65
I wish now to speak about the challenge to an oath, which I tendered the defendant, and he tendered me. For after I had put an oath in the evidence-box, he thought that, by taking an oath himself, he could be quit of the affair. And, if I had not known that he had flagrantly perjured himself in many solemn oaths both to states and to individuals, I should have allowed him to take the oath; but as it was, seeing that I had witnesses to prove that the persons appointed by him had in fact received the money from the bank, and conclusive circumstantial evidence as well, it seemed to me a monstrous thing to give an oath to one who would not only take no care to swear honestly, but who, when it was a question of gain, has not spared even temples.
66
The specific instances of the perjuries which he has committed without scruple would make a long story; but I will call to your minds the most flagrant instances and those of which you are all well aware. You know that he swore in the assembly, imprecating destruction upon himself and dedicating his property to sacred uses, if he should fail to indict Iphicrates as a usurper of the rights of citizenship. Yet, although he had sworn and promised this in the assembly, no long time afterwards, in order to serve his own interests, he gave his daughter in marraige to the son of Iphicrates.
67
When a man, then, felt no shame in deceiving you to whom he had pledged his word, though there are laws which declare that, if a man deceive the people by a promise, he shall be liable to impeachment,—when, after swearing and imprecating destruction upon himself, he had no fear of the gods in whose name he had perjured himself—was it strange that I was unwilling to allow him to take an oath? Again, not very long ago, he once more solemnly declared in the assembly that he had not adequate provision for his old age—he, who possesses so large an estate; so insatiate and grasping is his character.
