50
On the other hand, in spite of similar torture, the free man has not even yet said anything to damage me. He could not be influenced by offers of freedom, as his companion had been; and at the same time he was determined to cling to the truth, cost what it might. Of course, as far as his own advantage was concerned, he knew, like the other, that the torture would be over as soon as he corroborated the prosecution. Which, then, have we more reason to believe: the witness who firmly adhered to the same statement throughout, or the witness who affirmed a thing at one moment, and denied it at the next? Why, quite apart from the torture employed, those who consistently keep to one statement about one set of facts are more to be trusted than those who contradict themselves.
51
Then again, of the slave’s statements half are in favor of one side, half in favor of the other: his affirmations support my accusers, and his denials support me. [;Similarly with the combined statements of both the witnesses examined: the one affirmed, and the other consistently denied.];Clearly an addition by a reader who thought that the argument ought to be pushed still further. The syntax is harsh and the reasoning itself unsound; B had denied throughout, it is true; but A, as we have just heard, spent half his time denying, and the other half affirming; so he cannot be set against B. But I need not point out that any equal division is to the advantage of the defence rather than the prosecution, in view of the fact that an equal division of the votes of the jury similarly benefits the defence rather than the prosecution.
