14
I have established this point, then, in this way beyond all controversy; and I think I shall easily demonstrate from the facts themselves that they did not pay the portion subsequently either; so that it will be clear to you that even if they withheld the money, not for the reasons I have mentioned, but with the intention of speedy payment, they would never actually have paid it, or let it slip out of their hands; with such urgency did the case press upon them.
15
There was an interval of two years between the marriage of the woman and their declaration that the divorce had taken place. She was married in the archonship of Polyzelus, in the month of Scirophorion,That is, in June 366. and the divorce was registered in the month of Poseidon,That is, in December 364. in the archonship of Timocrates. I, on my part, was admitted to citizenshipSee note b, on Dem. 27.5, and Aristot. Ath. Pol. 42.2 immediately after the marriage, laid my charges, and demanded an accounting; and, finding that I was being robbed of all my property, instituted my suit under the last-mentioned archon.
16
The shortness of the time makes the continuance of the debt in accordance with the agreement not unlikely, but it is incredible that it should have been paid. For do you suppose that the defendant here, a man who at the first chose to owe the money and to pay interest on it, in order that his sister’s dowry might not be jeopardized along with the rest of her husband’s property, would have paid it when suit had already been instituted against that husband? Why, even if he had at the first trusted him with the money, he would then at once have sought to recover it. No, men of the jury; the supposition is, I presume, impossible.
17
To prove that the woman married at the time I mention; that in the interim Aphobus and I had already gone to law; and that those men did not register the divorce with the archon until after I had instituted my suit, take, please, these depositions regarding each point.
