That in the former trial Nicodemus's evidence was recognized as being false, the condemnation of the witness i.e., Xenocles. on that occasion most clearly proves. For if the present defendant had not been recognized as having given false evidence, the other witness would have been acquitted in the suit about the protestation, and the woman whom the protestation affirmed to be my uncle's legitimate daughter would have been established as his heiress instead of our mother. But since the witness was convicted and the woman who claimed to be Pyrrhus's legitimate daughter abandoned her pretensions to the estate, it follows by absolute necessity that Nicodemus's evidence has been also condemned; for, having solemnly sworn to the truth of the same proposition, he was a party to the action for perjury which was to decide whether the woman who claimed my uncle's estate was the issue of a legitimate wife or of a mistress. You, too, will realize that this is so when you have heard our affidavit, The term ἀντωμοσία was given to the “counter-oaths” taken by the contending parties at the preliminary hearing in support of their respective declarations. the evidence of Nicodemus, and the protestation which was overruled. Please take and read these documents to the court. Affidavits Evidence Protestation It has now been shown that it was immediately apparent to all at the time that Nicodemus committed perjury; but it is proper that the falsity of his evidence should be proved before you also who are about to give your verdict on this very issue. But I desire first to ask some questions. He has deposed that he married his sister to a man who possessed a fortune of three talents; what dowry does he allege that he gave with her? Next, did this wedded wife leave her husband during his lifetime or quit his house after his death? A widow might either remain in her late husband's house, if there were no children, or return to the house of her legal representative ( κύριος ), and, through him, obtain the return of her dowry or the payment of interest upon it for her maintenance. And from whom did the defendant recover his sister's dowry after the death of him to whom he has deposed that he gave her in marriage? Or, if he did not recover it, what action did he think fit to institute to obtain her maintenance or the restitution of her dowry against the man who was for twenty years the tenant of the estate? Or did he ever, during all that long period, go and make any claim upon the heir regarding his sister's dowry in the presence of any witness? I should be glad to learn what was the reason why none of these steps has been taken in favor of a woman, who, according to the defendant's evidence, was legally married.