Greek Texts & Translations

45.8Take the deposition itself, and read it, please, that from its very language I may prove my point.

Read; and do you check the water.Deposition

Stephanus, son of Menecles, of Acharnae, Endius, son of Epigenes, of Lamptrae, Scythes, son of Harmateus, of Cydathenaeum ^note 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.

45.9You have heard the deposition, men of the jury, and I think that even if you have noticed nothing else, this at least must have seemed strange to you, that it begins with a challenge and ends with a will. However, I on my part, count it right, when I shall have shown what may be called the main substance of the testimony to be false, then, and not till then, to say something also about matters of that sort. 45.10Well, then, it is deposed by them that Phormio challenged me to open the will which Amphias, brother—in—law of Cephisophon, submitted to the arbitrator Teisias; and that I refused to open it; and that the will to which they themselves deposed was a copy of that original; and then follows a copy of the will. 45.11Now as to whether Phormio tendered me this challenge or not, and whether the will is genuine or spurious I say nothing as yet; I will discuss these matters before you presently; but I will take up the testimony they have given, that I refused to open the document. I would have you look at the matter in this way—what reason would anyone have had for refusing to open it? In order, one may say, that the will might not be shown to the jury. 45.12Well and good. If they had not deposed to the will as well as to the challenge, there would have been some reason in my refusing to open the document; but since they deposed to both, and the jurymen were going to hear the will in any case, what advantage was there for me in refusing? None, assuredly. Quite the contrary, men of Athens; even if these men had tendered no challenge, but had merely talked of the matter, and someone had delivered a document to them as a will, 45.13it would have been my business to tender the challenge and to order them to open it, in order that, if the contents differed from the statements which these men had made in their deposition, I might have called a number of the bystanders as witnesses, and have used this fact as a proof that the rest of their story too was a fabrication; but, if the contents were the same, I might have required the one presenting it to give evidence himself. If he consented, I should have had a responsible witness, and, if he refused, this very fact again would have been a convincing proof for me that the affair had been concocted. And in the former case the result would have been that I had one person with whom to deal, whereas according to the depositions of these men I have many. Is there anyone among you who would have chosen the latter course? I think not one of you would have. 45.14Well then, you ought not to believe it of anyone else either. For, men of Athens, in all courses of action which involve anger or some getting of gain or exasperation or a spirit of jealousy, different persons will act in different ways in accordance with their several dispositions; but in all cases where none of these things is involved, but merely a calm calculation of one's own interest, who would be so senseless as to dismiss what would help him and do what would make it more difficult for him to win his case? Yet a course of action which is neither natural nor reasonable, which, in short, no human being would have undertaken—this these witnesses have attributed to me.