Against Onetor, An Ejectment Suit II (11-14)

For what man would be so foolish as, first, to pay out so large a sum, then to take as security a single piece of property, the title to which was under dispute, and finally, not satisfied with his previous losses and assuming that the one who had wronged him was now going to act justly, to become his bail for the damages assessed by the court? Nobody would, to my thinking. The assumption is not even rational, that a man unable to recover a talent for himself, should promise to pay that sum to another, and further to give bail for it. No; from these facts alone it is clear that he has never paid the dowry, but as a close friend of Aphobus he took this mortgage in return for my large property, wishing to make his sister jointly with Aphobus an inheritor of my estate.

Then he seeks now to deceive and beguile you by claiming that he set up the pillars before judgement was given against Aphobus. Aye, Onetor; but not before it was given by you, if what you now say is true. For it is clear that you acted as you did because you were convinced of his guilt. Again, this language of yours is absurd, as though you, men of the jury, did not know that all those who commit frauds of this sort determine what they are going to say, and that no one ever lost a suit through keeping quiet, or admitting that he was in the wrong; but it is, I think, when he has been convicted of making a false statement, that men know what manner of man he is.

And this is what appears to me to be exactly the plight of Onetor. For tell me, how can it be just, if you set up pillars for eighty minae, that the dowry should be eighty minae; and, if for more, more; and, if for less, less? Or how is it just, when your sister up to this present day has never lived with any other man, or been separated from Aphobus, when you have neither paid the dowry, nor been willing to have recourse to the torture, or to any other fair means of determining the matters at issue, that because you claim to have set up pillars, the farm shall belong to you? I certainly do not see how it can be. It is the truth to which we must look, not to arguments which a man has contrived (as you are doing) in order to seem to speak with some plausibility.

Then—the most outrageous thing of all—suppose you had in reality paid the marriage-portion (which you have not paid), whose fault was it? Was it not yours? For you paid it on the security of my property. Was it not ten full years before he became your brother-in-law that Aphobus took possession of my estate for which judgement has been rendered against him? And was it right for you to recover the whole amount, while I, who had been awarded damages against him, I, an orphan who had been wronged and robbed of a marriage-portion that was genuine, I who with better right than any other man should have been exempted from the risk of having to pay costs,[*] should be forced to suffer thus, and should have recovered nothing whatever, though ready to meet any of your[*] proposals, had you been willing to do anything that justice required?