Plea of Chrysipus and Partner Against Phormio (46-50)

That we lent the money is attested by the agreement, and by Phormio himself; that it has been repaid is attested by no one except Lampis, who is an accomplice in the crime. Phormio claims to prove the payment on the testimony of Lampis alone, but I adduce Lampis and those who heard him declare that he had not received the money. Further, Phormio is in a position to bring my witnesses to trial, if he maintains that their testimony is false, but I have no means of dealing with his witnesses, who say they know that Lampis testified that he had received the money. If Lampis’s own deposition had been put into court,[*] these men would perhaps have said that I ought to prosecute him for giving false testimony; but, as it is, I have not this deposition, and Phormio thinks he should get off unscathed, since he has left no valid security for the verdict which he urges you to pronounce.[*]

Would it not indeed be absurd if, when Phormio admits that he borrowed, but alleges that he has made payment, you should make of none effect that which he himself admits and by your vote give effect to what is under dispute? And if, when Lampis, on whose testimony my opponent relies, after at first denying that he had received the money, now testifies to the contrary, you should determine that he has received it, although there are no witnesses to support the fact?

And if you refuse to admit as proofs all that he truthfully stated, and should count more worthy of belief the lies which he told after he had been corrupted? Verily, men of Athens, it is far more just to draw conclusions from statements made in the first instance than from those subsequently fabricated; for the former he made truthfully, and not with ulterior purpose, while the later ones are lies designed to further his interests.

Remember, men of Athens, that even Lampis himself never denied saying that he had not received the money; he admitted that he so stated, but declared he was not in his right mind at the time. But would it not be absurd for you to accept as worthy of credit that part of his testimony which favors the defrauding party, and to discredit that which favors the party defrauded?

Nay, men of the jury, I beg you, do not do this. You are the same persons who punished with death, when he had been impeached before the assembly, a man who obtained large additional loans on your exchange, and did not deliver to his creditors their securities, though he was a citizen and the son of a man who had been general.