Free men testify under oath, but a slave’s oath is counted worthless. The slaves may be the only important witnesses to a given act, but under only one condition can they testify. With the consent of their master they may testify _under torture_. It is a critical moment at this hearing when a litigant who is confident of his case proudly announces, “I challenge my enemy to put my slaves under torture”; or the other, attacking first, cries out, “I demand that my enemy submit his slaves to torture.” Theoretically the challenged party might refuse, practically a refusal is highly dangerous. “If his slaves didn’t know something bad, why were they kept silent?” the jury will ask. So the rack is brought forth. The wretched menials are stretched upon it. One must hope that often the whole process involves more show of cruelty than actual brutality. What now the slaves gasp out between their twists and howls is duly taken down as “important evidence,” and goes into the record.[*] [*] Athenian opinion was on the whole in favor of receiving as valid testimony the evidence extorted thus from slaves by mere animal fear. Antiphon the orator speaks of how truth may be wrung from slaves by torture; “by which they are compelled to speak the truth though they must die for it afterward [at the hands of the master they have incriminated], for the present necessity is to each stronger than the future.” This has been well called one of the few cases of extreme _stupidity_ on the part of the Athenians.