Humanitext Reader

Demosthenes · Against Onetor I §25-31

Evidence of Sham Divorce and Continued Cohabitation

Passage 4 of 5 · Greek

Summary

Demosthenes argues that the divorce was a sham, pointing to the facts that Aphobus continued to farm the land and live with his wife. He presents as evidence Onetor's refusal to allow a slave to be questioned under torture, Aphobus's suspicious removal of farming goods after the trial, and Onetor's bizarre silence.

§25φέρε δή, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, καὶ τὴν γυναῖχʼ ὑμῖν ἀποδείξω λόγῳ μὲν ἀπολελοιπυῖαν, ἔργῳ δὲ συνοικοῦσαν Ἀφόβῳ·
Come now, men of the jury, let me also show you that this woman, though divorced in name, is in fact living with Aphobus.
νομίζω γάρ, ἂν τοῦτʼ ἀκριβῶς μάθητε, μᾶλλον ὑμᾶς τούτοις μὲν ἀπιστήσειν, ἐμοὶ δʼ ἀδικουμένῳ τὰ δίκαια βοηθήσειν.
For I believe that if you understand this point precisely, you will be all the more distrustful of these men, and will help me in my pursuit of justice as the injured party.
μάρτυρας δὲ τῶν μὲν ὑμῖν παρέξομαι, τῶν δʼ ἐπιδείξω μεγάλα τεκμήρια καὶ πίστεις ἱκανάς.
On some of these points I shall present witnesses to you, and on others I shall demonstrate great proofs and sufficient grounds for belief.
§26ἐγὼ γάρ, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, μετὰ τὸ γεγράφθαι παρὰ τῷ ἄρχοντι ταύτην τὴν γυναῖκʼ ἀπολελοιπυῖαν καὶ τὸ φάσκειν Ὀνήτορʼ ἀντὶ τῆς προικὸς ἀποτετιμῆσθαι τὸ χωρίον, ὁρῶν Ἄφοβον ὁμοίως ἔχοντα καὶ γεωργοῦντα τὴν γῆν καὶ τῇ γυναικὶ συνοικοῦντα, σαφῶς ᾔδειν ὅτι λόγος ταῦτα καὶ παραγωγὴ τοῦ πράγματός ἐστιν.
For, men of the jury, after this woman had been registered before the archon as divorced and Onetor claimed that the land had been mortgaged to him in place of the dowry, when I saw Aphobus holding the property just as before, farming the land, and living with the woman, I knew clearly that these things were mere talk and a distraction from the facts.
§27βουλόμενος δʼ ἐμφανῆ ποιῆσαι ταῦτα πᾶσιν ὑμῖν, ἐξελέγχειν αὐτὸν ἠξίουν ἐναντίον μαρτύρων, εἰ μὴ φάσκοι ταῦθʼ οὕτως ἔχειν, καὶ παρεδίδουν οἰκέτην εἰς βάσανον, ὃς συνῄδει πάντʼ ἀκριβῶς· ὃν ἔλαβον κατὰ τὴν ὑπερημερίαν ἐκ τῶν Ἀφόβου.
Wishing to make this clear to you all, I demanded to examine him in the presence of witnesses, if he should deny that this was the case, and I offered to surrender for torture a slave who knew everything precisely—whom I had taken from Aphobus's property due to his failure to pay on time.
οὗτος δʼ ἐμοῦ ταῦτʼ ἀξιώσαντος, περὶ μὲν τοῦ συνοικεῖν Ἀφόβῳ τὴν ἀδελφὴν ἔφυγε τὴν βάσανον· ὡς δʼ οὐκ ἐκεῖνος ἐγεώργει τὴν γῆν, οὐκ ἐδύνατʼ ἀρνηθῆναι διὰ τὴν περιφάνειαν, ἀλλὰ προσωμολόγησεν.
But when I made this demand, he avoided the torture regarding his sister’s living with Aphobus; however, as to the claim that Aphobus was not farming the land, he was unable to deny it because of its public notoriety, but admitted it.
§28οὐ μόνον δʼ ἐκ τούτων ἦν ῥᾴδιον γνῶναι, ὅτι καὶ συνῴκει τῇ γυναικὶ καὶ τὸ χωρίον ἐκέκτητʼ ἔτι πρὶν γενέσθαι τὴν δίκην, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὀφλὼν διεπράξατο περὶ αὐτῶν.
And it was easy to perceive, not only from these facts, but also from what Aphobus did concerning these properties after he lost the lawsuit, that he both lived with the woman and still possessed the land before the trial took place.
ὡς γὰρ οὐκ ἀποτετιμηκώς, ἀλλʼ ἐμῶν ἐσομένων κατὰ τὴν δίκην, ἃ μὲν οἷόν τʼ ἦν ἐξενεγκεῖν, ᾤχετο λαβών, τοὺς καρποὺς καὶ τὰ σκεύη τὰ γεωργικὰ πάντα πλὴν τῶν πιθακνῶν·
For, acting as if he had not mortgaged it, but as if it would become mine as a result of the lawsuit, he went off taking everything that could be carried away—all the crops and farming implements except the storage jars.
ὃ δʼ οὐχ οἷόν τʼ ἦν ἀνελεῖν, ἐξ ἀνάγκης ὑπέλιπεν, ὥστʼ ἐγγενέσθαι τούτῳ νῦν αὐτῆς τῆς γῆς ἀμφισβητεῖν.
What could not be removed he left behind of necessity, which now makes it possible for Onetor to dispute the possession of the land itself.
§29καίτοι δεινὸν τὸν μὲν λέγειν ὡς ἀπετιμήσατο τὸ χωρίον, τὸν δʼ ἀποτετιμηκότα φαίνεσθαι γεωργοῦντα, καὶ φάσκειν μὲν ἀπολελοιπέναι τὴν ἀδελφήν, ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν δὲ τούτων φανερὸν εἶναι φεύγοντα τοὺς ἐλέγχους, καὶ τὸν μὲν οὐ συνοικοῦντα, ὡς οὗτός φησιν, καὶ τοὺς καρποὺς καὶ τὰ ἐκ τῆς γεωργίας ἅπαντʼ ἐξενεγκεῖν, τὸν δʼ ὑπὲρ τῆς ἀπολελοιπυίας πράττοντα, ὑπὲρ ἧς ἀποτετιμῆσθαί φησι τὸ χωρίον, φαίνεσθαι μηδʼ ὑπὲρ ἑνὸς τούτων ἀγανακτοῦντα, ἀλλʼ ἡσυχίαν ἔχοντα.
And yet, is it not shocking that while Onetor says he mortgaged the land, the man who supposedly mortgaged it is seen farming it; and while Onetor claims his sister has divorced him, he is visibly fleeing from testing this very point; and while Aphobus, who this man says is not living with her, carried off all the crops and farming implements, the man who is acting on behalf of the divorced woman, for whose sake he says the land was mortgaged, is seen not to be indignant about any of these things, but remains quiet?
§30ταῦτʼ οὐ πολλὴ περιφάνειʼ ἐστίν;
Is this not a huge and manifest deception?
ταῦτʼ οὐχ ὁμολογουμένη προστασία;
Is this not an acknowledged collusion?
φήσειέ γʼ ἄν τις, εἰ διαλογίζοιτʼ ὀρθῶς ἕκαστʼ αὐτῶν.
Anyone would say so, if he calculated each of these details correctly.
ὡς τοίνυν ὡμολόγει μὲν ἐκεῖνον γεωργεῖν πρὶν γενέσθαι τὴν δίκην ἐμοὶ πρὸς αὐτόν, ὑπὲρ δὲ τοῦ μὴ συνοικεῖν τὴν ἀδελφὴν οὐκ ἠθέλησεν ποιήσασθαι τὴν βάσανον, ἡ δὲ γεωργία ἐξεσκευάσθη μετὰ τὴν δίκην πλὴν τῶν ἐγγείων, λαβὲ ταύτας τὰς μαρτυρίας καὶ ἀνάγνωθι. ΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΑΙ. §31ἐμοὶ τοίνυν τοσούτων ὑπαρχόντων τεκμηρίων, οὐχ ἥκιστʼ αὐτὸς ἔδειξεν Ὀνήτωρ, ὅτι οὐκ ἀληθινὴν ἐποιήσατο τὴν ἀπόλειψιν.
Now, to prove that he admitted Aphobus was farming the land before the lawsuit between him and me took place, but refused to submit to torture regarding his sister’s not living with him, and that the farming equipment, except for the fixtures on the land, was cleared out after the trial, please take these depositions and read them. [DEPOSITIONS] Since I have so many proofs, Onetor himself showed most clearly of all that he did not make a genuine divorce.
ᾧ γὰρ προσῆκεν χαλεπῶς φέρειν, εἰ τὴν προῖκα δούς, ὥς φησιν, ἀντʼ ἀργυρίου χωρίον ἀμφισβητούμενον ἀπελάμβανεν, οὗτος οὐχ ὡς διάφορος οὐδʼ ὡς ἀδικούμενος, ἀλλʼ ὡς οἰκειότατος πάντων τὴν πρὸς ἐμὲ δίκην αὐτῷ συνηγωνίζετο.
For this man, who ought to have been resentful if, after paying the dowry, he received as he says a disputed piece of land instead of money, did not act as an adversary or as an injured party, but as the closest relative of all, he fought the lawsuit against me on Aphobus's side.
κἀμὲ μὲν συναποστερῆσαι μετʼ ἐκείνου τῶν πατρῴων ἐπεχείρησεν, καθʼ ὅσον αὐτὸς οἷός τʼ ἦν, ὑφʼ οὗ κακὸν οὐδʼ ὁτιοῦν ἦν πεπονθώς· Ἀφόβῳ δʼ, ὃν ἀλλότριον εἶναι προσῆκε νομίζειν, εἴ τι τούτων ἀληθὲς ἦν ὧν νῦν λέγουσιν, καὶ τἀμὰ πρὸς τοῖς ἐκείνου περιποιεῖν ἐζήτησεν.
And indeed, he attempted, in collusion with Aphobus, to deprive me of my paternal inheritance as far as he himself was able, though he had suffered no wrong whatsoever from me; but for Aphobus, whom he ought to have regarded as a stranger if any of what they now say was true, he sought to preserve my property in addition to his own.

Notes

  1. §25νομίζω γάρ, ἂν τοῦτʼ ἀκριβῶς μάθητε, μᾶλλον ὑμᾶς τούτοις μὲν ἀπιστήσειν, ἐμοὶ δʼ ἀδικουμένῳ τὰ δίκαια βοηθήσειν — This is an infinitive clause governed by the verb νομίζω ('I think'). The accusative ὑμᾶς is the subject of both future infinitives ἀπιστήσειν and βοηθήσειν, while ἂν ... μάθητε forms the protasis of a conditional clause. The phrase τὰ δίκαια after βοηθήσειν functions adverbially as 'justly' or 'rightfully.'
  2. §28ὡς γὰρ οὐκ ἀποτετιμηκώς, ἀλλʼ ἐμῶν ἐσομένων κατὰ τὴν δίκην — Under the conjunction ὡς ('on the assumption that'), two contrasting participle constructions are coordinated. The first, οὐκ ἀποτετιμηκώς, is a nominative participle agreeing with the subject (Aphobus), while the second, ἐμῶν ἐσομένων, is a genitive absolute using the future participle (with ἐμῶν meaning 'my property'). Although syntactically asymmetrical, both express Aphobus's subjective motive or expectation.
  3. §29δεινὸν τὸν μὲν λέγειν ... τὸν δʼ ὑπὲρ τῆς ἀπολελοιπυίας πράττοντα ... φαίνεσθαι μηδʼ ὑπὲρ ἑνὸς τούτων ἀγανακτοῦντα, ἀλλʼ ἡσυχίαν ἔχοντα — This is an extremely long and complex accusative-with-infinitive (A.C.I.) construction dependent on the impersonal expression δεινόν [ἐστιν] ('it is shocking that...'). The core structure coordinates two pairs of contrasting situations (τὸν μὲν λέγειν vs. τὸν δʼ ... φαίνεσθαι γεωργοῦντα, and τὸν μὲν οὐ συνοικοῦντα ... ἐξενεγκεῖν vs. τὸν δʼ ... φαίνεσθαι ... ἀγανακτοῦντα), highlighting the contradiction between the claims and the actual behaviors.

Cite this passage

Demosthenes, Against Onetor I §25-31. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0014.tlg030.humanitext-grc2:25-31

Please note the AI-draft status of the translation and the date accessed.

Translation, notes and summary are AI-generated drafts, revised through reader feedback.