Against Onetor I

In the case of Aphobus, I held that his controversy with me should be settled among our friends, and not come to trial before you, but I could not persuade him. But this man, when I bade him act as judge in his own case, that he might not risk a trial before you, treated me with such contempt, that not only did he not think fit to give me a hearing, but I was even in the most outrageous manner driven off the land, which belonged to Aphobus, when he lost his suit to me.

Since, therefore, he joins with his brother-in-law in seeking to deprive me of what is mine, and has come before you, trusting in the measures he has concocted, there is no other course open to me than to try in your court to get justice from him. I know well, men of the jury, that I have to contend against arguments craftily prepared, and against witnesses who are going to give false testimony; nevertheless I think that I shall have such an advantage over him because of the justice of my cause,

that, even if any one of you heretofore thought him an honest man, he will learn from the defendant’s acts toward me that even in time past he has been, without your knowing it, the basest and most unrighteous of men. I shall show, namely, that he has not only never paid the marriage-portion, to secure which he alleges that the land has been mortgaged, but from the very start has schemed to defraud me of my rights; that, further, the lady, on whose behalf he drove me from the land in question, has not been divorced at all;

and that he is now screening Aphobus, and standing this trial with the purpose of depriving me of what is mine. This I shall show by such strong and manifest proofs, that you will see how just and proper it is that I have instituted this action against him. I shall commence with matters which will best enable you to grasp the facts of the case.

In common with many others of the Athenians, men of the jury, this man was well aware that my guardians were proving false to their trust. Indeed, it became clear very early that I was being wronged, so many were the discussions and arguments regarding my affairs held before the archon and before other officials. For the value of the property left me was well known, and it was pretty clear that the administrators were leaving it unlet in order that they might have the use of the money themselves. There was not a single one, therefore, among those who realized what was going on, who did not expect that I should obtain a judgement for damages from these men, as soon as I should attain my majority.

Among those who from first to last held this opinion were Timocrates and Onetor. Of this I can give you the strongest of proofs. For the defendant wished to give his sister in marriage to Aphobus, seeing that he had got into his hands his own patrimony and mine (which was not inconsiderable) as well; but he had not confidence enough in him to abandon her marriage-portion. It was as if he felt, forsooth, that the property of guardians was a security for their wards.[*](The remark is sarcastic. Demosthenes represents Onetor as fearing lest the suit of Demosthenes against Aphobus might make it questionable whether the latter would be in a position to repay the marriage-portion, if called upon to do so.) He did, however, give him his sister, but the portion, Timocrates, who had been her former husband, agreed to keep as a loan with interest at the rate of five obols.[*](That is, at 10 percent, instead of the ordinary 18 percent.)

When I had won my suit against Aphobus in the matter of the guardianship and he still refused to make any just settlement, Onetor did not even try to settle our dispute, but, alleging that his sister had been divorced, and that he was unable to get back her marriage-portion, which he had paid (although he had not paid it, and it was even then in his possession), declared that he had taken a mortgage on the land, and had the effrontery to expel me from it; such was his contempt for me, and for you, and for the laws which were in force.

These, men of the jury, are the facts because of which he is defendant in the present suit, and regarding which you are to cast your vote. I shall bring forward witnesses, and in the first instance Timocrates himself, who will testify that he agreed to hold the dowry as a loan, and that he continued to pay interest on it to Aphobus according to the agreement; also that Aphobus himself acknowledged that he received the interest from Timocrates.

Take the depositions.

The Depositions

From the very first, you see, it is admitted that the dowry was not paid to Aphobus, and that he did not get it under his control. And it seems very probable that on account of the facts which I have mentioned, they chose to continue as debtors for the dowry, rather than to have it involved in the estate of Aphobus which was sure to be so seriously endangered. For it is impossible for them to claim that poverty prevented their paying it over at once, since Timocrates has an estate of more than ten talents, and Onetor one of more than thirty; so this cannot have been the reason why they have not made an immediate payment.

Nor can they claim that they had property indeed, but no ready money, or that the lady was a widow, and that they therefore hastened to conclude matters without at once paying her portion. For these men are in the habit of lending considerable sums to others, and moreover, the lady was not a widow, but when they gave her in marriage, it was from the house of Timocrates, where she was living with him as his wife; so that there is no reasonable ground why one should accept this excuse either.

Further, men of the jury, I think you would all agree to this, that, in arranging a matter of this sort, anyone would choose to borrow money of another, rather than fail to pay the dowry to his sister’s husband. For if a man does not settle this matter he becomes a debtor, regarding whom it is uncertain whether he will meet his just obligations or not; but if together with the lady he gives also what is hers, he becomes a kinsman and a brother-in-law,

for he is not under any suspicion, since he has done all that justice demanded. Seeing that the matter stands thus, and that they were not forced by a single one of the causes which I have mentioned to let this debt stand, and could not have desired to do so, it is not possible to suggest any other excuse for non-payment. It must be for the reason which I have mentioned—that they did not trust Aphobus enough to pay him the dowry.[*](To understand the argument of the speech the reader should bear in mind certain facts regarding the Athenian laws concerning marriage and divorce. To make a marriage legal at Athens it was necessary that both bride and bridegroom be of pure Athenian stock, and that the bride be given away by her father, or, if she had no father living, by her nearest male relative (her guardian or κύριος). The marriage-contract was between the bridegroom and this guardian, and the marriage-portion was paid by the guardian to the bridegroom. In the case of Onetor’s sister Demosthenes asserts that the portion was not paid outright to Aphobus, but was retained by her former husband, Timocrates, who was to pay interest on it at 10 percent. The husband might divorce his wife, but he was required to send her back to her guardian with her personal effects and her portion, or to pay interest on the portion, normally at 18 percent until it was paid. His action in sending away his wife was technically called ἀπόπεμψις. On the other hand the wife might leave her husband with his consent, or for cause. If the husband’s consent could not be obtained, the woman presented herself before the archon and stated her case. The act, taken on her initiative, was termed ἀπόλειψις, and in this case, too, her portion went with her.)

I have established this point, then, in this way beyond all controversy; and I think I shall easily demonstrate from the facts themselves that they did not pay the portion subsequently either; so that it will be clear to you that even if they withheld the money, not for the reasons I have mentioned, but with the intention of speedy payment, they would never actually have paid it, or let it slip out of their hands; with such urgency did the case press upon them.

There was an interval of two years between the marriage of the woman and their declaration that the divorce had taken place. She was married in the archonship of Polyzelus, in the month of Scirophorion,[*](That is, in June 366.) and the divorce was registered in the month of Poseidon,[*](That is, in December 364.) in the archonship of Timocrates. I, on my part, was admitted to citizenship[*](See note b, on Dem. 27.5, and Aristot. Ath. Pol. 42.2) immediately after the marriage, laid my charges, and demanded an accounting; and, finding that I was being robbed of all my property, instituted my suit under the last-mentioned archon.

The shortness of the time makes the continuance of the debt in accordance with the agreement not unlikely, but it is incredible that it should have been paid. For do you suppose that the defendant here, a man who at the first chose to owe the money and to pay interest on it, in order that his sister’s dowry might not be jeopardized along with the rest of her husband’s property, would have paid it when suit had already been instituted against that husband? Why, even if he had at the first trusted him with the money, he would then at once have sought to recover it. No, men of the jury; the supposition is, I presume, impossible.

To prove that the woman married at the time I mention; that in the interim Aphobus and I had already gone to law; and that those men did not register the divorce with the archon until after I had instituted my suit, take, please, these depositions regarding each point.

The Depositions

After this archon came Cephisodorus and then Chion. During their term of office, having been admitted to citizenship, I continued to press my charges, and in the archonship of Timocrates I began my suit.

Take this deposition, please.

The Deposition

Read also this deposition.

The Deposition

It is clear, then, from the evidence adduced that it is not because they have paid the dowry, but because they wish to save his property for Aphobus, that they have had the audacity to act as they have done. For when in so short a time they allege that they owed the money; that they paid it; that the woman was divorced and could not recover the dowry; and that they took a mortgage on the land; how can it be other than clear that they are acting in collusion in their attempt to defraud me of the damages awarded me by you?

I shall now endeavor to prove to you from the answers given by the defendant himself, and by Timocrates, and Aphobus, that it is impossible that the dowry should have been paid. For, men of the jury, I questioned each of these men in the presence of many witnesses. I asked Onetor and Timocrates whether any witnesses were present when they paid the dowry, and Aphobus himself whether any were present when he received it;

and they all answered severally that no witness was present, but that Aphobus got it from them by instalments, in such sums as he needed from time to time. And yet can any one of you believe this, that, when the dowry was a talent, Onetor and Timocrates put so large a sum into the hands of Aphobus without witnesses? Why, in paying him money, I will not say in this manner, but even in the presence of many witnesses, one would have taken every possible precaution[*](More literally, one would have been rash to have trusted him.) in order, if a dispute should arise, to be able readily to recover in your court what was due.