Greek Texts & Translations

45.37Then he goes about, saying that Nicocles testified that he had served as guardian under the will, and Pasicles that he had lived as ward under the will. But for my part I hold that these very facts are proofs that neither these witnesses nor those have testified to the truth. For a person who testifies that he served as guardian under a will should certainly know what the nature of the will was, and a person who testifies that he lived as ward under a will should certainly know what the nature of the will was. 45.38Why in the world, then, Stephanus, did you people depose to the will under the form of a challenge, instead of leaving the matter to them? If they on their part shall declare that they do not know the contents of the will, how is it possible for you to know them, you who have never in any way been connected with the matter? Why, pray, is it that one group of witnesses testified to these facts, and another group to those? It is as I have already told you: they divided the fraud. The one so testifying saw no danger in deposing that he served as guardian under the will, or that he lived as ward under the will, 45.39each one of them omitting to state what had been written in the will by Phormio,—no danger in deposing that one's father had left him a document with the word “will” written on it, or anything of that sort. But to testify to the existence of a will in which were involved the theft of such vast sums, the corruption of a lady, the marriage of a mistress with her slave, matters which entailed such shame and disgrace—nobody was ready to do this save these men who got up the challenge; and from them it is right to exact the penalty for the whole of this villainous fraud.

45.40Now, men of Athens, that it may be made clear to you that this fellow Stephanus has given false testimony—made clear not merely by my accusations and proofs, but also by the acts of the person who brought him forward as a witness—I wish to tell you what that person has done. As I said at the beginning of my speech, I shall show that they are their own accusers. In the suit in which this testimony was given, Phormio entered a special plea to estop me on the ground that the suit was not admissible, alleging that I had released him from all claims. 45.41Now 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? 45.42The 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.

45.43That 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. 45.44In 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.