This text is part of:
Search the Perseus Catalog for:
View text chunked by:
[33]
Here we must draw the conclusion that perjury
consists in the intention, not in what is said.1 But if the
opponent has taken such an oath, we may say that one who does not abide by what
be has sworn subverts everything, for this is the reason why the dicasts take an
oath before applying the laws; and [we may make this appeal]:
“They demand that you abide by your oath as judges, while they
themselves do not abide by theirs.” Further, we should employ all
means of amplification. Let this suffice for the inartificial proofs.
1 The defence in such cases is: （1） that the previous oath was taken as a result of fraud or compulsion; （2） that you did not mean what you said.
Aristotle in 23 Volumes, Vol. 22, translated by J. H. Freese. Aristotle. Cambridge and London. Harvard University Press; William Heinemann Ltd. 1926.
The Annenberg CPB/Project provided support for entering this text.
Purchase a copy of this text (not necessarily the same edition) from Amazon.com
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.