Greek Texts & Translations

46.1Even of myself, men of the jury, I could pretty well suspect that this fellow Stephanus would not be at a loss for something to say in defence of his testimony; and that he would seek to mislead and deceive you in his speech by alleging that he has not borne witness to everything written in the deposition. For he is a knave, and there are many to write speeches and give advice on Phormio's behalf. Furthermore it is but natural that those who undertake to give false testimony should at the start prepare some means of defending it. 46.2But I bid you to bear this in mind, that in his address, long as it was, he nowhere brought forward witnesses to prove to you either that he was himself present when my father made this will, so as to know that this is a copy of the will which my father made, or that he saw the document opened which they declare my father drew up and left as his will. 46.3When, however, my opponent has testified that what was written in the document was a copy of the will of Pasio, but is unable to prove either that my father made a will or that he was himself present and saw it when my father drew it up, is he not manifestly proved to have given false testimony?

46.4If, now, he maintains that it was a challenge and not a deposition, he is not telling the truth. For all pieces of evidence which the parties to a suit bring before the court when they tender challenges to one another, they bring in by means of depositions. Otherwise you would not know whether what they severally say is true or false, if they did not bring forward the witnesses also. But when they do bring in witnesses, you rely upon these as being responsible, and so from the statements and the testimony offered you cast your votes for what seems to you to be a just verdict. 46.5I wish therefore to prove to you that the deposition is not a challenge, and to show you how they ought to have deposed if the challenge was given, which it was not,—“The deponents testify that they were present before the arbitrator Teisias, when Phormio challenged Apollodorus to open the document which Amphias, the brother-in-law of Cephisophon, produced, and that Apollodorus refused to open it.” If they had given their evidence in this way, they would have appeared to be speaking the truth. But to depose that what was written in the document which Phormio produced was a copy of the will of Pasio, without having been present when Pasio made the will, or knowing that he had made one, does this not seem to you to be a manifest piece of insolence?

46.6And surely, if he says that he believed this to be true because Phormio said it was, it would be like the same man to believe him when he said this, and to testify to it at his bidding. The laws, however, do not say this, but ordain that a man may testify to what he knows, or to matters at the doing of which he was present, and that his testimony must be committed to writing in order that it may not be possible to subtract anything from what is written, or to add anything to it. 46.7Hearsay evidence they do not admit from a living person, but only from one who is dead; but in the case of those who are sick or absent from the country they allow evidence to be introduced, provided it be in written form, and the absent witness and the one submitting his testimony shall alike be liable to action under the same impeachment, in order that, if the absent witness acknowledges his evidence, he may be liable to action for giving false testimony, and if he does not acknowledge it, the one who submitted his testimony may be liable. 46.8Now Stephanus here, without knowing that my father left a will or having ever been present when he drew one up, but having been told this by Phormio, has given hearsay evidence which is false, and has done it in defiance of the law.

To prove that I am telling the truth in this, the clerk shall read you the law itself.Law

It shall be lawful to introduce hearsay evidence from one that is dead, and written evidence given in absence from one who is out of the country, or is sick.

46.9Now I wish to prove to you that he has given evidence contrary to another law also, that you may know that Phormio, having no harbor of refuge from the grievous wrongs he has committed, had made a pretence of the challenge, but actually has given evidence for himself, screening himself behind the testimony of these men, by which the jurymen were deceived, assuming that they were testifying to the truth, and I was robbed of the property which my father left me and of reparation for the wrongs which I have suffered. For the laws do not permit a man to give evidence for himself either in criminal suits or in civil suits or in audits. Phormio, however, has given evidence for himself, when these men say that they have given this testimony on the strength of what they heard from him.

46.10But that you may be fully convinced of this, please read the law itself.Law

The two parties to a suit shall be compelled to answer one another's questions, but they may not testify.

Now consider this law also which ordains that action for false testimony may also be brought on this very ground, namely, that one testifies contrary to law.Law

The witness shall also be liable to action for giving false testimony on the mere ground that he gives evidence contrary to law, and the one producing him shall also be liable in the selfsame manner.