Against Athenogenes (16-20)

Consider the legal position, Athenogenes, as regards free persons as well as slaves. No doubt you know as everyone does that the children of married women are legitimate. Yet the mere act of betrothing a woman on the part of a father or brother was not enough for the lawmaker. On the contrary, he wrote expressly in the law[*] : whomsoever any man has lawfully betrothed as wife, her children shall be legitimate; not: if any man has betrothed some other woman on the pretence that she is his daughter. He lays it down that just betrothals shall be valid and unjust ones invalid.

Moreover the law dealing with wills is very similar to this.[*] It allows a man to bequeath his property as he wishes unless he is affected by old age, illness or insanity, and provided he is not influenced by a woman or imprisoned or otherwise coerced. But if even our own personal property cannot be administered according to an unjust will, surely Athenogenes who is disposing of my property through his agreement cannot enforce such terms.

Apparently if a man respects the wishes of his own wife in making his will it will be invalid. Then must I, who was influenced by the mistress of Athenogenes, accept the contract and be ruined too,[*] even though I can claim the very powerful help of the law, having been compelled by these people to conclude the agreement? Do you insist on the agreement when you and your mistress laid a trap for me to get it signed? In circumstances where the laws relating to conspiracy proclaim that you are guilty, are you expecting actually to make a profit? You were not content with the forty minas for the perfumery. No; you robbed me of a further five talents as though I were caught ⋯[*]

the affairs of the market, but by simply waiting I discovered all the debts and loans in three months. Whereas this man had two generations of perfume sellers behind him; he used to sit in the market every day, was the owner of three stalls and had accounts submitted to him monthly and still he did not know his debts. Though an expert in other matters he was a complete simpleton in dealing with his slave, and though he knew, apparently, of some of the debts, he pleads ignorance of others—to suit his convenience.

In using an argument like this, gentlemen of the jury, he is accusing, not excusing, himself, since he is admitting that I need not pay the debts. For if he says that he did not know the full amount owing, surely he cannot claim that he informed me of the debts beforehand; and I am not bound to pay those of which the seller did not notify me. You knew that Midas owed this money, Athenogenes, as I think we all realize for several reasons, and chiefly because you summoned Nicon to give security for me[*] ⋯