Against Olympiodorus

Again I say, it is not consistent, Olympiodorus, that I should act in opposition to you, and yet should join with you in expending whatever from time to time became necessary, or that I should myself voluntarily abandon my claim, when you were abroad and your claim was stricken off because it was thought that you were absent on account of the trial and not on public service. For it was open to me to press my own claim for one-half the estate; no human being opposed my claim, but my opponents themselves allowed it.

However, had I done this, I should by that very act have perjured myself, for I had sworn and contracted with you to do in concert with you whatever should seem to us on consultation to be best. Therefore the pretexts and charges on which you base your refusal to act fairly toward me are absolutely silly.

And furthermore—do you suppose, Olympiodorus, that in the last trial for the estate I should have permitted you either to utter so recklessly the statements which you made to the jury, or to bring forward witnesses as you did regarding the points you wished to prove, if I had not been acting in concert with you in the trial?

For the fellow, men of the jury, said everything else that he pleased in the court-room, and emphatically stated to the jurymen that I had rented from him the house which I received as part of my share, and that I had borrowed of him the money which I received—the half, that is, of the thousand drachmae recovered from the slave. And he not only made these statements, but he produced depositions to support them. And I said nothing whatever against all this, nor did any human being hear a syllable aloud or muttered from me while he was supporting his claim, but I admitted the truth of everything he chose to say. For I was cooperating with you, Olympiodorus, according to our agreement.

If what I am saying is not true, why did I not proceed against the witnesses who gave this evidence instead of keeping absolute silence? Or why did you, Olympiodorus, never sue me for the rent of the house which you alleged was your own and had been rented by you to me; or for the money which you told the jurymen you had lent me? Why, I say, did you do neither of these things? How, then, could any man be more clearly convicted than you have been of lying, of making contradictory statements, and of preferring charges that lack all foundation?

But here is the strongest proof of all, which will convince you, men of the jury, of his bad faith and covetousness. If there were any truth in what he says, he should have stated it and proved it before the trial came on, and before he tested the jury as to how it would decide; and he should have taken a number of witnesses and demanded that the articles of agreement be taken from the custody of Androcleides on the ground that I was violating them, and acting against his interests, and that the articles were no longer in force between him and me; also he should have protested to Androcleides, who had the articles in his possession, that he had no longer anything to do with these articles.

This is what he should have done, men of the jury, if there were any truth in what he says; he should have gone by himself to Androcleides, and made this protest, and gone also with many witnesses, in order that he might have many persons who were aware of the fact.

But to prove that he never took any of these steps, the clerk shall read you the deposition of Androcleides himself with whom the articles of agreement are deposited.

(To the clerk.) Read the deposition.

The Deposition

Now, men of the jury, you must consider another thing which he has done. I tendered him a challenge, and demanded that he go with me to Androcleides, with whom the articles are deposited, and that we should jointly make copies of the agreement and seal it up again, but that we should put the copies in the evidence-box, in order that there might be no ground for suspicion, but that you might hear everything plainly and fairly, and then vote as should seem to you most just.

I tendered him this challenge, but he refused to do anything of the sort; no, he has tried thus artfully to prevent your hearing the agreement from copies jointly made.

To prove that I tendered him this challenge, the clerk shall read you the deposition of the persons in whose presence I tendered it. Read the deposition.

The Deposition

How, then, could it be made more plain that the fellow is unwilling to act justly toward me in any way, that he thinks to rob me of what I ought to receive by advancing excuses and preferring charges, and that he determined that you should not hear the agreement which he asserts I have broken? But I challenged him then before the witnesses who were present, and I challenge him again now before you jurymen, and I demand that he consent, and I myself do consent, to have the articles of agreement opened here in the court-room, to let you hear them, and to have them sealed up again in your presence.

Androcleides is present here; for I gave him notice to come and bring the articles of agreement. I consent, men of the jury, that they be opened during the defendant’s speech, in either his first or his second, it makes no difference to me. But I wish you to hear the agreement and the oaths which Olympiodorus the defendant and I swore to one another. If he consents, let this be done, and do you hear for yourselves the articles when he shall see fit; and if he refuses to take this course, will it not be plain without further proof, men of the jury, that he is the most shameless of humankind, and that you may rightly refuse to accept as true anything whatever that he says?

But why am I so earnest in urging this? The defendant himself knows well that he has sinned against me and sinned against the gods in whose name he swore, and that he is a perjurer. But something has deranged him, men of the jury, and he is not in his senses. I am pained and I feel shame, men of the jury, at what I am about to tell you, but I am forced to tell it, in order that you, in whose hands the verdict lies, may hear all the facts before you reach the conclusion regarding us which may seem to you best.

For my mentioning the things which I am about to tell you this fellow is himself to blame, since he refused to settle our differences among our relatives, but chose to brazen the matter out. For you must know, men of the jury, that this fellow Olympiodorus has never married an Athenian woman in accordance with your laws; he has no children nor has ever had any, but he keeps in his house a mistress whose freedom he had purchased, and it is she who is the ruin of us all and who drives the man on to a higher pitch of madness.

Is it not indeed a proof of his madness that he refuses to do anything whatever that was stipulated in the agreement which was entered into with his full consent and with my own, and which was confirmed by an oath?—especially when I am striving, not in my own interest only, but in the interest of her to whom I am married, his own sister, born of the same father and the same mother, and in the interest of his niece, my daughter. For they are being wronged not less than I, but even more.

Can anyone, indeed, say that they are not wronged and are not suffering outrageous treatment, when they see this fellow’s mistress, in defiance of all decency, decked out with masses of jewels and with fine raiment, going abroad in splendid state and flaunting the luxury purchased with what is ours, while they are themselves too poor to enjoy such things? Are they not suffering a wrong even greater than my own? And in adopting such a manner of life is not Olympiodorus not manifestly mad and beside himself?

Now, that he may not claim, men of the jury, that I am speaking thus with a view to slandering him because of this suit, the clerk shall read you a deposition from his relatives and mine.

The Deposition

The defendant Olympiodorus, then, is a person of this sort. He is not only dishonest, but in the opinion of all his relatives and friends is proved by the manner of life which he has adopted to be mentally deranged; to use the language of the lawgiver Solon, he is beside himself as no other man ever was, for he is under the influence of a woman who is a harlot. And Solon established a law[*](This law is cited in Dem. 46.14) that all acts shall be null and void which are done by anyone under the influence of a woman, especially of a woman of her stamp.

In this matter the lawgiver made wise provision; and I entreat you—and not I only, but my wife also, the sister of this Olympiodorus, and my daughter, his niece,—we all beg and implore you, men of the jury, (for I would have you imagine that these women are here present before you),

if it be possible, to prevail upon this fellow Olympiodorus not to do us wrong, but if he refuses, and you cannot prevail upon him, then to bear in mind all that has been said and give whatever verdict shall seem to you best and most in accordance with justice. If you do this, you will reach a decision that is fair and one that is to the advantage of us all, and especially to the advantage of this fellow Olympiodorus himself.