Against Stephanus I

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)[*](See Aesch. PB 637-639 for an almost identical sentiment.); 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.

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.

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,

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 war[*](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.).)), but I indicted him before the Thesmothetae[*](See note a on p. 202 of vol. 1.) on the charge of outrage.[*](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) 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.

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.

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,[*](See note a on p. 50 of vol. 1.) 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.

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.

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

(To the clerk.)Read; and do you check the water.

The Deposition

Stephanus, son of Menecles, of Acharnae, Endius, son of Epigenes, of Lamptrae, Scythes, son of Harmateus, of Cydathenaeum[*](Acharnae was a deme of the tribe Oeneïs, Lamptrae of the tribe Erectheïs, and Cydathenaeum of the tribe Pandionis.) 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.