Against Evergus and Mnesibulus

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.

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.

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.

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.

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,[*](Cedae was a deme of the tribe Erectheïs.) 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.

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;

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 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.

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;

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.

The Depositions

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.

For the arbitration took place in the Heliaea,[*](The place for holding the sessions of the court of that name.) 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.

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,

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,

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.

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?

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.

(To the clerk. Please read the depositions again.

The Depositions

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.[*](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.) How he has done this I will show you point by point.

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.

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.

(To the clerk. Read the decree, please.

The Decree