should be able to get redress from the wealthy. And he will be able, if you punish those who are thus manifestly rascals while possessing wealth. [68]

Neither should the airs which the fellow puts on as he walks with sullen face along the walls be properly considered as marks of sobriety, but rather as marks of misanthropy. In my opinion a man whom no misfortune has befallen, and who is in no lack of the necessaries of life, but who none the less habitually maintains this demeanor,has reviewed the matter and reached the conclusion in his own mind, that to those who walk in a simple and natural way and wear a cheerful countenance, men draw near unhesitatingly with requests and proposals, whereas they shrink from drawing near in the first place to affected and sullen characters. [69] This demeanor, then, is nothing but a cloak to cover his real character, and he shows therein the rudeness and malignity of his temper. Here is a proof. You have been far better off than you deserved, yet to whom among the whole host of Athenians have you ever made a contribution? To whom have you ever lent aid, or to whom done a kindness? [70] You could not name a single one; but while lending money at interest and regarding the misfortunes and necessities of others as your own good fortune, you ejected your own uncle Nicias from the house of his fathers, you have taken from your own mother-in-law the resources upon which she lived, and you have, in so far as it depended upon you, rendered homeless the son of Archedemus. No one ever exacted payment from a defaulter as rigorously as you exact interest from your debtors. A man, then, whom you find to be so brutal and so savage on all occasions, are you going to fail to punish him when you have caught him in the very act of wrongdoing? In that case, men of the jury, you will do what is an outrage and in no sense right. [71]

It is fitting therefore, men of Athens, that you should wax indignant also against Phormio, for bringing this man forward as a witness, when you see the shamelessness of his character and his ingratitude. For I fancy you all know that if, when the fellow was for sale, a cook or an artisan in any other trade had bought him, he would have learned the trade of his master and been far removed from the prosperity which now is his. [72] But since my father into whose possession he came, was a banker and taught him letters and instructed him in his business and put him in control of large sums of money, he has become wealthy, having found the good luck which brought him into our family the foundation of all his present wealth. [73] It is outrageous, then, O Earth and the gods, and worse than outrageous, that he should suffer those who made him a Greek instead of a barbarian and a man of note instead of a slave, and who brought him to such great prosperity, to live in dire want while he has means and is rich, and that he should have come to such a pitch of shamelessness that he cannot bring himself to share with us the good fortune which we shared with him. [74] But for himself he has not scrupled to marry his mistress, and he dwells as husband with her who scattered the sweatmeats over him when he was bought as a slave,23 nor to write a clause giving himself a marriage portion of five talents in addition to the large sums of which he became master, inasmuch as they were in the custody of my mother—for why do you suppose he wrote in the will the clause “and all else which she has I give to Archippê”?—while he looks with indifference on my daughters, who are doomed through poverty to grow old in maidenhood with none to dower them. [75] If Phormio had been poor, and it had been our fortune to be wealthy, and if, in the course of nature, anything had happened to me, this fellow's sons would have claimed my daughters in marriage—the sons of the slave would have claimed the daughters of the master! For they are their uncles, since the man married my mother; but seeing that it is we who are poor, he will not help to portion them off, but he talks and talks, and reckons up the amount of property which I possess. [76]

For this is the most absurd thing of all. Up to this day he has never seen fit to render an account of the money of which he has defrauded me, but enters a special plea that my action is not even admissible; yet he charges against me what I have received from the estate of my fathers. Other slaves one may see called to strict account by their masters, but here we see the very opposite: the fellow, though a slave, calls his master to account, thinking thereby to show him forth as a vile fellow and a prodigal. [77] For myself, men of Athens, in the matter of my outward appearance, my fast walking, and my loud voice, I judge that I am not one of those favored by nature; for in so far as I annoy others without benefiting myself, I am in many respects at a disadvantage; but since I am moderate in all my personal expenses, it will be seen that I live a much more orderly life than Phormio and others who are like him. [78] Whatever concerns the state, however, and all that concerns you, I perform, as you know, as lavishly as I can; for I am well aware that for you who are citizens by birth it is sufficient to perform public services as the laws require; we on the contrary who are created citizens ought to show that we perform them as a grateful payment of a debt. Cease, then, to fling into my teeth matters for which I should properly win commendation. [79] But, Phormio, whom of the citizens have I hired for prostitution, as you have done? Show me. Whom have I deprived of the citizenship of which I was deemed worthy, and of the right of free speech in the city, as you did in the case of the man whom you dishonored? Whose wife have I debauched, as you have the wives of many?—among them her to whom this god-detested fellow built the monument near that of his mistress at a cost of more than two talents. And he did not see that a structure, being of that sort, would be a monument, not of her tomb, but of the wrong which because of him she had done to her husband. [80] Do you, then, who perform acts like these, and who have given such manifest proofs of your outrageous conduct, dare to scrutinize the manner of life of anyone else? By day you act soberly, but the whole night long you indulge in actions for which death is the penalty. He is a knave, men of Athens, a knave and a villain, and has been such from of old, ever since he left the temple of Castor and Pollux.24 Here is the proof. If he had been honest, he would have managed his master's business, and remained poor. But as it is, having got control of so large an amount of money that he could steal from it all that he now possesses without detection, he regards what he holds, not as a debt, but as an inherited patrimony. [81] And yet, by the gods, if I had led you off to prison as a thief caught in the act, piling upon your back—if this had been in any way possible—the wealth which you now possess, and had then demanded of you, if you denied having got this wealth by thievery, to refer me to the source from which you got it, to whom would you have referred me? Your father did not give it to you; you did not find it; you had not got it from some other source when you come into our family; for you were a barbarian when you were purchased. Have you, then, a man who ought to have been publicly put to death for what you have done, after saving your skin, after securing for yourself a city with our money, and after being allowed to beget children as brothers to your own masters—have you entered a special plea that our action for the sums claimed from you is inadmissible? [82] And, then, did you speak evil of me, and inquire what manner of man my father was? Men of Athens, who would not have been indignant at this? For my part, though it beseem me to have less of pride than any of you, yet I judge that I may at least have more than Phormio, while as for him, though there be no one else than whom he should have less, yet he should have less than I; for, assuming that we are the sort of people your words made us out to be, you, Phormio, were none the less our slave. [83]

There is perhaps something else which one of them may say: that Pasicles, although he is my brother, makes no charge against Phormio for these same actions. Well, I will speak about Pasicles, too, men of Athens, though I beg and implore you to pardon me, if I am so carried away by indignation at the outrages I have received from my own slaves as to be unable to restrain myself; I will not keep silent, but will declare what until now I pretended not to hear when others said it;— [84] I consider Pasicles to be my brother on my mother's side, but whether on my father's side also, I do not know; but I am afraid that the wrongs which Phormio has done us began with Pasicles. For when he joins in pleading the cause of the slave and dishonors his brother, when he fawns upon those, and curries the favor of those, who ought to seek his favor, to what suspicion does this naturally give rise? Away, then, with Pasicles, and let him be called your son instead of your master, and my adversary （since he so chooses） instead of my brother. [85]

I bid adieu to this fellow and appeal to those to whom my father left me as my helpers and friends—to you, men of the jury. And I beg and entreat and implore you, do not suffer my daughters and myself through our poverty to become a source of malicious joy to my own slaves and to his flatterers. My father gave you a thousand shields and made himself serviceable to you in many ways, and five times served as trierarch, voluntarily equipping the ships and manning them at his own expense. I remind you of this, not because I consider that you are under obligation to me—for it is I that am under obligation to you,—but in order that I may not suffer unworthy treatment without your knowing it. For that would not be a credit to you any more than to me. [86]

I have much to say regarding the indignities which I have suffered, but I see that I have not enough water left in the clock. I will tell you, therefore, how I think you will all best come to know the enormity of the wrongs that have been done me. You must each of you consider what slave he left at home, and then imagine that you have suffered from him the same treatment that I have suffered from Phormio. Do not take into consideration that they are severally Syrus or Manes or what not, while this fellow is Phormio. The thing is the same—they are slaves, and he was a slave; you are masters, and I was master. [87] Believe, then, that it is fitting now for me to exact the penalty which each one of you would claim; and in the interest of the laws and of the oaths which you have taken as jurors punish the man who has robbed me of a verdict by giving false testimony, and make him an example to others, remembering all that you have heard from me and bearing it in mind, if they attempt to mislead you, and meeting them at every point. If they deny that they have borne witness to all the facts, ask them these questions, “What stands written in the deposition? Why did you not strike it out at the time? What is the counter-plea in the custody of the archons?” [88] If they declare that they have testified, one person that he lived as ward under a will, another that he served as guardian, and another that he has the will in his possession, demand of them, “What will? What were the provisions contained in it?” For to the deposition to which these men bore witness no one of the others has given corroborative testimony. But if they try whining tactics, you should consider that the one wronged is more deserving of pity than those about to be punished. If you act in this way, you will succor me, and you will restrain these men from their excessive adulation; and to your own satisfaction you will have rendered a righteous verdict.

1 See Aesch. PB 637-639 for an almost identical sentiment.

2 The reference is to the hostilities between Athens and Thebes in the period between the battle of Leuctra （371 B.C.） and the battle of Mantinea （362 B.C.）.

3 See note a on p. 202 of vol. 1.

4 The ὕβρεως γραφή was a public indictment for wanton outrage. It was a criminal charge, and involved the penalty of a fine payable to the State, or, in extreme cases, even the penalty of death. It was far more serious than a charge of common assault （αἰκείας δίκη）. See Dem. 54.1

5 See note a on p. 50 of vol. 1.

6 Acharnae was a deme of the tribe Oeneïs, Lamptrae of the tribe Erectheïs, and Cydathenaeum of the tribe Pandionis.

7 The Painted Stoa was the largest and finest of the porticoes surrounding the agora. It got its name from the famous paintings with which its walls were adorned.

8 See Aristot. Ath. Pol. 53.2

9 Aphidna was a deme of the tribe Aeantis.

10 This assumption of reluctance to speak of his mother is in glaring contrast with the gross accusation made against her later in the speech.

11 Peparethus is a small island north of Euboea, on which was an Athenian colony. Its modern name is Skopelos.

12 “σόλοικος is a word of narrower meaning than βάρβαρος, and is applied mainly to faults of pronunciation or mistakes in grammar, especially syntax, due to foreign origin” （Sandys）. It would, however, be quite futile to look for a specific error in the, very probably spurious, lease inserted in the oration.

13 The metaphor is from house-breaking.

14 Pasio is stated by Phormio to have owed the bank eleven talents （Dem. 36.4）. This debt may be assumed to have been properly secured, so that it was in no sense a deficit. The present speaker, however, represents it as such, and implies that the bank had been brought to insolvence through Phormio's incompetence.

15 Slaves were often condemned to the heavy labor of turning the millstone.

16 The mother of Demosthenes brought to her husband a dowry of only 80 minae （Dem. 27.5）; the mother of Mantitheus one of 60 minae （Dem. 40.6）; and the two daughters of Polyeuctus dowries of 40 minae each （Dem. 41.3 and Dem. 41.27）.

17 That is, it would not have been reasonable for him to leave his wife to his former slave even if he had received as a bribe the large sum which he is alleged to have given as a marriage portion.

18 Athmonon was a deme of the tribe Cecropis.

19 We must assume that Deinias, when called upon, refused to swear to the deposition which was read （whether the deposition given in the text is authentic or not cannot be determined with certainty）. He must, therefore, have taken the oath of disclaimer （ἐξωμοσία）, although this is not stated in the text. Apollodorus asserts that Deinias took this course for fear that by swearing to the deposition he would work harm to his kinsman Stephanus. We must be content to confess our ignorance of his reasons.

20 Apolexis is a not unfamiliar name （see e.g. Dem. 43.48）, but of the Apolexis or the Solon here mentioned nothing is known.

21 Byzantium, the modern Istanbul.

22 Calchedon is a town on the east side of the Bosporus, opposite Byzantium.

23 It was believed to be a good omen to scatter sweetmeats, nuts, etc., over the head of a newly purchased slave. See Aristoph. Pl. 768

24 This was one of the places where slaves were sold.

Even of myself, men of the jury, I could pretty well suspect that this fellow Stephanus would not be at a loss for something to say in defence of his testimony; and that he would seek to mislead and deceive you in his speech by alleging that he has not borne witness to everything written in the deposition. For he is a knave, and there are many to write speeches and give advice on Phormio's behalf. Furthermore it is but natural that those who undertake to give false testimony should at the start prepare some means of defending it. [2] But I bid you to bear this in mind, that in his address, long as it was, he nowhere brought forward witnesses to prove to you either that he was himself present when my father made this will, so as to know that this is a copy of the will which my father made, or that he saw the document opened which they declare my father drew up and left as his will. [3] When, however, my opponent has testified that what was written in the document was a copy of the will of Pasio, but is unable to prove either that my father made a will or that he was himself present and saw it when my father drew it up, is he not manifestly proved to have given false testimony? [4]

If, now, he maintains that it was a challenge and not a deposition, he is not telling the truth. For all pieces of evidence which the parties to a suit bring before the court when they tender challenges to one another, they bring in by means of depositions. Otherwise you would not know whether what they severally say is true or false, if they did not bring forward the witnesses also. But when they do bring in witnesses, you rely upon these as being responsible, and so from the statements and the testimony offered you cast your votes for what seems to you to be a just verdict. [5] I wish therefore to prove to you that the deposition is not a challenge, and to show you how they ought to have deposed if the challenge was given, which it was not,—“The deponents testify that they were present before the arbitrator Teisias, when Phormio challenged Apollodorus to open the document which Amphias, the brother-in-law of Cephisophon, produced, and that Apollodorus refused to open it.” If they had given their evidence in this way, they would have appeared to be speaking the truth. But to depose that what was written in the document which Phormio produced was a copy of the will of Pasio, without having been present when Pasio made the will, or knowing that he had made one, does this not seem to you to be a manifest piece of insolence? [6]

And surely, if he says that he believed this to be true because Phormio said it was, it would be like the same man to believe him when he said this, and to testify to it at his bidding. The laws, however, do not say this, but ordain that a man may testify to what he knows, or to matters at the doing of which he was present, and that his testimony must be committed to writing in order that it may not be possible to subtract anything from what is written, or to add anything to it. [7] Hearsay evidence they do not admit from a living person, but only from one who is dead; but in the case of those who are sick or absent from the country they allow evidence to be introduced, provided it be in written form, and the absent witness and the one submitting his testimony shall alike be liable to action under the same impeachment, in order that, if the absent witness acknowledges his evidence, he may be liable to action for giving false testimony, and if he does not acknowledge it, the one who submitted his testimony may be liable. [8] Now Stephanus here, without knowing that my father left a will or having ever been present when he drew one up, but having been told this by Phormio, has given hearsay evidence which is false, and has done it in defiance of the law.

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.1 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,2 and Phormio became an Athenian citizen during the archonship of Nicophemus,3 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,4 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.5” [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 manhood6 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,7 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 Scirophorion8; 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 manufactory9; 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.

1 As the deposition was written, （with a dark pigment） on a whitened tablet, it had obviously been prepared in advance. An off-hand answer to a challenge would have been written on a waxed tablet.

2 That is, in 371-370 B.C.

3 That is, in 361-360 B.C.

4 The precise meaning of this phrase is disputed. See the authorities cited in the next note.

5 On this law consult Hermann-Thalheim, Rechtsalterthüfmer, pp. 68 ff., with the authorities there cited. It is quoted, in part, also in Dem. 44.68, and is frequently referred to by Isaeus. See Wyse's note on Isaeus 2.13, and Savage, The Athenian Family, p. 119. Observe that, while the law has to do with those adopted into the family, our pleader makes it refer to those adopted as citizens.

6 That is at the age of eighteen years （see note b on p. 9 of vol. 1.）.

7 Hence he had obviously come to manhood.

8 The month Scirophorion corresponds to the latter half of June and the prior half of July. “This month may have been excepted, since it was the last month of the Attic year, and in it the magistrates vacated office and passed their audit.” （Sandys）

9 See Dem. 36.4

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,1 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 giving 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,2 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]

They have testified, then, in the same deposition, men of the jury, that I was unwilling to have a postponement, but that Theophemus urged it in order that he might produce the woman. That this is not true, I will show you. For if I had tendered to Theophemus this challenge to which they have deposed, requiring him to deliver up the woman, [14] he might fittingly have answered by urging that the arbitration be put off until the next meeting, in order that he might bring the woman and deliver her up to me; but as it is, Theophemus, they have deposed that it was you who desired to deliver up the woman and that I was not willing to receive her. How is it that you, who were the woman's master, when you were on the point of tendering me this challenge, to which your witnesses have deposed, when you were forced to take refuge in this woman's testimony to establish your case, [15] and when you had no other witness to my having assaulted you and having delivered the first blow—how is it, I ask, that you did not bring the woman with you to the arbitrator and deliver her up, having her then present in person, and being yourself her master? Nay, you state that you tendered the challenge; but no one saw the woman by means of whom you deceived the jurors, through producing false witnesses to represent that you wished to give her up. [16]

Well, then, since the woman was not present with you at that time and the boxes had previously been sealed, did you at any time afterward bring her into the market-place or before the court? For if she was not present with you at that time, you surely ought to have delivered her up afterwards, and to have called witnesses to prove that you were willing to have the test made by the woman's evidence in accordance with the challenge which you had tendered, as your challenge had been put in the box, and a deposition stating that you were ready to deliver her up. Well then, when you were on the point of entering upon the trial, did you ever bring the woman before the court? [17] And yet, if what they say about his tendering the challenge is true, he ought, when the court-rooms were being assigned by lot, to have brought the woman, got a herald to attend, and bidden me, if I chose, to put her to the torture, and have made the jurors as they came in witnesses to the fact that he was ready to deliver her up. But as it is, he has made deceitful statements and has produced false witnesses, but even to this day he does not dare to deliver up the woman, though I have made repeated challenges and demands, as the witnesses who were present have testified before you.

Please read the depositions again.“ Depositions ” [18]

I wish now, men of the jury, to explain to you the origin of my action against Theophemus, in order that you may be assured that he not only secured my condemnation unjustly by deceiving the jury, but also at the same time secured by the same verdict the condemnation of the senate of five hundred, and made of no effect the decisions of your courts and of no effect your decrees and your laws, and shook your faith in your magistrates and in the inscriptions on the public stelae.3 How he has done this I will show you point by point. [19] I never before at any time in my life had any business transaction with Theophemus, nor yet any revel or love-affair or drinking-bout, to lead me to go to his house, because of a quarrel with him about some matter in which he had got the better of me, or under the excitement of amorous passion. No, but in obedience to decrees passed by your assembly and senate and at the bidding of the law I demanded of him the ship's equipment which he owed to the state. For what reason, I shall proceed to tell you. [20] It chanced that some triremes were about to sail, a military force having to be despatched in haste. Now there was not in the dockyards equipment for the ships, but those from whom it was due, who had in their possession such equipment, had failed to return it; and furthermore there was not available for purchase in the Peiraeus either an adequate supply of sail-cloth and tow and cordage, which serve for the equipment of a trireme. Chaeridemus, therefore, proposed this decree, in order that the equipment for the ships might be recovered and kept safe for the state.

Read the decree, please.“ Decree ” [21]

When this decree had been passed, the magistrates chose by lot those who owed the ship's equipment to the state and handed over their names, and the overseers of the dockyards passed on the list to the trierarchs who were then about to sail, and to the overseers of the navy-boards. The law of Periander4 forced us and laid command upon us to receive the list of those who owed equipment to the state,—I mean the law in accordance with which the navy-boards were constituted. And besides this another decree of the people compelled them to assign to us the several debtors that we might recover from each man his proportionate amount. [22] Now I, as it happened, was a trierarch and overseer of the navy-board, and Demochares of Paeania5 was in the navy-board, and was indebted to the state for the equipment of a ship in conjunction with Theophemus here, for he had served as joint trierarch with him. Both their names, then, had been inscribed on the stelê as indebted to the state for the ship's equipment, and the magistrates, receiving their names from those in office before them, gave them over to us in accordance with the law and the decrees. [23] It was therefore a matter of necessity for us to receive them. I must tell you that hitherto, although I had often served as your trierarch, I had never taken equipment from the dockyards, but had supplied it at my own private expense whenever need arose, in order that I might have as little trouble as possible with the state. On this occasion, however, I was compelled to take over the names in accordance with the decrees and the law. [24]

To prove that I am speaking the truth in this, I shall produce as witnesses supporting these facts, the decree and the law, next the magistrate who gave the names over to me and who brought the case into court, and finally the members of the navy-board in which I was overseer and trierarch.

Read, please.“ Law ”“ Decree ”“ Depositions ” [25]

That it was absolutely necessary, therefore, for me to take over the names of those indebted to the state, you have heard from the law and the decrees; and that I took them over from the magistrate, the one who delivered them to me has testified. So, then, the first question for you to consider at the outset, men of the jury, is this, whether the wrongdoer was I, who was compelled to recover from Theophemus what he owed, or Theophemus, who had long owed the equipment to the state and refused to give it back. [26] For if you look at each matter severally, you will find that Theophemus was wholly in the wrong, and that this is not merely a statement of mine but a fact decided by vote of the senate and the court. For when I had received his name from the magistrate, I approached him and first demanded the ship's equipment; when he refused to give it back on my making this statement, I subsequently fell in with him near the Hermes6 which stands by the little gate and summoned him before the despatching board and the overseers of the dockyards; for it was they who at that time brought into court suits regarding ship's equipments. [27]

To prove that I am speaking the truth, I shall produce as witnesses to these facts those who served the summons.“ Witnesses ”

That he was summoned by me, then, has been testified to you by those who served the summons; now to prove that he was brought into court, take the deposition of the despatching board and the magistrates.“ Deposition ” [28]

The one who I thought would give me trouble, Demochares of Paeania, was indeed disagreeable before he was brought into court, but after he had been tried and convicted he returned the part of the ship's equipment that was due from him. But the one whom I should never have expected to go to such an extreme of rascality that he would ever dare to rob the state of the equipment, has gone ahead with all these troublesome lawsuits. He was present in the court-room when the suit was brought in, but never made any defence, nor did he give in the name of anyone for an adjudication,7 as he should have done, if he claims that someone else has the equipment and that it was not his duty to give it back; but he suffered the verdict to be given against him; [29] yet after he left the courtroom he did not pay any the more because of that, but decided that for the time being he would keep out of the way and remain quiet until I should have sailed with the fleet, and some time should have elapsed, thinking that I should have to pay for the equipment which he owed to the state either when I returned here, or else to my successor who should come from the navy-boards to take command of the ship. For what answer could I have given this man, when he produced decrees and laws showing that I was obliged to recover the equipment? [30] And Theophemus, after a lapse of time, when I had come back and made demands upon him, would have said that he had paid back the equipment, and to show that he had paid would have insisted upon these proofs—the crisis, the urgency, and that I was not such a fool and had never been such a friend of his as to wait; for what possible reason, then, when I was serving the state as trierarch and was overseer of the navy-board, and when decrees of such a nature and such a law were in force, should I have obliged him by delaying the collection? [31] It was because Theophemus reasoned in this way that he then refused to restore the equipment but kept himself out of the way, and thought that later on he would he able to rob me; and besides this, he could take refuge in an oath and perjure himself without trouble, a thing which he has done to others also. For the greediness of the man's character in matters where his interests are involved is dreadful, as I shall show you in fact. For Theophemus, while owing this equipment to the state, made a pretence of shifting the charge to Aphareus, but in actual fact he never reported his name for an adjudication, well knowing that he would be convicted of falsehood, if he should come into court. [32] For Aphareus proved that Theophemus had reckoned up against him the cost of the equipment and had got the money from him, when he took over the trierarchy. Now Theophemus maintains that he gave it over to Demochares, and he is suing the children of Demochares, who is now dead. But, while Demochares lived, Theophemus did not report his name for an adjudication when he was being sued by me for the equipment; he merely wished, on the pretence of the lapse of time, to rob the state of the equipment.

To prove that I am speaking the truth, the clerk shall read you the depositions.“ Depositions ” [33]

Bearing all these facts in mind, therefore, and hearing from those who had had dealings with Theophemus what sort of a man he was in matters where his interests were involved, and failing to recover the equipment from him, I approached the despatching board and the senate, stating that Theophemus would not return to me the equipment for which he was accountable by judgement of the court. And the other trierarchs also approached the senate, all those who had not been able to recover the equipment from the persons bound to produce it. And after much argument the senate answered by a decree which the clerk shall read to you, instructing us to recover what was due in whatever way we could.“ Decree ” [34]

When, then, the decree had been passed by the senate, since no one indicted it for illegality, but it became valid, I approached this man Evergus, the brother of Theophemus, since I was unable to see Theophemus; and having the decree in my hand I first demanded the return of the equipment, and bade him inform Theophemus; then, after allowing a few days to pass, since he refused to return the equipment, but only jeered at me, I took some witnesses with me, and asked him whether he had divided the estate with his brother, or whether their property was held in common. [35] On Evergus's answering me that it had been divided and that Theophemus lived in a house by himself, but that he （Evergus） lived with his father, I thus learned where Theophemus lived, and taking with me a servant from the magistrates, I went to Theophemus's house. As I did not find him at home, I bade the woman who answered the door to go and fetch him wherever he might be. This was the woman, whom, according to the depositions of these men, Theophemus offered to deliver up, but whom, after repeated demands, I cannot get from him, that you might learn the truth as to which party began the assault. [36] But when Theophemus came in, after the woman had gone to fetch him, I asked for the inventory of the equipment, telling him that I was now on the point of sailing; and I showed him the decree of the senate. When, on my saying this, he refused to give it up, but began to threaten me and abuse me, I bade the boy call in from the street any citizens8 whom he might see passing by, that I might have them as witnesses to what was said, [37] and I again made demand upon Theophemus either to go with me himself to the despatching board and the senate, and, if he denied that he was liable, to convince those who had given over the names and compelled us to seek to recover what was due, or else to pay back the equipment; otherwise, I declared that I should take goods as security in accordance with the laws and the decrees. Since he was not willing to do anything that was right, I started to lead away the woman who was standing by the door, the same one who had gone to fetch him. [38] He seized her to prevent me, and I let go of the woman, but proceeded to enter the house to take some security for the equipment due; for the door, as it happened, had been opened when Theophemus came, and he had not yet gone in. I had already informed myself that he was not married.9 As I was going in Theophemus struck me on the mouth with his fist, and I, calling upon those who were present to bear witness, returned the blow. [39] Now the proof that what I am saying is true, and that Theophemus began the assault, needs, I think, nothing else for its establishment than the testimony of the woman whom these witnesses have stated that Theophemus was ready to deliver up. By means of this testimony Theophemus, whose case came first into court, seeing that I did not enter a special plea or an affidavit for delay, since these measures had once been a disadvantage to me in a former suit, deceived the jurors, saying that the witnesses whom I had brought forward gave false testimony, but that this woman would tell the truth if she were put to the torture. [40] But their actions now are shown to be the very opposite of the language which they then used with such insistence; for I am unable to get the woman for examination despite repeated demands, as has been stated to you by witnesses. Since, therefore, they refuse to deliver up the woman, whom they themselves declare that I was challenged to receive, I desire to call before you the witnesses who saw Theophemus deal me the first blow. And this is what constitutes assault, when a man commits the first act of violence, especially when he strikes one who is seeking to exact payment in accordance with the laws and your decrees.

Please read the decrees and the deposition.“ Decrees ”“ Deposition ” [41]

So when the pledge which I had seized had been taken from me by Theophemus, and I had been beaten, I went to the senate and showed them the marks of the blows, and told them how I had been treated, and also that it was while I was seeking to collect for the state the ship's equipment. The senate, angered at the treatment which I had received and seeing the plight that I was in, thinking, too, that the insult had been offered, not to me, but to itself and the assembly which had passed the decree and the law which compelled us to exact payment for the equipment,— [42] the senate, I say, ordered me to prefer an impeachment, and that the prytanes10 should give Theophemus two days' notice of trial on a charge of breaking the law and of impeding the fleet's departure, charging further that he had refused to return the ship's equipment and had taken from me the pledge which I had seized, and beaten me when I was seeking to collect what was due and was performing my duty to the state. Well, then, the trial of Theophemus came on before the senate in accordance with the impeachment which I had preferred; and after both sides had been heard and the senators had cast their votes secretly, he was convicted in the senate-chamber and adjudged to be guilty. [43] And when the senate was going into a division on the question whether it should remand him to a jury-court or sentence him to a fine of five hundred drachmae, the highest penalty which the law allowed it to inflict, while all these men were making pleas and entreaties and sending any number of people to intercede for them, and offering us right there in the senate-chamber the inventory of the equipment due, and promising to submit the question of the assault to any one of the Athenians whom I should name, I consented that a fine of twenty-five drachmae11 should be imposed upon Theophemus. [44]

To prove that I am speaking the truth in this, I beg all of you who were senators in the archonship of Agathocles12 to tell the facts to those who sit by you, and I will bring before you as witnesses all those whom I have been able to find who were senators that year.“ Depositions ”

I, you see, men of the jury, showed myself thus reasonable toward these men. And yet the decree ordered the confiscation of the property, not only of those who had ship's equipment and did not return it to the state, but also of anyone who, having such equipment, refused to sell it; such a scarcity of equipment was there in the city at that time.

Read the decree, please.“ Decree ” [45]

When I had come back from my voyage, men of the jury, as Theophemus refused to refer to anyone the matter of the blows which he had dealt me, I summoned him, and began an action against him for assault. He summoned me in a cross-action, and while the arbitrators had the causes before them, and the time came for making the award, he put in a special plea and an affidavit for postponement; I, however, being conscious that I had done no wrong, came in for trial before your court. [46] Theophemus, by bringing this testimony to which no one else has deposed, but only his brother and his brother-in-law, to the effect that he was willing to deliver up the woman, and by pretending to be a man without guile, deceived the jurors. But now I make of you a fair request, both to decide regarding the testimony whether it is true or false, and at the same time to consider the whole case from the beginning. [47] I, for my part, hold that the proof should be drawn from the very course of procedure to which the fellow at that time fled for refuge, that is, from the examination of the woman by the torture, to determine which party struck the first blow; for this is what constitutes assault. And it is for this reason that I am suing the witnesses for false testimony, because they deposed that Theophemus was willing to deliver up the woman, whereas he never would produce her in person either at that time before the arbitrator or subsequently, despite my repeated demands. [48] They ought, therefore, to suffer a double punishment, both because they deceived the jurors by bringing forward false testimony—that of the brother-in-law and the brother—, and because they wronged me while I was zealously performing a public service, doing what the state commanded me, and obeying your laws and your decrees.

Now to prove to you that I was not the only one thus commissioned, when I received from the magistrates the name of this man with orders to exact from him the equipment which he owed to the state, but that others of the trierarchs took such measures against others whose names they had received, read, please, their depositions.“ Depositions ” [49]

I wish now, men of the jury, to set forth before you the treatment with which I have met at their hands. For when I had lost to them the suit in which the witnesses gave the false testimony for which I am suing them, and the time for paying the judgement was about to expire, I came up to Theophemus and begged him to oblige me by waiting a little while, telling him what was true, that although I had got together the money which I was going to pay him, a trierarchy had fallen to my lot, [50] and it was necessary to despatch the trireme with all speed, and that Alcimachus, the general, had ordered me to furnish this ship for his own use; the money, therefore, which I had got together to pay Theophemus, I had to use up for this purpose. So I asked him to extend the time of payment until I should have sent off the ship. And he answered me quite readily and guilelessly: “There is no objection to that,” he said, “but, when you shall have despatched the ship, also bring the money to me.” [51] When Theophemus had given me this answer and had extended the time of payment, and especially because I relied upon my impeachment for false testimony and his unwillingness to deliver up the woman, and so thought he would take no violent measures in my affair, I despatched the trireme, and a few days later, having got the money together, I approached him and bade him to go with me to the bank to receive the amount of his judgement.

To prove that I am speaking the truth in this, the clerk shall read you the depositions regarding these matters.“ Depositions ” [52]

Theophemus, however, instead of going with me to the bank and receiving the amount of his judgement, went and seized fifty soft-woolled sheep of mine that were grazing and with them the shepherd and all that belonged to the flock, and also a serving-boy who was carrying back a bronze pitcher of great value which was not ours, but had been borrowed. And they were not content with having these, but went on to my farm [53] （I have a piece of land near the Hippodrome, and have lived there since my boyhood）, and first they made a rush to seize the household slaves, but since these escaped them and got off one here and another there, they went to the house, and bursting open the gate which led into the garden （these were this man Evergus, the brother of Theophemus, and Mnesibulus, his brother-in-law, who had won no judgement against me, and who had no right to touch anything that was mine）—these men, I say,13 entered into the presence of my wife and children and carried off all the furniture that was still left in the house. [54] They thought to get, not so much merely, but far more, for they expected to find the stock of household furniture which I formerly had; but because of my public services and taxes and my liberality toward you, some of the furniture is lying in pawn, and some has been sold. All that was left, however, they took away with them. [55] More than this, men of the jury, my wife happened to be lunching with the children in the court and with her was an elderly woman who had been my nurse, a devoted soul and a faithful, who had been set free by my father. After she had been given her freedom she lived with her husband, but after his death, when she herself was an old woman and there was nobody to care for her, she came back to me. [56] I could not suffer my old nurse, or the slave who attended me as a boy, to live in want; at the same time I was about to sail as trierarch and it was my wife's wish that I should leave such a person to live in the house with her. They were lunching in the court when these men burst in and found them there, and began to seize the furniture. The rest of the female slaves （they were in a tower room where they live）, when they heard the tumult, closed the door leading to the tower, so the men did not get in there; but they carried off the furniture from the rest of the house, although my wife forbade them to touch it, [57] and declared that it was her property, mortgaged to secure her marriage portion; she said to them also, “You have the fifty sheep, the serving boy, and the shepherd, whose value is in excess of the amount of your judgement” （for one of the neighbors knocked at the door and told her this）. Furthermore she told them that the money was lying at the bank for them, for she had heard me say so. “And, if you will wait here,” she said, “or if one of you will go after him, you shall take the money back with you at once; but let the furniture alone, and do not carry off anything that is mine—especially since you have the full value of your judgement.” [58] But although my wife spoke in this way, they not only did not desist, but when the nurse took the cup which was set by her and from which she had been drinking, and put it in her bosom to prevent these men from taking it, when she saw that they were in the house, Theophemus and Evergus, this brother of his, observing her, treated her so roughly in taking the cup from her [59] that her arms and wrists were covered with blood, as they wrenched her arms and pulled her this way and that in taking the cup from her, and she had lacerations on her throat, where they strangled her, and her breast was black and blue. And they pushed their brutality to such extremes, that they did not stop throttling and beating the old woman, until they had taken the cup from her bosom. [60] The servants of the neighbors, hearing the tumult and seeing that my house was being pillaged, some of them called from the roofs of their own houses to the people passing by, and others went into the other street and seeing Hagnophilus passing by, bade him to come. Hagnophilus, when he came up, summoned by a servant of Anthemion, who is a neighbor of mine, did not enter the house （for he thought he ought not to do so in the absence of the master）, but, standing on Anthemion's land, saw the furniture being carried off and Evergus and Theophemus coming out of the house. [61] And not only did they go off with my furniture, men of the jury, but they were even on the point of taking away my son, as though he were a slave, until Hermogenes, one of my neighbors, met them and told them that he was my son.

To prove that I am speaking the truth in this, the clerk shall read you the depositions.“ Depositions ” [62]

When, then, the news of what had been done was brought me in Peiraeus by the neighhors, I went to the farm, but found that these men had left; I saw, however, that the household goods had been carried off and in what plight the old woman was. My wife told me what had taken place, so, early next morning, I approached Theophemus in the city, having witnesses with me, and demanded, first that he accept payment of the amount of his judgement, and go with me to the bank, then, that he should provide for the care of the old woman whom they had beaten, calling in any physician whom they pleased. [63] While I was saying this and solemnly protesting against their actions, they abused me roundly; then Theophemus went with me very reluctantly and making much delay, alleging that he too wished to take witnesses along with him （this talk was a trick on his part to gain time）; but this fellow Evergus went at once from the city in company with some others of like stamp to the farm. The furniture which I had remaining—some few pieces which the day before happened to be in the tower and not outside—had, after I came home, necessarily been brought down, and Evergus, forcing open the gate which they had broken down the day before, and which was scarcely fastened, carried off my furniture—Evergus, to whom I owed no judgement, and with whom I had had no business transaction whatever. [64] On my making full payment to Theophemus to whom I owed the judgement, when I had paid him in the presence of many witnesses eleven hundred drachmae, the amount of the judgement, one hundred and eighty-three drachmae two obols for the fine of one-sixth of that sum, and thirty drachmae for court fees （I owed him nothing in the way of other penalties）—when, I say, he had received from me at the bank one thousand three hundred and thirteen drachmae two obols, the total amount, on my demanding the return of the sheep and the slaves and the furniture of which he had robbed me, he declared that he would not return them to me unless I should release him and his associates from all claims, and the witnesses from the suit for false testimony. [65] When he had given me this reply, I called upon those present to be witnesses to his answer, but I paid him the judgement, for I did not think it best to he in default. As for Evergus, I did not know that he had gone to my house on that day, but as soon as the judgement had been paid, while Theophemus still had the sheep and the slaves and the furniture, a stone-cutter, who was working on the monument near by, came to bring me word that Evergus had carried off from the house the rest of my furniture—that, namely, which had remained untouched the day before,—Evergus, with whom I had nothing whatever to do. [66]

To prove that I am speaking the truth, that on the day before they had taken from me goods as security, and that the next day they recovered the money from me （and yet, if the money had not been got together and I had not given them notice, how, pray, could they have secured immediate payment?）, and that on that very day they had gone again into the house, while I was paying the money—to prove all this, the clerk shall read you the depositions.“ Depositions ” [67]

Since, then, men of the jury, he paid no heed, when I served notice on him to care for the woman whom they had beaten and to bring in a physician, I myself brought in one with whom I had had dealings for many years, and he cared for her during her illness. I showed him the plight she was in, and brought witnesses. Hearing from the physician that the woman's condition was hopeless, I again took other witnesses, and pointing out the condition she was in served notice on these men to care for her. On the sixth day after these men had come into the house the nurse died.

To prove that I am speaking the truth in this, the clerk shall read you the depositions bearing upon these matters.“ Depositions ” [68]

Well then, after her death I went to the Interpreters14 in order to learn what I ought to do in the matter, and I related to them all that had taken place: the coming of these men, the devotion of the woman, why it was that I kept her in my house, and that she had met her end because she would not surrender the cup. When the Interpreters had heard all this from me, they asked me whether they should interpret the law for me and nothing more, or should also advise me. [69] On my answering them, “Both,” they said to me, “Very well, we will interpret for you the law, and also give you advice to your profit. In the first place, if there be anyone related to the woman, let him carry a spear when she is borne forth to the tomb and make solemn proclamation at the tomb, and thereafter let him guard the tomb for the space of three days. And this is the advice which we give you: since you were not yourself present, but only your wife and your children, and since you have no other witnesses, we advise you not to make proclamation against anyone by name, but in general against the perpetrators and the murderers; [70] and again not to institute suit before the king.15 For that course is not open to you under the law, since the woman is not a relative of yours nor yet a servant, according to your own statement; and it is to relatives or to masters that the law appoints the duty of prosecuting. If, then, you should take the oath at the Palladium,16 yourself and your wife and your children, and imprecate curses upon yourselves and your house, you will lose the goodwill of many, and if your opponent is acquitted, you will be thought to have committed perjury, and if you convict him, you will he an object of malice. No, after you have performed the proper religious rites to cleanse yourself and your house, bear your misfortune with such patience as you can, and, if you choose, avenge yourself in some other way.” [71]

When I had received this advice from the Interpreters and had looked at the laws of Draco on the inscribed slab, I consulted with my friends as to what course of action I should pursue. As they gave me the same advice, I did what was necessary to purify the house and what the Interpreters had prescribed, and abstained from further action which the laws forbade. [72] For the law, men of the jury, ordains that prosecution shall be by relatives within the degree of children of cousins; and that in the oath inquiry shall be made as to what the relationship is, even if the victim be a servant; and it is from these persons that criminal actions shall proceed. But the woman was in no way related to me by blood, she had only been my nurse; nor again was she a servant; for she had been set free by my father, and she lived in a separate house, and had taken a husband. [73] Now, to tell a false story to you and support it by an oath with imprecations on myself, my son, and my wife, was a thing I dared not do, even if I knew well that I should convict these men; for I do not hate them as much as I love myself.

But that you may hear this not merely from my own lips, the clerk shall read you the law itself.“ Law ” [74]

I fancy, men of the jury, that it has become clear to you on many grounds that the deposition is false, but that you see it most readily from the conduct of the men themselves. For they thought, men of the jury, that, if they took a large quantity of goods from me as security, I should be glad to release the witnesses from the charge of false testimony in order to get back the goods. [75] And when I asked Theophemus to oblige me by extending the time of payment, he was glad to comply in order that I might be in default, and that he might carry off as many goods as possible. It was for this reason that he acceded to my request so guilelessly and so promptly in order to win my confidence and keep me from seeing his plot; for he thought it was not possible for him in any other way to get the witnesses released from the charge of false testimony than by tricking me, catching me in default and carrying off as many goods as possible; for he expected to get, not only what they actually have of mine, but a great deal more. [76] And he waited the rest of the time, thinking that I should not quickly get the money together, and wishing to seize the goods as security just when the trial for false testimony was coming on; but when I served notice on him to come and collect the amount of the judgement, he went and seized my furniture and slaves and sheep instead of receiving payment. I till a farm near the Hippodrome, so that he did not have far to go. [77] That what I am saying is true let this be a strong proof: he got the amount of the judgement the day after he seized the security. And yet, if I had not got the money together, how could he have got payment at once in cash, one thousand three hundred and thirteen drachmae two obols? And the goods which he had seized as security he refused to return to me, but up to this day he keeps them, as though I were in default. But to prove that I was not in default, read me the deposition and the law which ordains that all agreements entered into by the two parties shall be binding; I was, therefore, as you see, no longer in default to him.“ Law ”“ Deposition ” [78]

Well, then, that he consented and extended the time of payment has been established for you by witnesses, and that I was serving as trierarch my colleague in the trierarchy has testified, and also that the ship was equipped as flagship for the admiral Alcimachus. Surely, then, I was not in default to him when he had extended the time, especially since I paid the money in full. But the graspingness of his disposition, when it is a question of more or less, is dreadful, men of the jury. And they knew well that, if they should deliver up the woman for examination, it would be proved that their charge was false, while, if they should not deliver up the woman, whom the witnesses stated that Theophemus was willing to deliver up, they would be convicted of false testimony. [79] I beg of you, men of the jury, if any one of those who then served as jurors happens to be in the court-room, to act upon the same principles as you did then; and, if the deposition seemed to you to be worthy of credence, and I seemed to shrink from the test which the examination of the woman would have afforded, now, when they are proved to have given false testimony and do not deliver up the woman, to come to my aid: and if you are angry with me because I went to the house of Theophemus to take security, to be angry now with these men also because they went to my house. [80] And I, who was forced to go by the laws and the decrees, was careful not to make my way into the presence of the father or mother of Theophemus or to take anything belonging to his brother; but I went to where Theophemus lived by himself, and when I did not find him at home, I did not seize anything and carry it off, but bade someone fetch him, and I took the security in his presence and not in his absence; and when it was taken from me, I gave it up and betook myself to the senate, the proper authority, and when I had preferred my impeachment and had convicted him in the senate, I thought it enough merely to recover the ship's equipment, and to leave the matter of the assault to a referee, and to make a concession in the matter of the fine. [81] I, then, was lenient toward these men, whereas they were so brutal and ruthless that they forced themselves into the presence of my wife and children, although they had in their possession the sheep and the slaves, of greater value than their judgement, and although they had given me an extension of time and I had given them notice to come and recover their judgement, as has been proved to you by testimony. They came to my house and not only carried off the furniture, but beat the nurse, an old woman, for the sake of a cup; and they keep possession of all these things, and refuse to give them up, though I have paid in full the amount of the judgement, one thousand three hundred and thirteen drachmae two obols. [82] If anyone through ignorance thought these men at the time of the former trial to be guileless and inoffensive persons, I wish to read you the depositions regarding them which have been furnished me by those whom they have wronged （for the water in the clock is not sufficient to permit me to tell the whole story in my speech）, in order that, when you have considered the case in the light of all these things, both the arguments and the testimony, the verdict which you will render may be such as piety and justice demand of you.

Read the depositions.“ Depositions ”

1 Cedae was a deme of the tribe Erectheïs.

2 The place for holding the sessions of the court of that name.

3 These stelae were marble slabs upon which were inscribed the names of those trierarchs who were indebted to the state for damage or loss of equipment. A good many such inscriptions are still extant.

4 This law was passed in 538-537 B.C.

5 Paeania was a deme of the tribe Pandionis.

6 This Hermes, dedicated by the nine archons in 493-492, stood near the Ἀστικὸς Πυλών, or City Gate, of the north fortification wall of the Peiraeus. See Judeich, Topographie von Athen 2, pp. 152 f.

7 The διαδικασία was a procedure for the adjudication of the claims or responsibilities of various contestants. The technical modern term is “interpleader.”

8 Only a citizen would be a competent witness. A slave or an alien would not suffice.

9 Hence the speaker felt at liberty to enter the apartment.

10 Since the entire senate of five hundred members could not always meet as a whole, the fifty members from each tribe served in turn （the order being determined by lot） as a sort of executive committee for one-tenth of the year, the presiding officer for the day being chosen from their number. These groups were called the prytanes.

11 The text would naturally mean an additional fine, but the speaker is emphasizing his reasonableness in his treatment of his opponents. This was shown by his consenting to a fine of merely 5 drachmae, whereas it might have been 500 drachmae with confiscation of the defendant's property. I think the προς- means a fine in addition to the other charges to which the defendant was already liable.

12 This was in 356 B.C.

13 This was an unpardonable outrage.

14 A traditional, rather than official, body of men from the old noble families, who alone could interpret the unwritten laws governing matters of ceremonial and religious observance.

15 That is, the king-archon; cf. Dem. 43.42 and Dem. 43.43

16 The Palladium （properly a statue of Pallas） was the name of the place where the court of the ἐφέται held its sessions. On this court see Dem. 43.57, with the note.

It is perhaps necessary, men of the jury, even for those who have neither practice nor skill in speaking to come into court when they have been wronged by anyone, especially if it be by those who should be the last to wrong them, as has now come to pass with me. For, although I have been unwilling, men of the jury, to go to law with Olympiodorus, who is a relative of mine and whose sister is my wife, I have been forced to do so because of the magnitude of the wrongs which he has done me. [2] If I were entering upon this course, men of the jury, without having been wronged, or were trumping up a false charge against Olympiodorus, or if I were unwilling to refer the matter to men who are friends both of Olympiodorus and myself, or if I were refusing to adopt any other fair course of action, be assured that I should be thoroughly ashamed, and should think myself a worthless sort of fellow: but as it is, the loss I have suffered at the hands of Olympiodorus is no small one; I have not refused to accept any referee, and I swear by Zeus the Supreme that it is not willingly, but with the utmost possible reluctance, that I have been forced by the defendant to bring this suit. [3] I beg of you, therefore, men of the jury, when you have heard us both and have sifted the matter for yourselves, preferably to find some settlement of our quarrel and dismiss us, and thus become benefactors of us both; but if you cannot succeed in this, of the courses remaining open to you, I beg you to give your vote to him whose plea is just.

First, then, the clerk shall read to you the depositions which show that it is not I who am responsible for bringing the case into court, but the defendant himself.

Read the depositions.“ Depositions ” [4]

That I offered reasonable and fitting terms to Olympiodorus has been testified to you, men of the jury, by those who were present. Since, however, he does not choose to do anything that is right, it is necessary for me to set forth before you the matters in which I have been wronged by him. But the story is a short one. [5]

There was a certain Comon of Halae,1 men of the, jury, a relative of ours. This Comon died without issue after a very short illness; he had lived, however, many years, and was an old man when he died. When I saw that he could not possibly recover, I sent for the defendant Olympiodorus that he might be with us, and join with us in taking all proper measures. And Olympiodorus, when he had come to me and to my wife, who is his own sister, aided us in making all the arrangements. [6] While we were thus occupied, this fellow Olympiodorus suddenly flung at me the statement that his mother also was related to Comon, the dead man, and that it was fair that he, too, should receive his share of all the property which Comon left. I for my part, men of the jury, as I knew that he was lying and trying to put a bold face on it, and that there was nobody else nearer of kin to Comon than myself, became at first exceedingly wroth and indignant at the shamelessness of his claim; presently, however, I reflected that it was not a proper time for anger, and I made answer to him, that for the present it was our duty to bury the dead man and do all else that custom called for, and that after we should have discharged all these duties we would talk with one another. [7] And Olympiodorus, men of the jury, assented to this, and said that I was quite right. So when we had finished all this, and had done all that custom required, we called in all our relatives and quietly discussed with one another the claims which this fellow advanced. Now, men of the jury, why should I weary you or myself by relating the various differences which arose between us as we talked these matters over? [8] The conclusion to which we came, however, it is necessary for you to hear. I myself reached the decision regarding his claims, and he regarding mine, that we should each take half of what Comon left, and there should be no further unpleasantness between us. I chose, men of the jury, voluntarily to share the inheritance with him rather than come into court and risk a trial with the fellow, who is a relative, and to say unpleasant things of one who is a brother of my wife and the uncle of my children, and hear disagreeable things from him. [9] Thinking of all these things I came to terms with him.

After this we drew up written articles of agreement regarding all matters involved, and swore solemn oaths to one another that we would in very truth divide fairly and honestly all the visible property that there was, and that neither of us would in any respect take advantage of the other in regard to Comon's estate; that we would make joint inquiry for the rest, and would act in common in forming whatever plans should from time to time be necessary. [10] For we suspected, men of the jury, that others besides ourselves would come to lay claim to the estate of Comon. For instance, there was my brother, on my father's but not my mother's side, who was out of the country; and, if anyone else wished to put in a claim, there was no way for us to prevent it; for the laws ordain that anyone who chooses may put in a claim. Foreseeing all these contingencies, we drew up our articles of agreement and swore our oaths in order that neither of us might have the opportunity of doing anything whatever independently, whether he should wish to do so or not, but that we should do everything by mutual agreement. [11] And we called to witness this agreement, first the gods in whose name we exchanged our oaths, and our own relatives, and moreover Androcleides of Acharnae,2 with whom we deposited the articles.

I wish now, men of the jury, to read the law in accordance with which we drew up our agreement, and deposition of the person who has the articles in his keeping.

Read the law first.“ Law ”

Now read the deposition of Androcleides.“ Deposition ” [12]

When we had exchanged oaths, and the articles had been deposited with Androcleides, I divided the property into two shares, men of the jury. One share consisted of the house in which Comon himself had lived, and the slaves engaged in weaving sackcloth, and the other of another house and the slaves engaged in grinding colors. Whatever ready money Comon left in the bank of Heracleides had been nearly all spent on his burial and the other funeral rites, and on the building of his tomb. [13] And after I had divided the property into these two shares, I gave Olympiodorus his choice to take whichever of the two shares he pleased; and he chose the color-grinders and the small house, while I took the weavers and the dwelling-house. [14] This is what each of us had. Now in the share of this fellow Olympiodorus there was a man, one of the color-grinders, whom Comon used to regard as most faithful to himself; the man's name was Moschion. This slave had a pretty good knowledge of all Comon's other affairs, and in particular knew where the money was which Comon kept in the house; [15] and Comon, who was oldish and who had confidence in him, was unaware that this slave Moschion was stealing his money. He first stole from him one thousand drachmae, which sum was kept separate from the rest of the money, and afterwards seventy minae more. He was doing this without Comon's suspecting it, and the fellow kept all this money in his own possession. [16]

Soon after we had divided the shares between us, men of the jury, we became suspicious, and found out something about this money; and as a result of this suspicion Olympiodorus here and I decided to put the man to the torture. And the fellow, men of the jury, before he was put to the torture, voluntarily confessed that he had stolen a thousand drachmae from Comon, and said that he still had in his quarters all the money which had not been spent; but of the larger sum he did not say a word at that time. [17] So he paid back about six hundred drachmae. And of this sum which the man paid back we made a just and fair division in accordance with the oaths which we had sworn and the agreement deposited with Androcleides, I taking one half and the defendant Olympiodorus the other. [18]

Not long after this, as a result of the suspicion against the slave in regard to the money, the defendant had the man bound and again put to the torture. He did this independently by himself without calling me in, although he had sworn to make all inquiries and do everything in concert with me. And the fellow, men of the jury, when racked by the torture made further confession that he had stolen from Comon the seventy minae; and he restored this entire sum to the defendant Olympiodorus. [19] I, on my part, men of the jury, when I learned that the man had been tortured, and that he had restored the money, supposed that Olympiodorus would pay me half the amount, just as he had before paid me half of the one thousand drachmae. At first I did not press him, thinking that he would recognize his obligation and arrange matters for my interest and his own, so that each of us should have what was fair in accordance with our oaths and our mutual agreement to share equally in all that Comon left; [20] but since he delayed, and did nothing, I had a talk with this man Olympiodorus, and demanded that I receive my share of the money. But Olympiodorus here kept finding one excuse after another, and putting me off. Moreover, at this very time some other people filed claims to the estate of Comon, and Callippus, my brother on my father's side, returned from abroad; and he too filed a claim for half the estate. [21] So Olympiodorus found in this another excuse for not paying me the money, since there were many who were laying claim to the estate; and he said that I must wait until the suits were settled. And I had to consent to this, and I did consent. [22]

After this the defendant Olympiodorus and I took counsel together, as we had sworn to do, to determine the best and safest way to deal with the other claimants. And we decided, men of the jury, that the defendant Olympiodorus should lay claim to the whole estate, and that,I should claim a half, seeing that my brother Callippus claimed a half only. [23] When all the claims had been heard before the archon, and the cases were due to be tried in court, the defendant Olympiodorus and I were wholly unprepared for an immediate trial because those who had suddenly appeared as claimants were so many. However, in view of the situation that had developed, we looked into things jointly to see if in any way a postponement could be brought about for the present, so that we might get ourselves ready for the trial at our leisure. [24] And it happened by a piece of good luck that you were persuaded by the politicians to despatch troops into Acarnania,3 and the defendant Olympiodorus was among those called to service, and he departed with the others on the expedition. Thus had come about, as we thought, an excellent ground for postponement, the defendant being abroad on military service. [25] So, when the archon summoned into court all those who were filing claims according to law, I entered a sworn statement, asking postponement on the ground that the defendant Olympiodorus was abroad on military service, but to this sworn statement our adversaries opposed another, attacking Olympiodorus; and as they had the last word, they induced the jurors to decide that the defendant was absent on account of the trial and not on public service. [26] When the jurors had thus decided, the archon Pythodotus4 in accordance with the law struck out the claim of the defendant; and when this claim was stricken out I necessarily had to abandon my claim to half the estate. After these steps had been taken, the archon adjudged the estate of Comon to our opponents; for the laws compelled him to do so. [27] They, as soon as they had won the adjudication, went at once to the Peiraeus and proceeded to take over all that either of us had received from the division. I, being at home, voluntarily gave over to them what I had （for it was necessary to obey the laws）, but since Olympiodorus was abroad, they carried off all his effects except the money which he had separately taken from the man—the slave whom he had put to the torture; for they had no means of getting hold of that money. [28]

Such were the events which happened in the absence of Olympiodorus, and such the benefit I derived from my association with him. But when he returned with the rest of the troops, the defendant Olympiodorus was indignant, men of the jury, at what had occurred, and thought he had been outrageously treated. However, when he was at the height of his indignation, we again looked matters over, the defendant Olympiodorus and I, and took counsel together to see how we could get back something of what we had lost. [29] And as a result of our consultation we decided to summon into court in due legal form those who had had the property adjudged to them; and in the circumstances it seemed to be the safest course not to risk a joint suit against the other claimants, but for each to act separately; and for the defendant Olympiodorus to enter suit for the whole estate as he had done before, and conduct his case by himself, and for me to enter suit for a half, since my brother Callippus claimed the half only; [30] so that, if Olympiodorus should win his case, I, in accordance with our agreement and our oaths, might recover my share from him, while, if he should lose it and the jurors give an adverse verdict, he might fairly and honestly recover his share from me in accordance with our oaths and the agreement made between us. After we had reached this conclusion, and it seemed safest both for Olympiodorus and for me, all those who were in possession of the estate of Comon were summoned according to law.

Read, please, the law in accordance with which the summons was given.“ Law ” [31]

It was in accordance with this law, men of the jury, that the summons was given, and that we filed our counter-claims in the manner approved by Olympiodorus. After this the archon conducted the preliminary examination for all claimants, and when he had concluded this he brought the case into court. The defendant Olympiodorus was the first to plead, and he said whatever he pleased and offered whatever testimony he saw fit, while I, men of the jury, sat in silence on the opposite platform. Since the trial had been fixed in this way, Olympiodorus easily won his case; [32] but when he had got the verdict and we had accomplished in the court-room all that we wished, when he had recovered from those who had previously won the adjudication all that they had taken from us,—although he has all this now in his possession as well as the money which he got from the slave who was put to the torture, he has refused to do anything whatever that is fair toward me, but keeps everything himself, even though he has given his oath and made an agreement with me that in very truth we should take equal shares. These articles of agreement are still up to this day in the custody of Androcleides, who has himself given testimony before you. [33] I wish, however, to bring before you depositions proving all the other statements I have made, but first of all, to prove that at the outset the defendant and I, having settled our differences by ourselves, took each an equal share of all the property left by Comon of which we had knowledge.

Take, please, this deposition first, and then read all the rest.“ Deposition ” [34]

Now, please take the challenge which I tendered him regarding the money which he got from the slave who was put to the torture.“ Challenge ”

Read now the other deposition, too, proving that, when our opponents had received the adjudication, they took from us all that we had except the money which Olympiodorus got from the man who was put to the torture.“ Deposition ” [35]

In what way, men of the jury, Olympiodorus and I originally divided between us the visible estate of Comon, you have both heard from my statement, and it has been proved to you by witnesses; and you have also learned that the defendant got the sum of money from the slave, and that those who had previously won the adjudication took all that was in our possession, until Olympiodorus won a verdict in the second trial. [36] Now hear the reason which he gives for not paying me what is due, and for refusing to do anything whatever that is fair; and to this, men of the jury, I bid you give close heed, in order that you may not be misled presently by the orators whom he has engaged against me.

This defendant never says the same thing, but one thing now and another then, just as it happens. He goes about bringing forward absurd excuses, baseless insinuations, and false charges, and acts in the whole business as a man of bad faith. [37] Hosts of people have heard him say, sometimes that he never got the money from the slave at all; but again, when the contrary has been proved, he says that he got the money from his own slave, and that he will give me no share of this money or of anything else of the estate which Comon left. [38] And when anyone of our common friends asks him why he refuses to pay me, when he has sworn to share everything equally and when the articles of agreement are still in custody, he asserts that I have broken the agreement and have treated him outrageously, and he states that I have all along been speaking and acting in opposition to him. These are the excuses he offers. [39] The statements which the fellow makes, men of the jury, are insinuations which he has himself made up, false excuses, and bits of trickery, got up with a view to defrauding me of what he ought to pay me. But what I shall say to you to prove that he is lying will be no mere insinuation on the contrary I shall prove in glaring fashion his shamelessness, advancing proofs that are trustworthy and known to everybody, and bringing forward witnesses regarding every point. [40]

In the first place, men of the jury, I say that the defendant refused to refer our differences to our common friends and relatives who had full knowledge of all the circumstances of the case, and had followed them from the beginning; for this reason, that he had full knowledge that if he made use of any falsehoods, he would be refuted by them on the spot, whereas he thinks that now he may perhaps lie before you without being detected. [41] Again I say, it is not consistent, Olympiodorus, that I should act in opposition to you, and yet should join with you in expending whatever from time to time became necessary, or that I should myself voluntarily abandon my claim, when you were abroad and your claim was stricken off because it was thought that you were absent on account of the trial and not on public service. For it was open to me to press my own claim for one-half the estate; no human being opposed my claim, but my opponents themselves allowed it. [42] However, had I done this, I should by that very act have perjured myself, for I had sworn and contracted with you to do in concert with you whatever should seem to us on consultation to be best. Therefore the pretexts and charges on which you base your refusal to act fairly toward me are absolutely silly. [43] And furthermore—do you suppose, Olympiodorus, that in the last trial for the estate I should have permitted you either to utter so recklessly the statements which you made to the jury, or to bring forward witnesses as you did regarding the points you wished to prove, if I had not been acting in concert with you in the trial? [44] For the fellow, men of the jury, said everything else that he pleased in the court-room, and emphatically stated to the jurymen that I had rented from him the house which I received as part of my share, and that I had borrowed of him the money which I received—the half, that is, of the thousand drachmae recovered from the slave. And he not only made these statements, but he produced depositions to support them. And I said nothing whatever against all this, nor did any human being hear a syllable aloud or muttered from me while he was supporting his claim, but I admitted the truth of everything he chose to say. For I was cooperating with you, Olympiodorus, according to our agreement. [45] If what I am saying is not true, why did I not proceed against the witnesses who gave this evidence instead of keeping absolute silence? Or why did you, Olympiodorus, never sue me for the rent of the house which you alleged was your own and had been rented by you to me; or for the money which you told the jurymen you had lent me? Why, I say, did you do neither of these things? How, then, could any man be more clearly convicted than you have been of lying, of making contradictory statements, and of preferring charges that lack all foundation? [46]

But here is the strongest proof of all, which will convince you, men of the jury, of his bad faith and covetousness. If there were any truth in what he says, he should have stated it and proved it before the trial came on, and before he tested the jury as to how it would decide; and he should have taken a number of witnesses and demanded that the articles of agreement be taken from the custody of Androcleides on the ground that I was violating them, and acting against his interests, and that the articles were no longer in force between him and me; also he should have protested to Androcleides, who had the articles in his possession, that he had no longer anything to do with these articles. [47] This is what he should have done, men of the jury, if there were any truth in what he says; he should have gone by himself to Androcleides, and made this protest, and gone also with many witnesses, in order that he might have many persons who were aware of the fact.

But to prove that he never took any of these steps, the clerk shall read you the deposition of Androcleides himself with whom the articles of agreement are deposited.

Read the deposition.“ Deposition ” [48]

Now, men of the jury, you must consider another thing which he has done. I tendered him a challenge, and demanded that he go with me to Androcleides, with whom the articles are deposited, and that we should jointly make copies of the agreement and seal it up again, but that we should put the copies in the evidence-box, in order that there might be no ground for suspicion, but that you might hear everything plainly and fairly, and then vote as should seem to you most just. [49] I tendered him this challenge, but he refused to do anything of the sort; no, he has tried thus artfully to prevent your hearing the agreement from copies jointly made.

To prove that I tendered him this challenge, the clerk shall read you the deposition of the persons in whose presence I tendered it. Read the deposition.“ Deposition ” [50]

How, then, could it be made more plain that the fellow is unwilling to act justly toward me in any way, that he thinks to rob me of what I ought to receive by advancing excuses and preferring charges, and that he determined that you should not hear the agreement which he asserts I have broken? But I challenged him then before the witnesses who were present, and I challenge him again now before you jurymen, and I demand that he consent, and I myself do consent, to have the articles of agreement opened here in the court-room, to let you hear them, and to have them sealed up again in your presence. [51] Androcleides is present here; for I gave him notice to come and bring the articles of agreement. I consent, men of the jury, that they be opened during the defendant's speech, in either his first or his second, it makes no difference to me. But I wish you to hear the agreement and the oaths which Olympiodorus the defendant and I swore to one another. If he consents, let this be done, and do you hear for yourselves the articles when he shall see fit; and if he refuses to take this course, will it not be plain without further proof, men of the jury, that he is the most shameless of humankind, and that you may rightly refuse to accept as true anything whatever that he says? [52]

But why am I so earnest in urging this? The defendant himself knows well that he has sinned against me and sinned against the gods in whose name he swore, and that he is a perjurer. But something has deranged him, men of the jury, and he is not in his senses. I am pained and I feel shame, men of the jury, at what I am about to tell you, but I am forced to tell it, in order that you, in whose hands the verdict lies, may hear all the facts before you reach the conclusion regarding us which may seem to you best. [53] For my mentioning the things which I am about to tell you this fellow is himself to blame, since he refused to settle our differences among our relatives, but chose to brazen the matter out. For you must know, men of the jury, that this fellow Olympiodorus has never married an Athenian woman in accordance with your laws; he has no children nor has ever had any, but he keeps in his house a mistress whose freedom he had purchased, and it is she who is the ruin of us all and who drives the man on to a higher pitch of madness. [54] Is it not indeed a proof of his madness that he refuses to do anything whatever that was stipulated in the agreement which was entered into with his full consent and with my own, and which was confirmed by an oath?—especially when I am striving, not in my own interest only, but in the interest of her to whom I am married, his own sister, born of the same father and the same mother, and in the interest of his niece, my daughter. For they are being wronged not less than I, but even more. [55] Can anyone, indeed, say that they are not wronged and are not suffering outrageous treatment, when they see this fellow's mistress, in defiance of all decency, decked out with masses of jewels and with fine raiment, going abroad in splendid state and flaunting the luxury purchased with what is ours, while they are themselves too poor to enjoy such things? Are they not suffering a wrong even greater than my own? And in adopting such a manner of life is not Olympiodorus not manifestly mad and beside himself?

Now, that he may not claim, men of the jury, that I am speaking thus with a view to slandering him because of this suit, the clerk shall read you a deposition from his relatives and mine.“ Deposition ” [56]

The defendant Olympiodorus, then, is a person of this sort. He is not only dishonest, but in the opinion of all his relatives and friends is proved by the manner of life which he has adopted to be mentally deranged; to use the language of the lawgiver Solon, he is beside himself as no other man ever was, for he is under the influence of a woman who is a harlot. And Solon established a law5 that all acts shall be null and void which are done by anyone under the influence of a woman, especially of a woman of her stamp. [57] In this matter the lawgiver made wise provision; and I entreat you—and not I only, but my wife also, the sister of this Olympiodorus, and my daughter, his niece,we all beg and implore you, men of the jury, （for I would have you imagine that these women are here present before you）, [58] if it be possible, to prevail upon this fellow Olympiodorus not to do us wrong, but if he refuses, and you cannot prevail upon him, then to bear in mind all that has been said and give whatever verdict shall seem to you best and most in accordance with justice. If you do this, you will reach a decision that is fair and one that is to the advantage of us all, and especially to the advantage of this fellow Olympiodorus himself.

1 There were two demes of this name, one on the east coast of Attica and the other on the Saronic Gulf. The former belonged to the tribe Aegeis, the latter to the tribe Cecropis. There is nothing to show which one is here referred to.

2 Acharnae was a deme of the tribe Oeneïs.

3 Acarnania was a state on the west coast of Greece, north of the Gulf of Corinth.

4 The date was 343 B.C.

5 This law is cited in Dem. 46.14

Let no one of you think, men of the jury, that it is a thing beyond belief that Timotheus should have owed money to my father and is now being prosecuted by me in this suit. On the contrary, when I have called to your minds the occasion on which the loan was contracted and the events in which the defendant was at that time involved and the straits to which he was reduced, you will then hold that my father was most generous to Timotheus, and that the defendant is not only ungrateful, but is the most dishonest of humankind; [2] for he got from my father all that he asked, and received from the bank money at a time when he was in great need and when he was in grievous danger of losing his life1; yet he has not only made no return, but even seeks to rob me of the money which was granted him. And yet, if matters had gone badly with Timotheus, my father's money, too, was lost, for he lent it without security and without witnesses; but, if the defendant got off safe, it rested with him to choose when, having the funds available, he should pay us back. [3] But for all that, men of the jury, my father did not count the holding of large sums of money as important a matter as to supply Timotheus with what he needed in the time of his distress. No, my father thought, men of the jury, that, if Timotheus then got safely out of those dangers and returned home from the service of the king,2 when the defendant was in better circumstances than at the time, he would not only recover his money, but would be in a position to obtain whatever else he might wish from Timotheus. [4] But as matters have not turned out as my father expected, since the money which Timotheus asked of my father and gratefully received from the bank he is determined, now that my father is dead, to pay back only if forced to do so by hostile legal procedure, and by convincing proof of his indebtedness, and, if he can convince you by deceitful arguments that he is not liable, to rob us of the money—I count it necessary to inform you fully of everything from the beginning: the several loans, the purpose for which he expended each sum, and the dates at which the obligations were contracted. [5] And let no one of you wonder that I have accurate knowledge of these matters; for bankers are accustomed to write out memoranda of the sums which they lend, the purposes for which funds are desired, and the payments which a borrower makes, in order that his receipts and his payments may be known to them for their accounts. [6] It was then, in the archonship of Socratidas,3 in the month Munichion,4 when the defendant Timotheus was about to sail on his second expedition and was already in the Peiraeus on the point of putting to sea, that, being in want of money, he came to my father in the port and urged him to lend him one thousand three hundred and fifty-one drachmae two obols, declaring that he needed that additional sum; and he bade him give the money to his treasurer Antimachus, who at that time managed everything for him. [7] It was Timotheus who borrowed the money from my father, and who bade him give it to his treasurer Antimachus, but the one who received the money from Phormio at the bank was Autonomus, who throughout all that time served as secretary to Antimachus. [8] When, therefore, the money was paid out, the bank recorded as debtor Timotheus, who had requested the loan, but made a memorandum in the name of Antimachus, to whom Timotheus had ordered the money to be paid, and also named Autonomus, whom Antimachus had sent to the bank to receive the money, the amount being one thousand three hundred and fifty-one drachmae two obols. The first loan, then, which Timotheus contracted at the time of his going to sea, when he was serving as general the second time, was for this amount. [9] Again, when you had removed him from his command as general because he failed to sail round the Peloponnesus, and he had been given over to the popular assembly for trial under a very heavy charge, when he was being prosecuted by Callistratus and Iphicrates,5 men of power both in action and in speech, and they and their fellow-pleaders so influenced your minds by their accusations against him [10] that you condemned and put to death Antimachus, his treasurer and a man most devoted to him,—yes, and confiscated his property; while Timotheus himself, thanks to the intercession of all his friends and relatives, and also of Alcetas and Jason,6 who were allies of yours, you were reluctantly induced to pardon, but you deposed him from his command;— [11] such were the charges under which he lay, and he was in desperate need of money. For all his property had been mortgaged, pillars had been set up on it, and other people were in control. His farm in the plain had been taken over as security by the son of Eumelidas; the rest of his property was mortgaged, for seven minae each, to the sixty trierarchs who set out on the voyage with him, which money he as admiral had forced them to distribute among their crews for maintenance. [12] When he was deposed, he reported in the account which he rendered, that he had at that time himself given those seven minae for the ships from the military fund, but, fearing lest the trierarchs should give evidence against him and he should be convicted of lying, he borrowed privately from each one of them seven minae, and gave them a mortgage on his property. Yet he is now seeking to rob them of this money, and he has dug up the pillars. [13] He was hard pressed on every side, his life was in extreme danger because of the gravity of the misfortunes which had befallen the state, the army in Calaureia7 had been broken up for want of pay, the allies around Peloponnesus were being besieged by the Lacedaemonians, Iphicrates and Callistratus were accusing him of being responsible for the present disaster, and, furthermore, those who came from the army were reporting before the assembly the distress and need that existed, and at the same time individuals kept receiving word from their relatives and friends telling of their plight. These things you all heard in the popular assembly at that time, and you remember how each man of you felt toward him; you are not without knowledge of what people were saying. [14] Well, then, when he was on the point of sailing home for his trial, the defendant, while still in Calaureia, borrowed from Antiphanes of Lamptrae,8 who sailed with Philip the shipowner as his treasurer, the sum of one thousand drachmae to distribute among the Boeotian trierarchs, that they might remain with the fleet until his trial should come off, for fear lest, if the Boeotian fleet should first be broken up and the troops scattered here and there to their homes, you might be the more incensed against him. [15] For although our countrymen endured their privations and remained at their posts, the Boeotians declared that they would not stay, unless somebody should furnish them with their daily rations. Under stress of necessity, then, at that time he borrowed the thousand drachmae from Antiphanes, who sailed with Philip, the shipowner, as his treasurer, and gave them to the admiral of the Boeotian fleet. [16] But when he got back to Athens, both Philip and Antiphanes demanded of him the thousand drachmae which he had borrowed in Calaureia, and were angry at not receiving their money at once. Timotheus, then, fearing that his enemies might learn that the thousand drachmae, which in his report he stated he had paid for the Boeotian fleet out of the military fund, had in fact been lent by Philip, who could not get them back, [17] and fearing also that Philip might give testimony against him at his trial, came to my father and begged him to settle with Philip, and to lend him the thousand drachmae to pay Philip. And my father, seeing the seriousness of the trial in which the defendant was involved, and in what plight he was, felt pity for him, and, taking him to the bank, bade Phormio, who was cashier, to pay Philip the thousand drachmae, and to enter on the books Timotheus as owing that amount. [18]

To prove that these statements are true, I shall bring forward Phormio, who paid the money, as a witness, as soon as I shall have explained to you the other loan, in order that, being informed through the same deposition about the whole of the debt, you may know that I am speaking the truth. I shall also call before you Antiphanes, who lent the sum of one thousand drachmae to the defendant in Calaureia, and who was present when Philip received payment of the money from my father here in Athens. [19] That I did not put the deposition in the box before the arbitrator was due to a trick of Antiphanes, who kept saying that he would give evidence for me on the day set for the decision; but when the hearing was in progress before the arbitrator, although he was summoned from his house （for he was nowhere to be seen）, he was persuaded by Timotheus to fail to appear as a witness. On my depositing a drachma in his name on a charge of failing to appear, as the law prescribes, the arbitrator did not make an award against the defendant, but decided in his favor, and then went off, for it was already late. [20] Now, however, I have entered suit on my own account for damages against Antiphanes because he neither gave testimony for me, nor asked under oath for a postponement, as the law provides. And I demand of him that he get up and state under oath before you, first, whether he lent Timotheus a thousand drachmae in Calaureia, and secondly, whether Philip received here payment of that sum from my father. [21] The defendant himself practically admitted before the arbitrator that my father paid Philip the thousand drachmae; but he declared that it was not to him （Timotheus） that my father lent the money, but to the Boeotian admiral, who, he alleges, gave some copper as security for the sum. However, that in this he was not stating the truth, but that he borrowed the money himself and is seeking to avoid payment, I shall prove to you, when I shall have informed you in detail regarding his other debts also. [22]

In the month Maimacterion9 in the archonship of Asteius,10 Alcetas and Jason came to visit Timotheus to be present at his trial and give him their support, and they arrived at his house in Peiraeus in the Hippodameia11 when it was already evening. Being at a loss how to entertain them, he sent his body servant Aeschrion to my father and bade him ask for the loan of some bedding and cloaks and two silver bowls and to borrow a mina of silver. [23] And my father, hearing from Aeschrion, the body-servant of the defendant, that they had arrived and the urgent need for which the request was made, both supplied the objects for which the slave had come and lent the mina of silver which he asked to borrow. Well, when he had been acquitted of the charge, the defendant found himself in sore straits for money to pay his private debts and the taxes to the state, and my father, seeing this, did not venture to demand repayment of the money at once; [24] for, while he did not think that Timotheus would defraud him when he had the means to pay, he did not himself see any way to exact payment from him when he was without means. So, after the departure of Alcetas and Jason, Aeschrion, the defendant's body-servant, brought back the bedding and the cloaks, but he did not return the two bowls, for which he had asked at the time he borrowed the bedding and the mina of silver., when Alcetas and Jason arrived at the defendant's house. [25] Then, when he was about to leave the country to take service with the king, and had arranged to sail as the king's general to carry on the Egyptian war, in order that he might not have to submit an account and vouchers for his military administration here, he sent for my father to come to the Paralion,12 thanked him for his former services to him, [26] and, introducing to him Philondas, a Megarian by birth, but one who resided as an alien at Athens,—a man who at that time was loyally devoted to the defendant and was employed in his service—he begged my father, that when Philonidas （whom he then introduced to him） should come back from Macedonia bringing some timber, which had been given to the defendant by Amyntas,13 he would supply him with money for the freight of the timber, and let him deliver the timber to the defendant's house in Peiraeus; for he declared the timber belonged to him. [27] At the same time in preferring this request, he made statements which are quite inconsistent with his present actions. For he said that even if he should not obtain what he asked of my father, he would not be angry, as another might who failed to obtain what he wanted, but would show his gratitude, if he should ever find himself able to do so, for the services which my father had rendered him at his request. On hearing this my father was pleased at his words and commended him for remembering the favors shown him, and promised to do all that he asked. [28] Timotheus, then, after this set sail to join the king's generals, but Philondas, to whom he had presented my father as one who would pay the freight, when he should come back with the timber, set out on his journey to Macedonia. The time was about the month Thargelion,14 in the archonship of Asteius. [29] In the following year Philondas came back from Macedonia, bringing the timber, while Timotheus was absent in the king's service. He approached my father and asked him to furnish the freight for the timber, in order that he might settle with the shipowner, as Timotheus had begged my father to do, when he was about to sail and had introduced Philondas to him. So my father took him to the bank and ordered Phormio to pay him the freight of the timber, one thousand seven hundred and fifty drachmae. [30] And Phormio counted out the money, and set down Timotheus as owing it （for it was he who had asked my father to furnish the freight for the timber, and the timber was his）, and he wrote a memorandum of the purpose for which the money was received, and the name of the person who received it. The date of the transaction was the archonship of Alcisthenes,15 the year after Timotheus set sail to take service with the king. [31] About the same time Timosthenes of Aegilia16 also arrived home from a journey abroad which he had made on private business. Timosthenes was a friend and partner of Phormio, and when he set sail he had given to Phormio to put away for him along with other articles two bowls of Lycian workmanship. By chance the boy, not knowing that these bowls were the property of someone else, gave them to Aeschrion, the body-servant of the defendant, when he was sent to my father by Timotheus and requested the bedding and the cloaks and the bowls, and borrowed the mina of silver at the time when Alcetas and Jason came to the defendant's house. [32] When Timosthenes reached home and asked for the return of the bowls, Timotheus being still abroad in the king's service, my father persuaded him to accept the value of the bowls, as much as they were worth by weight, namely two hundred and thirty-seven drachmae. So he paid to Timosthenes the value of the bowls and entered on his books the defendant as owing what he paid to Timosthenes for the bowls in addition to the rest of the debt which the defendant owed him. [33]

To prove that all these statements of mine are true the clerk shall read you the depositions which bear upon them; first, that of those who were at that time clerks in the bank and paid the money from its funds to the persons to whom Timotheus bade them pay it, and then that of the man who received the price of the bowls.“ Depositions ”

You have learned, then, from the depositions which have just been read, that I am telling you nothing but the truth regarding the matters which I mentioned. And that the defendant himself admits that the timber brought by Philondas was delivered to his house in the Peiraeus,—this, too, is proved by the deposition which will be read to you.“ Deposition ” [34]

That the timber, then, which Philondas brought was the property of the defendant I have his own testimony to prove; for he admitted before the arbitrator that it was delivered to his house in Peiraeus, as those who heard him have testified. But besides this I shall try to prove to you by circumstantial evidence that I am telling the truth. [35] For do you suppose, men of the jury, that, if the timber had not been the property of Timotheus, and if he had not begged my father—at the time he introduced Philondas to him, when he was about to set sail to join the king's generals—to provide the freight, my father would ever have allowed Philondas to carry the timber away from the harbor, seeing that it was pledeged as security to him for the freight, and would not rather have set one of his servants to keep watch and to receive the price as the timber was sold, until he had recovered his money, if we suppose that the timber was the property of Philondas and was brought in for the sake of trade? [36] Then, besides this, does it seem to anyone likely, that if Timotheus had not bidden my father to supply the freight for the timber given to him by Amyntas, my father would have trusted Philondas, and have suffered him to deliver the timber to the defendant's house? Or, how is it possible that Philondas, as is stated by the defendant, brought in the timber for the sake of trade, and yet that the defendant on his return used this timber for the building of his house? [37] And observe this also, that many worthy citizens were friends of the defendant and looked after his affairs while Timotheus was abroad in the service of the king, and yet not one of these has dared to testify on his behalf either that Philondas did not receive from the bank the freight of the timber, or that, having received it, he paid it back; or, again, that any one of them settled for the freight of the timber which Philondas brought and which had been given to the defendant by Amyntas. For they deem it a matter of higher import to themselves to preserve their character as worthy and honorable men than to do a favor to Timotheus by giving false testimony. [38] But they declared that they would not testify to the truth against him; for they said he was their friend. Since, then, no one of those who are his friends, and who looked after his affairs when he was abroad in the service of the king, has ventured to testify either that Philondas did not receive from the bank the freight for the timber, or that any one of them paid it, is it not reasonable that you should believe that I am speaking the truth? [39] Surely he will not venture to say this, that anyone other than my father paid the freight for the timber which Philondas brought. If he does insist upon this argument, demand of him that he produce before you the deposition of the person who paid the freight for the timber. For it is admitted that he was himself abroad in the king's service, and as for Philondas, whom he sent to fetch the timber and whom he introduced to my father—you found on your return from the king's service, Timotheus, that he was dead. [40] It must be, then, that some other of your relatives and friends, whom you left to look after your affairs when you were about to go abroad, knows from what source Philondas got the freight for the timber and paid the shipowner, if you deny that you introduced my father to Philondas, or that Philondas got the freight for the timber from my father. [41] However, you cannot produce a deposition from any of your friends to prove that the freight for the timber was not received from the bank, while you were abroad; therefore one or the other of two things follows: either you are on good terms with no one of your friends and have no confidence in any of your connections, or else, though knowing well that Philondas did receive the freight for the timber from my father, to whom you introduced him when you were about to set out on your voyage, you see fit to rob us, if you can, and enrich yourself. [42] On my part, men of the jury, in addition to the deposition which I have produced before you of those who at the time were serving as clerks in the bank and who paid the money to the persons to whom Timotheus bade them pay it, I was ready also to confirm my statements by an oath, which the clerk will read to you.“ Oath ”

Now, men of the jury, my father not only wrote out and left to me a record of his credits, but also during his illness told me of each particular debt that was due to him, the person in whose possession the money was, and the purpose for which it was received; and he made these statements to my brother also. To prove that I am speaking the truth in this, read, please, the deposition of my brother.“ Deposition ” [43]

Well then, that Timotheus was left by my father owing us the money as a debtor for which I am suing him, and that this is a part of my share, my brother has testified, and so has Phormio, who paid the money; and I was ready confirm the fact by an oath. But when the defendant challenged me before the arbitrator, bidding me bring the books from the bank and demanding copies, and sent Phrasiendes to the bank, I brought out the books and allowed Phrasiendes to examine them and to copy out the entries of all the sums that Timotheus owed. To prove that the defendant himself admitted having received the copies, please read the deposition.“ Deposition ” [44]

I therefore brought the books to the arbitrator. Phormio and Euphraeus, who had paid the money to the persons designated by Timotheus, were present, and they exposed his falsehoods by showing the date at which he had contracted each loan, the person who received the money, and the use for which he expended it. Regarding the one thousand three hundred and fifty-one drachmae two obols, which he borrowed as the first loan in the month Munichion in the archonship of Socratidas, when he was about to set out on his voyage, and which the defendant ordered to be paid to Antimachus, his treasurer, he declared that my father lent the money to Antimachus on his own private account, and that he （the defendant） did not himself receive it. [45] To prove the truth of this statement he has produced no witness, but is vigorous in his assertion, in order that it may not appear that he is himself defrauding us, but that Antimachus borrowed the money. And yet, men of the jury, I will give you a convincing proof that my father lent the money, not to Antimachus, but to Timotheus when he was about to sail. For which do you think would have been the easier course for my father, to file a claim against the estate of Antimachus, when his property was confiscated, for this sum as due to him, supposing he had lent it to Antimachus, [46] or to wait until the defendant might be in better circumstances so as to collect it from him, seeing that he had at that time little hope of deliverance? Surely, if he had filed the claim, he would not have been at a loss to find the deposit money,17 nor would you have had any cause to disbelieve him. For you all know that my father had no wish unjustly to acquire public funds, but that he willingly expended his own money in your service whenever you bade him do so; [47] and besides, Callistratus, who sold the goods of Antimachus, was a friend of his, so that my father was meeting no opposition. What possible motive then, could my father have had to leave Timotheus inscribed in his books is our debtor, if he did not really owe the money, rather than file his claim and recover his debt from the confiscated estate of Antimachus? [48]

Now with regard to the one thousand drachmae which he borrowed from Antiphanes in Calaureia to distribute to the Boeotian trierarchs,when he was about to sail home for his trial, and which he paid to Philip the shipowner after he had got them from my father, he maintains that the Boeotian admiral borrowed the money and gave my father some copper as security for it. That this, however, is untrue, I will give you a convincing proof. [49] In the first place, it is proved that the defendant borrowed the thousand drachmae in Calaureia, and not the Boeotian admiral; secondly, that Philip demanded payment of the thousand drachmae here from Timotheus and not from the Boeotian admiral, and that Timotheus made payment and not the Boeotian admiral; for it was quite proper that the Boeotian admiral should receive from Timotheus the maintenance for the crews of his ships, since the pay for the troops came out of a common contribution, and it was you, Timotheus, who collected all the money from the allies, and you were bound to account for it. [50] Again, supposing the Boeotian fleet had disbanded and the troops had dispersed to their various homes, the Boeotian admiral was in no danger from the Athenians, nor was any trial impending over him; you, however, were in very great danger, and in your utter terror you thought it would be a great aid to your defence, if the Boeotian triremes should stay with the fleet until your trial should come off. Besides, from what motive of friendship pray, would my father have lent the one thousand drachmae to the Boeotian admiral whom he did not even know? Ah, but he says the admiral pledged some copper as security. How much, then? and from what country was it imported? [51] And from what source did the Boeotian admiral get the copper? Was it imported by way of trade, or was it obtained from prisoners? Then who were the persons who brought the copper to my father? Were they hired men, or slaves? [52] And which one of our slaves was it who received it? For, if slaves brought it, he ought to have delivered them up for the torture, but if hired men, he ought to have demanded for the torture the slave of ours who received and weighed the copper; for, I fancy, neither would the one taking the copper in pledge accept it, nor the one offering it give it over, without weighing; nor was my father likely to carry the copper and weigh it himself, since he had slaves who were accustomed to receive the articles given as security for loans. [53] And I certainly wonder for what possible reason the Boeotian admiral should have given the copper to my father as security, if he owed a thousand drachmae to Philip. Was it that Philip would not have been glad to receive interest, if his money was lent safely and on security? or that Philip had no money? So, what need was there for the Boeotian admiral to ask my father to lend the thousand drachmae and pay Philip, rather than give the copper as security to Philip? [54] But, men of the jury, the copper was not given as security, nor did the Boeotian admiral borrow the thousand drachmae from my father, but this man Timotheus borrowed them, being in great distress; and the urgent need, to meet which he used the money, I have told you. But instead of evincing gratitude for the confidence shown him and the loan which he received from my father, he thinks it proper to defraud us, if he can, even of the principal. [55]

Now, as to the bowls and the mina of silver, which he borrowed from my father when he sent his bodyservant Aeschrion to my father in the night, I asked him before the arbitrator if Aeschrion was still a slave, and demanded that he be put to the test “in his hide.”18 He answered that Aeschrion was free, so I desisted from my demand; but I required him to put in a deposition made by Aeschrion as being a free man. [56] He, however, neither provided a deposition from Aeschrion, as being free, nor would he deliver him up as a slave that proof might be had from his body; for he was afraid that, if he produced a deposition from him as being free, I should bring suit for false testimony, and after proving that Aeschrion had testified falsely, should proceed against Timotheus himself for subornation, as the law provides; and if, again, he should deliver him up for the torture, he was afraid that Aeschrion would state the truth against him. [57] And yet it was a fine opportunity for him, if he was unable to produce witnesses concerning the other receipts of money, to prove this at any rate by the words of Aeschrion—that the bowls and the mina of silver were not received, and that Aeschrion was not sent by him to my father; and then to use this as evidence to you that I am uttering falsehoods in regard to my other claims upon him, seeing that his slave, whom I declare to have received the bowls and the mina of silver, was proved by the torture not to have received them. [58] If, then, this would have been a strong piece of evidence for him to use before you, that, namely, he offered to deliver up Aeschrion, whom I declare to have been sent by the defendant and to have received the bowls from my father and to have borrowed the mina of silver, let it also be evidence for me to use before you, that knowing my claims to be true, he does not dare to deliver up Aeschrion for the torture. [59]

Well, he will make the defence that he was listed in the books of the bank in the archonship of Alcisthenes as having received the freight of the timber and the price of the bowls, which my father paid to Timosthenes on his behalf, and that he was not at that time in the country, but was in the service of the king. About this I wish to give you accurate information, that you may understand clearly how the books of the bank are kept. [60] The defendant in the month Thargelion in the archonship of Asteius when he was about to sail to take service with the king, introduced Philondas to my father; and in the following year in the archonship of Alcisthenes, Philondas arrived bringing the timber from Macedonia and received the freight from my father, while Timotheus was abroad in the service of the king. Accordingly they entered the defendant as debtor at the time they paid the money, not at the time when, being in Athens, he had introduced Philondas to my father. [61] For, when he introduced him, the timber had not yet come, but Philondas was about to make the journey to fetch it; when, however, he came back, bringing the timber, the defendant was abroad, but Philondas received the freight for the timber according to the defendant's orders, and the timber was delivered to the defendant's house in Peiraeus. That Timotheus was not well provided with funds when he sailed from Athens is already known to all of you to whom his estate was mortgaged, and whom he is now seeking to defraud.

However, to prove that he borrowed money from some of our citizens without security, since he had no equivalent security to give, please read the deposition.“ Deposition ” [62]

Now regarding the bowls which Aeschrion, the body-servant of the defendant, requested of me in the month Maimacterion in the archonship of Asteius, when Timotheus was in Athens at the time when he entertained Alcetas and Jason, and with the value of which he was debited in the archonship of Alcisthenes—for some time my father supposed he would return the bowls which he had borrowed; but when he went off without having returned them, and the bowls of Timosthenes were no longer in the custody of Phormio, and the one who had deposited them came and demanded their return, my father paid the price of the bowls to Timosthenes, and wrote the defendant down as owing this sum in addition to the rest of his debt. [63] If, then, he makes use of this defence, that he was not in Athens at the time when he was debited with the cost of the bowls, make this reply to him: “You received them, when here, and since you did not return them, and were abroad, and the bowls which the depositor claimed were not there, you were debited with their value, that sum, namely, which was paid for the bowls.” [64] Ah but, he will perhaps say, my father ought to have demanded the return of the bowls from him. But my father saw in what straits you were, Timotheus. He trusted you in regard to the rest of your debt, and believed that after your return to Athens he would recover his money from you, when you should be better off for funds. Was he, then, going to distrust you in the matter of the bowls? He promised at your request that he would provide the freight for the timber when you were sailing to take service with the king; was he, then, going to distrust you because of a couple of bowls? He did not demand of you that you pay the rest of the debt, because he saw that you were without funds. Was he, then, going to demand the bowls? [65]

I wish now to speak about the challenge to an oath, which I tendered the defendant, and he tendered me. For after I had put an oath in the evidence-box, he thought that, by taking an oath himself, he could be quit of the affair. And, if I had not known that he had flagrantly perjured himself in many solemn oaths both to states and to individuals, I should have allowed him to take the oath; but as it was, seeing that I had witnesses to prove that the persons appointed by him had in fact received the money from the bank, and conclusive circumstantial evidence as well, it seemed to me a monstrous thing to give an oath to one who would not only take no care to swear honestly, but who, when it was a question of gain, has not spared even temples. [66] The specific instances of the perjuries which he has committed without scruple would make a long story; but I will call to your minds the most flagrant instances and those of which you are all well aware. You know that he swore in the assembly, imprecating destruction upon himself and dedicating his property to sacred uses, if he should fail to indict Iphicrates as a usurper of the rights of citizenship. Yet, although he had sworn and promised this in the assembly, no long time afterwards, in order to serve his own interests, he gave his daughter in marraige to the son of Iphicrates. [67] When a man, then, felt no shame in deceiving you to whom he had pledged his word, though there are laws which declare that, if a man deceive the people by a promise, he shall be liable to impeachment,—when, after swearing and imprecating destruction upon himself, he had no fear of the gods in whose name he had perjured himself—was it strange that I was unwilling to allow him to take an oath? Again, not very long ago, he once more solemnly declared in the assembly that he had not adequate provision for his old age—he, who possesses so large an estate; so insatiate and grasping is his character. [68] I should be glad, however, to ask you whether you feel anger against bankers who have failed. For, if you have reason to feel anger against them because they do you injury, is it not reasonable for you to support those who do you no injury? Surely it is through men like Timotheus that banks are caused to fail; for when they are in need they borrow money, and think they should obtain credit because of their reputation; but when they are in funds they do not make payments but seek to defraud their creditors. [69]

All matters, men of the jury, in proof of which I was able to provide witnesses, have been proved to you by witnesses; further, I have shown you by circumstantial evidence that Timotheus owes the money to my father. I beg you therefore to aid me in recovering from my father's debtors the estate which he left me.

1 His treasurer, Antimachus, actually was condemned to death, and Timotheus himself was saved from a like fate only by the intercession of influential friends. See Dem. 49.10.

2 After being deposed from his command of the Athenian fleet in 373 B.C., Timotheus entered the service of the king of Persia.

3 The archonship of Socratidas fell in 374-373 B.C.

4 Munichion corresponds to the latter half of April and the prior half of May.

5 Important figures in the political life of Athens. The former was an orator, the latter one of the generals.

6 Alcetas was king of the Molossi in Epeirus, Jason tyrant of Pherae in Thessaly. With both of these men Timotheus had formed connections while in command of the fleet.

7 Calaureia was an island off the east coast of Peloponnesus, the modern Poros.

8 Lamptrae was a deme of the tribe Erectheis.

9 Maimacterion corresponds to the latter half of November and the prior half of December.

10 The archonship of Asteius falls in 373-372 B.C.

11 This was an agora built by the architect Hippodamus.

12 The monument in the Peiraeus of the Attic hero Paralus.

13 Amyntas was king of Macedonia.

14 Thargelion corresponds to the latter half of May and the prior half of June.

15 The archonship of Alcisthenes falls in 372-371 B.C.

16 Aegilia was a deme of the tribe Antiochis.

17 This was a small sum to cover court charges.

18 That is, under the torture; in this case apparently scourging.

In suits of this nature, men of the jury, it is fitting that those who are to render a decision, as well as the litigants themselves, should give the closest attention. For the suit is not a private one concerning Polycles and myself alone, but it touches also the interests of the state as well. In cases where the charges indeed are of a private nature, but the injury is public, it is surely fitting that you should listen and decide aright. If I had come before you quarrelling with Polycles about a contract of some other sort, the contest would have concerned Polycles and myself alone; but as it is, the question concerns the succession to a ship, and extra trierarchal expenses for five months and six days, and it concerns also the laws, whether they are to be in force, or not. [2] It seems to me, therefore, to be necessary to explain all the facts to you from the beginning. And by the gods, men of the jury, I beg you not to think that I am talking idly, if I set forth at some length what I have expended and what I have done, to show that my several services were rendered opportunely, and that they were helpful to the state. If anyone is able to show that I am uttering falsehoods, let him get up in the time allotted to me and disprove whatever statement I may make to you which he holds to be false. But if my statements are true, and no one would contradict them save the defendant, I make of you all a request that is fair. [3] All you who were in the army and were present in the campaign, call to mind and tell to those who sit by you my own efforts and the troubles and distresses in which the state was involved at that crisis, in order that you may know from this evidence what manner of man I am in carrying out the orders you lay upon me. And all of you who stayed at home, listen to me in silence, while I set forth before you all the facts, and produce in support of every statement that I make the laws and decrees both of the senate and the people, and the testimony of witnesses. [4]

On the twenty-fourth day of the month Metageitnion1 in the archonship of Molon,2 when an assembly had been held and tidings of many serious events had been brought before you, you voted that the trierarchs （of whom I was one） should launch their ships. It is not necessary for me to go into details regarding the crisis which had at that time befallen the state; you of yourselves know that Tenos3 had been seized by Alexander, and its people had been reduced to slavery; [5] that Miltocythes4 had revolted from Cotys, and had sent ambassadors regarding an alliance, begging you to send troops to his aid, and offering to restore the Chersonesus; that the Proconnesians,5 your allies, were requesting you in the assembly to come to their aid, stating that the Cyzicenes6 were pressing them hard in war by both land and sea, and imploring you not to look idly on while they perished. [6] When you heard all these tidings at that time in the assembly from both the speakers themselves and those who supported them; when furthermore the merchants and shipowners were about to sail out of the Pontus, and the Byzantines and Calchedonians7 and Cyzicenes were forcing their ships to put in to their ports because of the scarcity of grain in their own countries; seeing also that the price of grain was advancing in the Peiraeus, and that there was not very much to be bought, you voted that the trierarchs should launch their ships and bring them up to the pier, and that the members of the senate and the demarchs should make out lists of the demesmen and reports of available seamen, and that the armament should be despatched at once, and aid sent to the various regions. And this decree, proposed by Aristophon, was passed, as follows:“ Decree ” [7]

The decree, then, you have heard, men of the jury. For my own part, when the sailors listed by the demesmen did not appear, save a very few, and these incompetent, I dismissed them; and having mortgaged my property and borrowed money, I was the first to man my ship, hiring the best sailors possible by giving to each man large bonuses and advance payments. More than that, I furnished the ship with equipment wholly my own, taking nothing from the public stores, and I made everything as beautiful and magnificent as possible, outdoing all the other trierarchs. As for rowers, I hired the best that could be had. [8] And not only did I defray the trierarchal expenses, which at that time were so very heavy, but I also paid in advance no small part of the taxes which you had ordered to be collected for the cost of the expedition. For when you had voted that the members of the senate on behalf of the demesmen should report the names of those who were to pay taxes in advance, both of those who were members of the demes and those who owned property in them, my name was reported from three demes, as my property was in land. [9] Of these I was the first to pay my taxes in advance, nor did I seek to get myself excused either on the ground that I was serving as trierarch and could not defray the costs of two public services at once, or that the laws did not permit such a thing. And I have never recovered the money which I advanced, because at the time I was abroad in your service as trierarch, and afterwards, when I returned, I found that the money from those who had resources had already been gathered in by others, and that those who were left had nothing. [10]

To prove that I am stating the truth to you in this, the clerk shall read you the depositions covering these matters, those of the persons who at that time collected the military supplies and of the despatching board; also the record of the pay which I gave out every month to the rowers and the marines, receiving from the generals subsistence-money alone, except pay for two months only in a period of a year and five months also a list of the sailors who were hired, and how much money each of them received; to the end that from this evidence you may know how generous I was and why the defendant was unwilling to take over the ship from me when the term of my trierarchy had expired.“ Depositions ” [11]

The proof, then, that I am uttering no falsehoods in regard to the matters which I have mentioned, you have learned, men of the jury, from the reading of the depositions. But, further, you will all agree with me that what I am about to say is true. It is admitted that the usefulness of a ship is done away with, first, if the men are not paid, and secondly, if she put into the Peiraeus before her expedition is finished; for in that case there is a great deal of desertion, and those of the sailors who remain are unwilling to embark again, unless additional money is given them for their household expenses. Both of these things happened to me, men of the jury, so that my trierarchy became the more costly. [12] For I received no pay from the general for the space of eight months, and I sailed home to Peiraeus with the ambassadors because my ship was the fastest sailer, and again, when I was ordered by the people to take Menon the general to the Hellespont to replace Autocles, who had been removed from his command, I set sail on short notice from Athens. In the place of the seamen who had deserted I hired others, giving them large bonuses and advance payments, and I gave to those of the original sailors who stayed with me something to leave behind for the maintenance of their households in addition to what they had before; [13] for I was well aware of the need they felt, and how it pressed upon each one, and I was myself embarrassed for funds as, by Zeus and Apollo, no one could believe, who had not accurately followed the course of my affairs. However, I mortgaged my farm to Thrasylochus and Archeneüs, and having borrowed thirty minae from them and distributed the money among the crew, I put to sea, that no part of the people's orders might fail to be carried out, as far as it depended on me. And the people, hearing of this, gave me a vote of thanks, and invited me to dine in the Prytaneum.

To prove that I am speaking the truth in this, the clerk shall read you the deposition dealing with these facts, and the decree of the people.“ Deposition ”“ Decree ” [14]

Then, when we came to the Hellespont, and the term of my trierarchy had expired, and no pay had been given to the soldiers except for two months when another general, Timomachus, had come—though even he brought to the fleet no new trierarchs to relieve those in service,—many of my crew became discouraged and went off, deserting the ship, some to the mainland to take military service, and some to the fleet of the Thasians,8 and Maronites,9 won over by the promise of high pay and receiving substantial sums in advance. [15] They saw also that my resources were by now exhausted, that the state was neglectful of them, that our allies were in need, and the generals not to be depended on, and that they had been deceived by the words of many of them; and they knew that the term of my trierarchy had expired and that their voyage was not to be homeward and that no successor had arrived to take command from whom they could expect any relief. For the more ambitious I had been to man my ship with good rowers, by so much was the desertion from me greater than from the other trierarchs. [16] For the others had this advantage at any rate, that the sailors who had come to their ships drawn from the official lists, stayed with them in order to make sure of their return home when the general should discharge them; whereas mine, trusting in their skill as able rowers, went off wherever they were likely to be re-employed at the highest wages, thinking more of their gain for the immediate present than of the danger impending over them, if they should ever be caught by me. [17]

Consequently when my affairs were in the condition which I have described, and at the same time I was ordered by the general, Timomachus, to sail to Hieron10 to convoy the grain, though he provided no pay （word had been brought that the Byzantines and the Calchedonians were again bringing the ships into port and forcing them to unload their grain）, I borrowed money from Archidemus of Anaphlystus,11 fifteen minae at interest, and I secured from Nicippus, the shipowner, who happened to be in Sestus,12 eight hundred drachmae, as a maritime loan at 12 1/2 per cent, on condition that I should pay him principal and interest when the ship should get safely back to Athens. [18] Further, I sent Euctemon, the pentecontarch,13 to Lampsacus,14 giving him money and letters to friends of my father, and bade him hire for me the best sailors he could. I myself stayed in Sestus and gave some money—all I had—to the old sailors who stayed with me, since the term of my trierarchy had expired, and I secured also some other sailors at full pay, while the general was making ready for his voyage to Hieron. [19] But when Euctemon came back from Lampsacus, bringing the sailors whom he had hired, and the general gave the word for us to put to sea, it happened that Euctemon suddenly fell sick, and was in a very serious condition. I, therefore, gave him his pay, adding money for his journey, and sent him home; while I secured another pentecontarch and put out to sea to convoy the grain, and I stayed there forty-five days, until the vessels sailed out from Pontus after the rising of Arcturus.15 [20] When I arrived at Sestus, I expected to sail for home, as my term of service had expired, and I had already served two months beyond it and no successor had arrived to take over the ship. The general, Timomachus, however,—for an embassy from the Maronites had come to him, begging him to convoy their grain ships—ordered us trierarchs to make cables fast to the ships and tow them to Maroneia—a long voyage across the open sea. [21]

I have told all these facts to you from the beginning, that you may know how much I have myself expended and how burdensome my service as trierarch has been to me, and all the expenses which I subsequently bore in the interest of the defendant by serving beyond my term, since he did not come to take over the ship, and all the dangers I myself incurred from storms and from the enemy. For after we had convoyed the ships to Maroneia, and had arrived at Thasos, Timomachus came and undertook again in conjunction with the Thasians to convoy grain and a body of peltasts16 to Strymê,17 with the intention of taking the place himself. [22] However, the Maronites arrayed their ships against us in defence of the place, and offered battle, and our men were tired out with their long voyage and from towing the ships from Thasos to Strymê besides, it was stormy, and the place offered no harbor, and it was impossible to go ashore and get a meal, for the country was hostile, and all around the wall bands of mercenaries and barbarians from the neighborhood lay encamped; so we were forced to ride at anchor all night long in the open sea without food and without sleep, keeping watch lest the ships of the Maronites should attack us in the night. [23] Nor was this all. It was our lot to have by night rain and thunder and a violent wind at that season of the year （for the time was just at the setting of the Pleiades18）; so can you not imagine, men of the jury, what despondency fell upon our men, and what an amount of desertion I had again to face after this? For the old sailors had borne many hardships and received but little compensation—merely what I was able to borrow and give to each man in addition to what they had had from me before, since the general did not supply enough even for their daily sustenance. By now I had served three months beyond my term, and the defendant had not yet come to take over the ship; but I borrowed money and hired sailors to replace those who had deserted. [24]

The defendant alone of the trierarchs appointed to succeed us has no excuse left him for not having come to take over the ship long before. For Euctemon, the pentecontarch, after he was sent home from the Hellespont on account of his sickness, when he reached port and heard that Polycles had been appointed to relieve me, knowing that the term of my trierarchy had expired and that I was now serving over time, took with him my father-in-law, Deinias, and coming up to Polycles in the sample market, bade him set sail and take over the ship with all speed, telling him that the expenses which were incurred every day in addition to the provision money supplied by the general were very heavy. [25] He told him in detail of the pay given each month to the rowers and the marines, both to the sailors whom he had himself hired at Lampsacus and to those who came on board subsequently to replace those who had deserted, and also of the additional sums which I had given to each of the old sailors at their request after the term of my trierarchy had expired, and all the rest of the money expended upon the ship from day to day. With all these matters Euctemon was thoroughly acquainted, for it was through him as pentecontarch that all purchases and disbursements were made. [26] He told him, too, about the ship's equipment, that it was wholly my own, and that I had nothing from the public stores. “Therefore,” he said, “plan to come to an agreement with him, or sail from here taking your own equipment with you. I think, however,” he added, “that he will readily come to terms with you; for he owes money there, which he will be glad to pay from the price of the equipment.” When the defendant heard these words from Euctemon and Deinias my father-in-law, he made no answer to them regarding the matters of which they spoke but, they said, he broke into a laugh, and said, “The mouse has just tasted pitch19; for he wanted to be an Athenian.” [27] Well, when he paid no heed to what he heard from Euctemon and Deinias, later on Pythodorus of Acharnae,20 and Apollodorus of Leuconoë, 21 friends and connections of mine, again approached him, and urged him to go and take over the ship, as he had been designated as my successor; and they told him about the equipment, that it was wholly my own, and that I had nothing from the public stores. [28] “So, if you want to make use of that,” they said, “leave money here, and do not run the risk of carrying it abroad.” For they wanted to redeem the farm for me by paying Archeneüs and Thrasylochus thirty minae. Regarding the wear and tear of the ship's equipment they were willing to draw up an agreement with him, and themselves to be sureties for me, that he would assuredly have the terms which the other trierarchs gave to their successors.

To prove that I am speaking the truth in all this, the clerk shall read you the depositions bearing upon these matters.“ Depositions ” [29]

There are many proofs from which I think I can show you that Polycles neither at the first intended to take over the ship from me, nor, after he was forced by you and your decree to go and join the ship, was he willing to take it over as my successor. For after he arrived at Thasos, when I was serving for the fourth month after my term had expired, I took witnesses with me, as many of the citizens as I could and the marines and rowers, and, coming up to him in the market-place at Thasos, I bade him take over the ship from me as my successor and repay me what I had expended since the expiration of my term. [30] I was ready to reckon it up item by item, while I had by me as witnesses to the expenditures the sailors and the marines and the rowers, in order that, if he disputed anything, I might refute him at once. Everything had been recorded so accurately by me, that I had written down not only the disbursements themselves, but also the objects for which the money had been spent, the nature of the service rendered, what the price was, in the coinage of what country the payment was made, and what the loss in exchange was, in order that I might be able to give convincing proof to my successor, if he thought any false entries were being made against him. [31] And besides I was ready to take an oath to confirm my reckoning. Upon my giving him this challenge, he answered that he had no interest in what I was saying. At this point a servant came from the general with orders for me to set sail. The order was given to me, not to the defendant, my successor, upon whom the duty was now devolving; but the reason for this I will explain in the course of my address. For the time being it seemed to me best to weigh anchor and sail where he ordered me, [32] but when I put into Thasos again, after towing the vessels to Strymê as the general had ordered, bidding the sailors and the marines and the rowers to remain on board, I went by myself to the house where the general, Timomachus, lodged, wishing that he too should be present, when I offered the ship with her full crew to the defendant Polycles. [33] I found the defendant there and the trierarchs and those who were to succeed them, and some others of our citizens; and on coming in I spoke at once to Polycles in the presence of the general, and called upon him to take over the ship from me, and to pay me for the disbursements made during the period since my term of service had expired; and I asked him about the ship's equipment, whether he would take it over, or whether he had brought equipment of his own with him. [34] When I thus challenged him, he asked me why I was the only one of the trierarchs who had equipment of my own, and whether the state did not know that there were some people able to provide equipment for their ships, so that the state itself did not need to do it. “Or have you,” he said, “so far surpassed the others in wealth as to be the only one of the trierarchs to have equipment of your own and gilded ornaments? [35] Who,” he continued, “could endure your madness and extravagance, a crew corrupted and accustomed to receive large sums in advance and to enjoy exemption from services normally required on board a ship, and able also to make use of the baths, and marines and rowers rendered luxurious by high wages paid in full? Bad ways,” he said, “are these you have taught the army. It is partly your fault that the troops of the other trierarchs have become more unruly, seeking to have the same treatment that yours enjoy; you ought to have done the same as the other trierarchs.” [36] Upon his saying this, I answered that the reason I had taken no equipment from the docks was because, “You,” said I, “have brought the stores into bad repute. However, if you like, take this equipment of mine; if not, provide equipment for yourself. As for the sailors and marines and rowers, if you say that they have been corrupted by me, take over the ship, and get sailors and marines and rowers for yourself, who will sail with you without pay. But take over the ship, for it is not my place to serve any longer; the term of my trierarchy has expired, and I have served four months beyond it.” [37] When I said this to him, he answered that his colleague in the trierarchy had not come to the ship. “So,” said he, “I will not take over the ship alone.” To prove that I am telling you the truth in this, that in the market-place he made the answer mentioned above, that he cared nothing for what I was saying, and that in the house where Timomachus lodged he declared that he would not take over the ship alone—the clerk shall read you the depositions bearing on these facts.“ Depositions ” [38]

After this, men of the jury, when the defendant would neither take over the ship from me nor pay the expenses for the period beyond my term, and the general ordered me to set sail, I approached him in the harbor in Thasos, and in the presence of the general, when the ship was fully manned, and made a proposal, which was not indeed fair, since the advantage was all on his side, but which was forced upon me by the circumstances. [39] “Since you say, Polycles, that your associate in the trierarchy has not come, I will get from him, if I can, the amount expended during my extra time of service, the four months; but do you take over the ship, and first serve as trierarch for your term, the six months; then, if your colleague shall have arrived in the interim, you will give over the ship, having fulfilled your term of service; and, if he does not come, you will suffer no great harm in serving two months beyond your term. [40] Or, am I, who have served for my own term and that of my colleague, to have performed extra service as trierarch for you and your associate, and are you, who have incurred no expense, to refuse either to take over the ship and serve your own term, or to reimburse me for the expenses I have borne?” When I said this, he answered that I was romancing. Then the general ordered me to go on board my ship and put to sea with him.

To prove that he did give me this answer, please read the deposition.“ Deposition ” [41]

I wish now to mention a matter to you, to the end that you may understand how flagrantly I have been wronged. For about the same time Mnesilochus of Perithoidae22 and Phrasierides23 of Anaphlystus were appointed to succeed Hagnias and Praxicles. But, since Phrasierides did not arrive to join the ship, Mnesilochus went to Thasos and took over the trireme from Hagnias, [42] and paid to Hagnias what the latter convinced him was due for the expenses he had incurred on their behalf while serving as trierarch beyond his time, and hired from Hagnias the ship's equipment, and assumed himself the duties of trierarch. Afterwards, when the men from Phrasierides came, they paid his share of the expenses to Mnesilochus, and for the remainder of the term joined in meeting whatever expenditures he required for the ship.

Read, please, the deposition establishing these facts.“ Deposition ” [43]

Perhaps, now, men of the jury, you want to hear for what possible reason the general failed to compel the defendant to take over the ship, when he came to it as my successor, the laws on the matter being so strict. In regard to this I wish to show you clearly why it was. For Timomachus, men of the jury, wished above all things to have the trireme well equipped for every service. [44] He knew, however, that the defendant, if he took over the ship, would manage wretchedly as trierarch; that he would get service neither from the crew nor the marines nor the rowers, for not one of them would stay with him. Besides, he knew that, if he ordered him to sail without giving him money, he would not put out to sea at his bidding, as I should do, but would make trouble. And in addition to this he borrowed from him thirty minae on the understanding that he would not force him to take over the ship. [45] But why it was that he was especially incensed against me and treated me despitefully, and would never on any occasion listen to a word from me regarding any matter, I wish to show you clearly, that you may understand that I cared less at that time for my own comfort or for the general's power than for the people of Athens and the laws, and that I endured ill-treatment and abuse, which were far more grievous to me than the expenses I incurred. [46] For, while the fleet was lying at Thasos, a despatch-boat came from Methonê in Macedonia to Thasos, bringing a man with letters from Callistratus to Timomachus, which, as I afterward learned, contained a request that he should send the swiftest-sailing ship he had to bring Callistratus to him. At once, then, at daybreak the next morning, the officer from the general came and ordered me to summon my crew to the ship. [47] When it was manned, Callippus, the son of Philon, of Aexonê,24 came on board, and ordered the pilot to steer the course for Macedonia. When we had reached a place on the opposite mainland, a trading post of the Thasians, and had gone ashore and were getting our dinner, one of the sailors, Callicles, the son of Epitrephes, of Thria,25 came up to me, and said that he wished to speak to me about a matter which concerned myself. I bade him speak on, and he said that he wanted to make what return he could for the help I had given him in his need. [48] “Do you know, then,” he asked, “for what purpose you are making this voyage, and where you are going?” When I replied that I did not know, he said, “Then I will tell you; for you must learn this in order to plan your action aright. You are going,” said he, “to bring Callistratus, an exile whom the Athenians have twice condemned to death, from Methonê to Thasos to Timomachus, his kinsman by marriage. I have found this out,” he said, “from the servants of Callippus. For your own part, then, if you are wise, you will not permit any exile to come on board the ship; for the laws forbid it.” [49] On hearing this from Callicles, I approached Callippus, and asked him to what place he was sailing, and whom he was going to fetch. He spoke roughly to me and threatened me in a way you can easily understand （for you are not without experience of the ways of Callippus）, and I said to him, “I hear that you are sailing to fetch Callistratus. Now, I will transport no exile, nor will I go to fetch him; for the laws forbid anyone to give harborage to any exile, and make one who does so liable to the same punishment. I shall, therefore, sail back to the general in Thasos.” [50] So, when the sailors came on board, I ordered the pilot to sail back to Thasos. Callippus protested, and bade him sail for Macedonia in accordance with the general's commands; but Posidippus, the pilot, answered him that I was trierarch of the ship, and the one responsible, and that he got his pay from me; he would sail, therefore, whither I bade him sail—to Thasos, to the general. [51] When we reached Thasos the next day, Timomachus sent for me to come to the place where he lodged outside the wall. I was afraid that he would put me under arrest on false charges preferred by Callippus, so did not obey the summons in person, but told the officer that, if he had anything to say to me, I should be in the market-place; and I sent my servant with him, in order that, if the general had any orders to give he might hear and report to me. [52] It was for this reason, which I have stated to you, men of the jury, that Timomachus did not force the defendant to take over the ship, and besides, he wanted the use of the ship for himself, as she was the best sailer. As for the trireme of Thrasylochus of Anagyrus,26 on board which he was himself sailing, he induced Thrasylochus to let his trierarchy to Callippus, that Callippus, being in full control of the ship, might carry Callistratus about, as he pleased. Timomachus himself came on board my ship, and sailed around here and there until he reached the Hellespont. [53]

When he had no longer need of ships of war, he put on board my vessel Eucinus of Pallenê,27 as commander, and, enjoining upon him to give the sailors money every day, ordered me to sail for home. When, then, on our homeward voyage we were in Tenedos, and Lucinus, despite the orders given him by Timomachus, was furnishing no money for sustenance to the sailors （he said he had none, but should get some from Mytilenê）, and the men had nothing with which to buy provisions, and without food could not have continued rowing, [54] again taking some of our citizens as witnesses I approached the defendant in Tenedos, and bade him take over the ship as my successor, and to reimburse me for the expenses I had incurred while I serving as trierarch in his stead beyond my term. I did this in order that he might not make use of the pretext, in his defence before you, that I refused to hand over the ship to him because I was ambitious to sail home in a fast-sailing ship and show off to you my lavish expenditure. [55] Since he refused to take over the ship, and the sailors were asking for money that they might buy supplies, I came up to him again, having witnesses with me, and asked whether he had come out with money with the purpose of taking over the ship from me, or not. On his replying that he had brought money with him, I urged him to lend me some on the security of the ship's equipment, that I might distribute it among the sailors and bring the ship home, seeing that he refused to take over the ship, although he was my successor. [56] To this request of mine he replied that he would not lend me a farthing. Accordingly I borrowed from Cleanax and Eperatus, friends of my father in Tenedos, and gave the sailors their provision-money; for on account of my being Pasion's son, and the fact that he was connected by ties of hospitality with many, and was trusted throughout the Greek world, I had no difficulty in borrowing money wherever I needed it.

To prove that the statements I am making to you are true, I shall produce for you the depositions establishing these facts.“ Depositions ” [57]

The clerk has read the depositions of all those whom I was able to produce, who were present in person, to prove that I again and again offered to give over the ship to Polycles, and that he refused to take it. More than that, I have shown by convincing circumstantial evidence, why it was that he refused to take over the ship. I desire now to have read to you the law also regarding those appointed to succeed others in the trierarchy, that you may know how severe the penalties are when a man fails to take over a ship from his predecessor within the appointed time, and how Polycles scoffed, not at me only, but at you and at the laws. [58] So far as he is concerned, all measures undertaken by the state and her allies have failed; for he neither joined his ship, as the law commands, nor, when he did come, was he willing to take over the ship from his predecessor; whereas I served for my own term and that of my associate in the trierarchy, and when my term of service had expired and I was ordered by the general to sail to Hieron, I convoyed the grain for our people, [59] that they might buy in a plentiful market, and that, so far as depended on me, there should be no lack; and I performed for the general every other service which he desired either of myself or of my trireme, not only spending my property, but risking my life as well through always making the voyage in person, although my domestic affairs were in such a condition at that time that you would pity me, if you heard them. [60] My mother lay sick,28 and was at the point of death while I was abroad, so that she was unable any longer to help in the depletion of my resources save to a slight extent. I had been but six days at home, when, after she had seen and greeted me, she breathed her last, being no longer mistress of her property, so as to give me I as much as she wished. She had often sent for me before this, begging me to come to her by myself if I could not come in my ship. [61] My wife, too, to whom I am deeply attached, was in poor health for a long time during my absence; my children were small and my estate was in debt; my land not only produced no crops, but that year, as you all know, the water even dried up in the wells, so that not a vegetable grew in the garden; and my creditors at the expiration of the year came to collect their interest, unless the principal was paid to them according to the contract. [62] When I heard these facts from the lips of those who came and also through letters from my relatives, how do you think I must have felt, and how many tears must I have shed, while I reckoned up my present troubles and was longing to see my children and my wife, and my mother whom I had little hope of finding alive? For what is sweeter to a man than these, or why should one wish to live, if deprived of them? [63]

Although the misfortunes which had befallen me were thus grievous, I did not count my private interests of so much importance as your interests, but felt that I ought to rise above the wasting of my fortune, the neglect of my household affairs, and the sickness of my wife and my mother, so that no one could accuse me of deserting my post or letting my ship be useless to the state. [64] In return for all this I now implore you, that, as I showed myself obedient and useful in your service, so you will now take thought of me, and, remembering all that I have told you, the depositions which I have produced and the decrees, you will succor me when I am being wronged, will mete out punishment in your own interest, and will exact repayment of the funds expended in the defendant's behalf. Or who will wish to be zealous on your service, when men see that you neither reward those who are honest and obedient, nor punish those who are dishonest and disobedient? [65] The clerk shall read you the law and an account of my expenses in detail for the period during which I served as trierarch beyond my term on the defendant's behalf, and the sums which the several deserters took with them when they ran away from the ship, and where they went, in order that you may be assured that neither now nor at any time before have I made false statements to you. I count it my duty to serve you in a manner above reproach for the period prescribed by law, and as regards those who scorn you and the laws, and will not obey the laws, to convict them and get them punished in your courts. [66] Be assured that it will be no more in my interest than in your own that you will punish Polycles, nor will you be showing concern merely for those who have served as trierarchs in the past; no, you will be taking thought also for those who are to serve in the future, so that those who perform public services may not be discouraged, and those who are designated as their successors may not show contempt toward the laws, but may go to their ships when they are appointed. These matters you should bear in mind, and reach a fair and just decision regarding all the points at issue. [67]

I should gladly ask you, men of the jury, what opinion you would have had of me, if, when my term of service had expired and the defendant had not come to take over the ship, I had refused to serve longer when the general so ordered, but had sailed away. Would you not have been indignant and have thought that I was wronging you? If, then, you would have been indignant in that case, because I refused to serve beyond my term, should you not now exact from the defendant the money expended by me on his behalf, seeing that he did not take over the ship? [68]

To prove that it is not in my case only that he failed to take over his ship, but that on a former occasion also, when he was the associate of Euripides in the trierarchy and there was an agreement between them that each should sail for six months, when Euripides had sailed and the term had expired, Polycles did not take over the ship from him,—to prove this, I say, the clerk shall read the deposition.“ Deposition ”

1 Metageitnion corresponds to the latter half of August and the prior half of September.

2 The archonship of Molon falls in 362 B.C.

3 Tenos, one of the Cyclades islands in the Aegean Sea, had been captured by the fleet on Alexander of Pherae, who at this time was master of Thessaly.

4 Miltocythes was a vassal of Cotys, king of the Odrysae in Thrace, a former friend, but now an enemy of Athens.

5 Proconnesus, an island on the Propontis （Sea of Marmora）.

6 Cyzicus, a town on the southern shore of the Propontis.

7 Calchedon, a town across the Bosporus from Byzantium.

8 Thasos, a large island in the nothern Aegean.

9 Maroneia, a town on the southern coast of Thrace.

10 Hieron was on the eastern shore of the Cimmerian Bosporus （the straight between the Black Sea and the Sea of Azof）.

11 Anaphlystus, a deme of the tribe Antiochis.

12 Sestus, also a town on the Hellespont.

13 The pentecontarch was properly an under-officer in charge of a tier of fifty oarsmen.

14 Lampsacus, a town on the Hellespont.

15 The rising of Arcturus falls at the time of the autumnal equinox.

16 Light-armed troops.

17 Stryme, a town on the southern coast of Thrace.

18 Roughly the end of October, when the stormy season had set in.

19 A familiar proverb of those who fall into difficulties through their own folly. See Theocritus 14.51. The second clause fits the present situation: Pasion had sought Athenian citizenship: Apollodorus is now paying the price.

20 Acharnae, a deme of the tribe Oeneïs.

21 Leuconoe, a deme of the tribe Leontis.

22 Perithoidae, a deme of the tribe Oeneïs.

23 Possibly the same as the friend of Timotheus mentioned in Dem. 49.

24 Aexone, a deme of the tribe Cecropis.

25 Thria, a deme of the tribe Oeneïs

26 Anagyrus, a deme of the tribe Erectheïs.

27 Pallene, a deme of the tribe Antiochis.

28 The speaker's pretended concern for his mother accords ill with the attitude he shows toward her in Dem. 45.