Against Onetor I

No man, in concluding a transaction of such importance, I will not say with such a man as Aphobus, but with anybody whatever, would have acted without a witness. This is the reason why we celebrate marriage-feasts and call together our closest friends and relations, because we are dealing with no light affair, but are entrusting to the care of others the lives of our sisters and daughters, for whom we seek the greatest possible security.

The presumption is, then, that the defendant made the settlement in the presence of the same witnesses before whom he had admitted the indebtedness and promised to pay the interest, if he really did pay the dowry to Aphobus. For, if he had acted in this way, he would have cleared himself of the whole matter; but by paying him when they were alone, he would have left those in whose presence he had made the agreement as witnesses that he was still a debtor.

As it was, they could not induce their friends, who were more honest men than themselves, to bear witness to the payment of the money, and they thought that, if they produced other witnesses, not related to them, you would not believe them. Again, if they said the payment had been made all at once, they knew that we should demand for examination by torture the slaves who had brought the money. These, if the payment had not been made, they would have refused to give up, and so they would have been convicted of fraud. But if they maintained that they had paid the money without witnesses in the manner alleged, they thought to escape detection.

For this reason they were driven through stress of necessity to make up this false story. By such tricks and pieces of villainy, while hoping themselves to pass for simple folk, they think they will easily deceive you; whereas in the slightest matter affecting their interest they acted, not with simplicity, but with every possible precaution.

Take now the depositions of the persons in whose presence they gave their answers, and read them to the jury.

The Depositions

Now, men of the jury, I shall prove to you that the woman made a merely nominal divorce, but was in reality living with Aphobus as his wife. I think that, if you are thoroughly convinced of this, you will be more inclined to distrust these men, and to give me the aid that is my due. Of some of the facts I shall produce witnesses: others I shall establish by strong presumptions and by adequate proofs.

When I saw, men of the jury, that after the woman’s divorce had been registered with the archon, and after the defendant’s declaration that he had taken a mortgage on the farm to secure her marriage-portion, Aphobus continued to hold and till the land just as before, and to dwell with his wife, I knew well that all this was fiction and a pretence to cover up the facts.

And wishing to make this clear to you all, I deemed it right to convict him in the presence of witnesses, in case he should deny that matters are as I have stated; and I offered to him for torture a slave who knew well all the facts—one whom I had taken from among those of Aphobus, since he had not paid the damages within the time fixed by law. When I made this demand, Onetor declined to put the slave to torture as to the question of his sister’s living with Aphobus; and, as to Aphobus’s tilling the land, the fact was too plain to be denied, so he confessed it.

Nor are these the only proofs which make it easy to see that Aphobus continued to live with his wife and to possess the land up to the time when the suit was begun; it is plain also from the way in which he dealt with the land after judgement was given against him. For, as though the property had not been mortgaged, but was to belong to me according to the court’s decision, he made off with everything that could be carried away—the produce, and all the farm implements, except the storage-tanks.[*](These were underground, as appears from the phrase πλὴν τῶν ἐγγείων in Dem. 30.30.) What he could not take away he necessarily left behind, so that Onetor was now at liberty to lay claim merely to the bare land.

It is an outrage, though, that one of them should say that the land was mortgaged to him, while the mortgagor is to be seen cultivating it; that he should claim that his sister has left her husband, when he is shown to have refused to accept the test by torture regarding this very point; and that the one who is not living with his wife (as Onetor claims) should carry off all the produce and implements from the farm, while the man acting as guardian for the divorced woman, to secure whose portion he claims to have taken a mortgage on the land, plainly shows no anger at a single one of these acts, but takes everything quietly.

Is the whole thing not absolutely clear? Is it not confessedly a scheme to protect Aphobus? One certainly would so declare, if he duly considered each one of the facts.

Now, to prove that the defendant acknowledged that Aphobus farmed the land up to the time of the commencement of my action against him; that he refused the inquiry by torture as to his sister’s continuing to live with Aphobus; and that the farm was stripped after the court’s decision of everything save what was attached to the soil; take these depositions, and read them.

The Depositions

Although I have so many proofs ready to hand it is Onetor himself who most convincingly showed that the divorce was not a genuine one. He, who should have felt outraged, when, after paying the dowry, as he claims, he got back, not the money, but a farm whose title was under dispute,—this very man, as though he had had no quarrel, and were in no way being wronged, but as though he were on the most intimate terms possible with Aphobus, pleaded for the latter in the suit which I brought against him! As for myself, though I had done him no conceivable injury, he leagued with Aphobus, and sought by every means in his power to join in robbing me of my patrimony, while for Aphobus, whom he should have regarded as a stranger, if there is any truth in their present story, he sought to acquire possession of my property in addition to what he already had.

Nor was it only at the trial that he acted thus, but after judgement had been rendered against Aphobus, he got up before the court and begged the jurymen, beseeching and imploring them on behalf of Aphobus with tears in his eyes, to fix the damages at a talent, and offered himself as surety for this amount. These facts are admitted on all hands. Those who were then serving on the jury in the courtroom and many of the bystanders know them well. Nevertheless I will produce witnesses.

Take, and read this deposition.

The Deposition

Besides all this, men of the jury, there is strong evidence from which it is easy to see that the woman in reality continued to live with Aphobus and even up to the present day has not separated from him. In fact, this woman, before she came to Aphobus, was not unwedded for one single day, but left her living husband, Timocrates, to come and live with Aphobus; and now during the space of three years she has manifestly married no one else. Can anyone believe that she then went directly from husband to husband, in order to avoid living as a widow, but that now, supposing she has really left her husband, she would have endured to remain a widow for so long when she might have married someone else, seeing that her brother possessed so large a fortune, and she herself was so young?

There is no truth in it, men of the jury; you cannot believe it. It is a pure fiction. No; the woman is living openly with Aphobus, and makes no secret of the matter. I shall bring before you the evidence of Pasiphon, who cared for her when she was ill, and who saw Aphobus sitting by her side in this very year, when my suit against the defendant had already been instituted.

Take Pasiphon’s deposition.

The Deposition

I knew, men of the jury, that the defendant, immediately on the conclusion of the suit, had received the goods from the house of Aphobus, and had come into control of his property and all my estate as well, and I knew, further, that beyond all doubt the woman was living with Aphobus. I therefore demanded of Onetor three female slaves, who knew that the woman was living with Aphobus and that the effects were in the hands of these men, in order that we might not have mere statements but that the matters might be established by proof from the torture.

But Onetor, when I made this challenge to him, and all those present declared that my proposal was just, refused to have recourse to this certain test, but, as though there were other and surer proofs regarding such matters than torture and testimony, he produced no witnesses to prove that he had paid the dowry, nor would he give up for torture the female slaves who knew the fact, to prove that his sister was not living with Aphobus; and, because I made this demand of him, he in an outrageous and insulting manner refused to let me talk to him. Could there be a man more impossible to deal with than he, or more ready to pretend ignorance of what is right? Take the challenge itself and read it.

The Challenge

You on your part hold that in both private and public matters the torture is the most certain of all methods of proof, and when slaves and freemen are both available, and the truth of a matter is to be sought out, you make no use of the testimony of the freemen, but seek to ascertain the truth by torturing the slaves; and very properly, men of the jury. For of witnesses who have given testimony there have been some ere now who have been thought not to tell the truth; but of slaves put to the torture no one has ever been convicted of giving false testimony.

Yet Onetor, after refusing a test so fair, and rejecting proofs so clear and so convincing, will produce Aphobus and Timocrates as witnesses, the one that he has paid the dowry, and the other that he has received it, and will demand that you believe him, when he pretends that his transactions with them were without witnesses. For such simpletons does he take you.

But that their words are neither true nor like the truth I think I have—by the fact that at the first they confessed that they had not paid the dowry, that again they pretended to have paid it without witnesses, that the dates do not admit of their having paid the money, seeing that the property was already in litigation, and finally by all the other evidences adduced I have, as I think, conclusively proved.