Against Stephanus I

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?

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.

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.

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.

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 testimony in testifying to what is contained in the deposition—not to this or that in the deposition.

(To the clerk.) To prove that this is so, take, please, the plea itself. Read it.

The 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

(To the clerk.) However, to prove that I am telling the truth in this, take the deposition of Deinias and read it; and call Deinias.

The Deposition

Deinias, son of Theomnestus, of Athmonon,[*](Athmonon was a deme of the tribe Cecropis.) 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.

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. 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.) 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.

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.

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.

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?

(To the clerk.) Read the deposition, and then this challenge.

The 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.

The Oath of Disclaimer