[hypothesis] Cleonymus having died, his nephews claim his estate as the natural heirs. They admit that the will in favor of Pherenicus, Simon,1 and Poseidippus, and produced by these persons, was the genuine will of Cleonymus, and was deposited by Cleonymus with the magistrates at a time when he was angry with their guardian Deinias; they allege, however, that he subsequently tried to annul the will, and after having sent for the police-magistrate, died suddenly. They further allege that Polyarchus, their grandfather and Cleonymus's father, instructed the latter, if anything should happen to him, to leave his property to them. The question at issue is a decision between the conflicting claims of the two parties, one basing their claim on the original will, the other relying on the last acts of Cleonymus, and alleging that he sent for the magistrate in order to annul the will.

Great indeed, gentlemen, is the change which the death of Cleonymus has brought upon me. In his lifetime he devised his property to us; his death has exposed us to the danger of losing it. While he lived, we were so discreetly brought up by him that we never entered a law court even as listeners; now we have come here to fight for all that we possess; for our opponents claim not only Cleonymus's property, but also our patrimony, alleging that we owe his estate money as well. [2] Their own friends and relatives concede our right to an equal share with them in the undisputed property which Cleonymus left behind him; but our opponents have become so impudent that they are seeking to deprive us even of our patrimony—not because they are ignorant, gentlemen, of what is just, but because they are convinced of our utter helplessness. [3]

For consider the grounds on which the respective parties rely in coming before you. Our opponents insist upon a will which our uncle drew up, not because he had any ground of complaint against us, but through anger against one of our relatives, and which he annulled before his death, sending Poseidippus to the magistrate's office for the purpose. [4] We were Cleonymus's nearest relatives, and lived on terms of greater intimacy with him than anyone else; and the laws have given us the right of succession as next of kin, as also did Cleonymus himself, owing to the affection which subsisted between us. And, further, Polyarchus, Cleonymus's father and our grandfather, gave instructions that, if Cleonymus should die without issue, he was to leave his property to us. [5] Though we have all these claims, our opponents, though they are our relatives and have no justice to urge, are not ashamed to bring us into court in a matter about which it would be disgraceful even for those who are no relatives at all to dispute. [6] But I think, gentlemen, that we and our opponents have not the same feelings towards one another; for I regard it as the worst feature of my present troubles, not that I am being unjustly placed in peril, but that I am at law with kinsmen, against whom even to defend oneself is not creditable; for I should not regard it as a less misfortune to injure them, my relatives, in my own defence than to have been originally injured by them. [7] They have no such sentiments, but have come against us after calling all their friends to their aid, and procuring orators and mustering all their forces, as though, gentlemen, they were going to punish foes, and not to harm kinsmen and relatives. [8] You will understand their shamelessness and greed better when you have heard the whole story. I will begin my narrative at a point which will, I think, enable you most readily to understand the matters in dispute. [9]

We were orphans, and our uncle Deinias, our father's brother, assumed the guardianship of us. Now it so happened that he was at variance with Cleonymus; which of the two was to blame for this, it is not perhaps my business to determine, but I might justly find fault with both of them alike, inasmuch as, having previously been friends, without any real pretext, as the result of certain words which were spoken, they became so hastily at enmity with one another. [10] It was at this time, under the influence of this anger, that Cleonymus made this will: not because he had any complaint against us, as he subsequently stated, but because he saw that we were under the guardianship of Deinias, and was afraid that he might himself die while we were minors, and that Deinias might obtain control of the property, if it became ours; for he could not bear to think of leaving his bitterest enemy as the guardian of his relatives and in control of his property, and of the customary rites being performed over him, until we grew up, by one with whom he had been at variance in his lifetime. [11] Such were the sentiments under which, whether rightly or wrongly, he made this will; and when Deinias immediately asked him at the time whether he had any grievance against us or our father, he replied in the hearing of all that he had no fault to find with us, and so testified that it was his anger against Deinias and not his calm judgement which decided him to make this will. For surely, gentlemen, if he had been in his right senses, he would never have wished to injure us, who had never wronged him. [12] His subsequent conduct is the strongest proof in support of our contention, that even in acting thus he did not intend to injure us. For after Deinias's death, when things were going badly with us, he would not allow us to lack anything, but took us into his own house and brought us up, and saved our property when our creditors were scheming against it, and looked after our interests as though they were his own. [13] It is from these acts rather than from the will that his intentions must be discerned, and inferences must be drawn not from what he did under the influence of anger—through which we are all liable to err—but from his subsequent acts, whereby he made his attitude quite clear. In his last hours he showed still more plainly his feelings toward us. [14] For, when he was suffering from the illness of which he died, he wished to revoke this will, and directed Poseidippus to fetch the magistrate. Not only did he fail to do so, but he even sent away one of the magistrates who had come to the door. Cleonymus was enraged at this, and again gave instructions, this time to Diocles, to summon the magistrates for the following day, though he was in no fit state to transact business owing to his illness; but, although there was still good hope of his recovery, he died suddenly that night. [15]

I will now produce witnesses to prove, first, that the motive of Cleonymus in making this will was not any grievance against us, but his enmity towards Deinias; secondly, that after Deinias's death he looked after all our interests, and took us to his own house and brought us up; and, thirdly, that he sent Poseidippus for the magistrate, but not only did he himself fail to summon him, but also sent him away when he came to the door. [16] To prove the truth of my statements, please call the witnesses.“Witnesses”

Next call witnesses to testify that the friends of our opponents, including Cephisander, were of opinion that the parties should share the estate, and that we should have one third of all that Cleonymus possessed.“Witnesses” [17]

I think, gentlemen, that in any dispute about an inheritance, if the claimants can prove, as we can, that they are nearer both in affinity and in affection to the deceased, all other arguments are superfluous. But, since my opponents, though they can urge either of these titles, have the impudence to claim what does not belong to them, and are trumping up false arguments, I should like to say a few words on these very points. [18] They insist upon the will, declaring that Cleonymus sent for the magistrate because he wished, not to revoke it, but to correct it and to confirm the bequest in their favor. Now consider which is the more likely, that Cleonymus, now that he had become friendly towards us, wished to cancel the will which he had made in anger, or that he was seeking a still surer means to deprive us of his property. [19] All other men afterwards repent of wrongs which they have done to their relatives in moments of anger; Cleonymus is represented by my opponents as desirous, when he was on terms of the closest affection with us, still further to confirm the will which he made in anger. So, even if we were to admit that he did so and you yourselves were to believe it, my opponents, you must observe, are accusing Cleonymus of utter madness. [20] For what greater act of insanity could be committed than that Cleonymus, when he was at variance with Deinias, should wrong us and make a will whereby he did not punish Deinias but wronged his nearest and dearest, whereas now, when he was on terms of the closest friendship with us and held us in higher esteem than anyone else, he should have wished, as my opponents allege, to leave his nephews alone without any share in his property? Who, gentlemen, in his right mind would determine so to dispose of his estate? [21] By these arguments they have made it easy for you to decide their case. If it was to revoke the will, as we assert, that Cleonymus sent for the magistrate, they have no possible plea to urge; if he was so mad as always to have the least regard for us, his nearest kinsmen and most intimate friends, you would be justified, I presume, in declaring such a will invalid. [22]

Next remark, that, though they allege that Cleonymus asked for the magistrate to be summoned in order to confirm the bequest to themselves, yet, when they were ordered to do so, they dared not bring him in, and also sent away one of the magistrates who came to the door. Two alternatives lay before them, either to have the inheritance confirmed to them or else to offend Cleonymus by not doing what he asked; they preferred to incur his enmity rather than to secure this bequest! [23] Could anything be more incredible than this? Those who had so much to gain by doing what he asked, avoided rendering this service, as though they were going to lose by it, while Cleonymus showed so much zeal for their advantage that he was angry with Poseidippus for neglecting his wishes, and repeated the request to Diocles for the following day! [24]

If, gentlemen, Cleonymus, as my opponents allege, bequeathed the estate to them by the will in its present form, I cannot help wondering by what alteration he thought he could make it more valid; for in the eyes of every one else such a will is the most complete form of bequest. [25] Furthermore, if he wished to add anything to these dispositions, why did he not record and leave behind him his wishes in a codicil, when he found himself unable to procure the original will from the officials? For he could not annul any other document except that which was deposited at the magistrate's office; but he was at liberty to record anything he liked in a codicil, and thus avoid leaving this matter in dispute between us. [26] If we concede also that Cleonymus wished to alter his will, it is, I think, obvious to you all that he was dissatisfied with it. Here, again, mark the impudence of our opponents, who claim that the will should be valid, though they admit that even the testator himself was dissatisfied with it, and are trying to persuade you to give a verdict which is contrary to the laws and to justice and to the intentions of the deceased. [27] Most impudent of all their statements is when they dare to say that Cleonymus did not wish us to have any of his property. Whom, gentlemen, could he have wished to have it rather than those to whom in his lifetime he gave more assistance out of his private means than to any other of his relatives? [28] It would be most extraordinary if, while Cephisander, the kinsman of our opponents, thought it fair that each of us should have a share of the property, yet Cleonymus, who was our nearest relative and received us into his house and cared for us and looked after our interests as though they were his own, was the only person who wished that we should receive no share of his estate. [29] Who of you could possibly believe that our opponents-at-law are kinder and more considerate towards us than our closest kindred; and that he, who was bound to treat us well and in whom it would have been disgraceful to neglect us, left us none of his property, whereas these men, who are under no obligation to us and whose disregard of us involves no disgrace, offered us a share of the property to which, as they say, we have no claim? These suppositions, gentlemen, are perfectly incredible. [30]

Again, if Cleonymus had entertained the same feelings towards both parties at the time of his death as when he made the will, some of you might reasonably believe my opponents' story; as it is, you will find that the exact contrary is true. Then he was at variance with Deinias, who was acting as our guardian, and was not yet on terms of close intimacy with us, and was kindly disposed towards all my opponents; at the time of his death he had become at variance with some of them, and was living on terms of closer intimacy with us than with anyone else. [31] On the causes of the quarrel between my opponents and Cleonymus it is unnecessary for me to dwell; but I will mention some striking proofs of its existence, of which I shall be able also to produce witnesses. Firstly, when he was sacrificing to Dionysus, he invited all his relatives and many other citizens besides, but he offered no place to Pherenicus. Again, when, shortly before his death, he was journeying to Panormus 2 with Simon and met Pherenicus, he could not bring himself to speak to him. [32] Furthermore, when Simon asked him about the quarrel, he narrated the circumstances of their enmity, and threatened that some day he would show Pherenicus what were his feelings towards him. Now call witnesses to prove the truth of these statements.“Witnesses” [33]

Do you imagine, gentlemen, that Cleonymus, being thus disposed towards both parties, acted thus towards us, with whom he lived on terms of the closest affection, in order to leave us without a word to say, while he sought means to confirm the bequest of his whole property to my opponents, with some of whom he was at variance? And that, although this enmity subsisted, he thought more highly of them, and, in spite of the intimacy and affection which had sprung up between us, tried rather to injure us? [34] For my part, if they wished to attack the will and the deceased, I do not know what else they could have said to you, since they represent the will as incorrect and disapproved by the testator, and accuse him of being so insane that, according to them, he set more store by those who were at variance with him than by those with whom he was living on terms of the closest affection, and left all his property to those with whom in his lifetime he was not on speaking terms, while he did not consider those, whom he had treated as his closest friends, as worthy of the smallest share of his estate. Who of you, then, could vote for the validity of this will, [35] which the testator rejected as being incorrect, and which our opponents are actually ready to set aside, since they expressed their willingness to share the estate with us, and which, moreover, we can show to be contrary both to law and to justice and to the intention of the deceased? [36]

You can best learn, I think, the justice of our plea from the statements of our opponents themselves. If they were asked on what grounds they claimed to inherit the property of Cleonymus, they might reply that they are somehow related to him, and that for some time he was on terms of friendship with them. Would not this statement tell in our favor rather than in theirs? [37] For if the right of succession is based on affinity, we are more closely related to him; if it is to be based on existing friendship, it is common knowledge that it was to us that he was more closely bound by affection. Thus it is from their lips rather than from ours that you must learn the justice of the case. [38] Now it would be very strange if in all other cases you were to vote in favor of those who prove themselves nearer either in kinship or in friendship to the deceased, but decide that we, who are admitted to possess both these qualifications, alone are to be deprived of all share in his property. [39]

If Polyarchus, the father of Cleonymus and our grandfather, were alive and lacked the necessities of life, or if Cleonymus had died leaving daughters unprovided for, we should have been obliged on grounds of affinity to support our grandfather, and either ourselves marry Cleonymus's daughters or else provide dowries and find other husbands for them—the claims of kinship, the laws, and public opinion in Athens would have forced us to do this or else become liable to heavy punishment and extreme disgrace— [40] but now that property has been left, will you regard it as just that others, rather than we, should inherit it? Your verdict, then, will not be just or in your own interest or in harmony with the law, if you are going to force those who are next of kin to share in the misfortunes of their relatives, but, when money has been left, give anyone rather than them the right to its possession. [41]

It is only right, gentlemen, that you should—as indeed you do—give your verdicts on grounds of affinity and the true facts of the case in favor of those who claim by right of kinship rather than of those who rely on a will. For you all know what a family relationship is, and it is impossible to misrepresent it to you; on the other hand, false wills have often to be produced—sometimes complete forgeries, sometimes executed under a misapprehension. [42] In the present case you are all aware of our kinship and close relations with the deceased, which are the basis of our claim; but none of you has any knowledge that the will was valid, in reliance upon which our opponents are scheming against us. Further, you will find that our relationship to the deceased is admitted even by our adversaries, whereas the will is contested by us, for they prevented him from annulling it when he wished to do so. [43] So, gentlemen, it is much better that you should give your verdict on the ground of our affinity, which is admitted by both sides, rather than in accordance with the will which was not properly drawn up. Remember also that Cleonymus made the will in a misguided moment of passion, but was in his right mind when he revoked it; it would, therefore, be an extraordinary proceeding to let his momentary passion prevail rather than his reasoned intention. [44]

I think that you yourselves consider it your right to inherit—and feel a grievance if you do not do so—from those who have a claim to inherit from you. Supposing, therefore, that Cleonymus were alive and that our family or that of our opponents had become extinct, consider to which family Cleonymus had the prospect of becoming heir; for it is only fair that those should possess his property from whom he had a right to inherit. [45] If Pherenicus or one of his brothers had died, their children, and not Cleonymus, had the prospect of becoming entitled to the property which they left behind. If, on the other hand, such a fate had befallen us, Cleonymus had the prospect of becoming heir to everything; for we had no children or other relatives, but he was a next-of-kin and most closely bound to us by ties of affection; [46] for which reasons the laws have given him the right of succession, and we should never have thought of making this bequest to anyone else. For we should never, I imagine, have in our lifetime placed our property in his hands in such a way that his wishes prevailed over our own in the matter of what belonged to us, and yet, at our death, have wished others to inherit it rather than our closest friend. [47] Thus, gentlemen, you will find us bound to Cleonymus by the double tie of mutual bequest and inheritance, while you will find my opponents acting impudently and talking of close connection and affinity, because they expect to profit thereby. If it were a question of giving anything away, there are many kinsmen and friends whom they would have preferred as nearer and dearer than him. [48]

I will now sum up what I have said, and I beg the close attention of you all. As long as my opponents try by these arguments to prove and attempt to persuade you that this will represents Cleonymus's intentions, and that he never subsequently regretted having made it, but still wished us to receive none of his estate and to confirm the bequest to them— [49] yet, while stating and insisting on all these points, they never really prove either that they are nearer of kin to Cleonymus or that they were on terms of closer intimacy with him than we were—remember that they are merely accusing him and are not demonstrating to you the justice of their cause. [50] If, therefore, you believe what they say, you ought not to declare them heirs to Cleonymus's estate but to pronounce Cleonymus insane. If, on the other hand, you believe what we say, you must consider that Cleonymus exercised his proper judgement when he wished to revoke the will, and that we are not bringing a vexatious suit but are making a just claim to the inheritance. [51] Lastly, gentlemen, remember that it is impossible for you to decide the matter on the basis of their arguments; for it would be extraordinary, when our adversaries decide that we are entitled in justice to part of the estate, if your verdict is to give them the whole of it, and if you shall hold that they ought to receive more than the amount to which they considered themselves entitled, while you do not award us even as much as our adversaries conceded.

1 The insertion of Simon's name here is a mistake; he was only a friend of Cleonymus （see Isaeus 1.31-32 ）.

2 A harbor on the south-east coast of Attica between Thoricus and Sunium.

[hypothesis] Menecles adopted a son and lived for twenty-three years after the date of the adoption. When his brothers1 claimed his estate, a certain Philonides attested that the estate was not adjudicable, because Menecles had left a son. The brothers then brought an action for perjury against Philonides, and it is against them that the son undertakes the defence of Philonides. The speech, which is in defence of a will, is the counterpart of that delivered “On the Estate of Cleonymus,”2 which upholds the rights of kindred. The discussion concerns a point of law with a controversy on a point of fact; for the speaker affirms that the deceased had the right to adopt a son, and then deals with the point of fact, saying, “It was not under the influence of a woman that he adopted me.” I think, gentlemen, that, if any adoption was ever made in accordance with the laws, mine was, and no one could ever dare to say that Menecles adopted me in a moment of insanity or under the influence of a woman. But since my uncle, acting, as I assert, under a misapprehension, is trying by every means in his power to deprive his dead brother of descendants, showing no respect for the gods of his family or for any of you, I feel constrained to come to the aid of the father who adopted me, and to my own aid. [2] I intend, therefore, first to show you that my adoption was appropriate and legal, and that there is no question of adjudicating the estate of Menecles, since he had a son, namely, myself, and that the evidence of the witness was true. I beg and entreat and beseech you all to listen with favor to what I have to say. [3]

My father, gentlemen, Eponymus of Acharnae,3 was a friend and close acquaintance of Menecles and lived on terms of intimacy with him; there were four of us children, two sons and two daughters. After my father's death we married our elder sister, when she reached a suitable age, to Leucolophus, giving her a dowry of twenty minae. [4] Four or five years later, when our younger sister was almost of marriageable age, Menecles lost his first wife. When he had carried out the customary rites over her, he asked for our sister in marriage, reminding us of the friendship which had existed between our father and himself and of his friendly disposition towards ourselves. [5] Knowing that our father would have given her to no one with greater pleasure, we gave her to him in marriage—not dowerless, as my opponent asserts on every possible occasion, but with the same portion as we gave to our elder sister. In this manner, having been formerly his friends, we became his kinsmen. I should like first to produce evidence that Menecles received a dowry of twenty minae with my sister.“Evidence” [6]

Having thus settled our sisters, gentlemen, and, being ourselves of military age, we adopted the career of a soldier and went abroad with Iphicrates to Thrace .4 Having proved our worth there, we returned hither after saving a little money and we found that our elder sister had two children, but that the younger, the wife of Menecles, was childless. [7] Two or three months later Menecles, with many expressions of praise for our sister, approached us and said that he viewed with apprehension his increasing age and childlessness: she ought not, he said, to be rewarded for her virtues by having to grow old with him without bearing children; [8] it was enough that he himself was unfortunate. [His words clearly prove that he loved her when he put her away; for no one utters supplications for one whom he hates.]5 He, therefore, begged us to do him the favor of marrying her to someone else with his consent. We told him that it was for him to persuade her in the matter, for we would do whatever she agreed. [9] At first she would not even listen to his suggestion, but in course of time she with difficulty consented. So we gave her in marriage to Elius of Sphettus,6 and Menecles handed over her dowry to him—for he had become part-lessee of the estate of the children of Nicias7—and he gave her the garments which she had brought with her to his house and the jewelry which there was. [10] Some time after this Menecles began to consider how he could put an end to his childless condition and have someone to tend his old age and bury him when he died and thereafter carry out the customary rites over him. He saw that my opponent had only one son; so he thought it wrong to ask him to give him his son to adopt and so deprive him of male offspring. [11] Thus he could find no nearer relative than us; he, therefore, approached us and said that he thought it right, since fate had decreed that he should have no children by our sister, that he should adopt a son out of the family from which he would have wished to have a son of his own in the course of nature; “I should like, therefore,” he said,“to adopt one of you two, whichever is willing.” [12] My brother, on hearing this,8 expressed his approval of Menecles' proposal and agreed that his age and solitary condition required someone who would look after him, and remain at home; “I,” he said, “as you know, go abroad; but my brother here” （meaning me） “will look after your affairs as well as mine, if you wish to adopt him.” Menecles approved of his suggestion and thus adopted me. [13]

I wish next to prove to you that the adoption was carried out in the proper legal manner. So please read me the law which ordains that a man can dispose as he likes of his own property, if he does not possess male issue of his own. The law-giver, gentlemen, legislated thus, because he saw that for childless persons the only refuge for their solitary condition, and the only possible comfort in life, lay in the possibility of adopting whomsoever they wished. [14] The law thus allowing Menecles, because he was childless, to adopt a son, he adopted me, not by a will made at the point of death, as other citizens have done, nor during illness; but when he was sound in body and mind, and fully aware of what he was doing, he adopted me and introduced me to his fellow-wardsmen in the presence of my opponents and enrolled me among the demesmen and the members of his confraternity.9 [15] At the time my opponents raised no objection to his action on the ground that he was not in his right mind, although it would have been much better to have tried to win him over to their point of view during his lifetime rather than insult him now that he is dead and try to desolate his house. For he lived on after the adoption, not one or two years, but twenty-three, and during all this period he never regretted what he had done, because it was universally acknowledged that he had been well advised in what he did. [16] To prove the truth of these statements, I will produce before you, as witnesses, the wardsmen, the members of the confraternity, and the demesmen, and, to prove that Menecles was at liberty to adopt me, the clerk of the court shall read you the text of the law in accordance with which the adoption was made. Please read these depositions and the law.“Depositions. Laws.” [17]

The law itself makes it clear that Menecles was free to adopt anyone he liked as his son; that he did adopt a son, the wardsmen, the demesmen, and the members of the confraternity have provided evidence. Thus we have clearly proved it, gentlemen, the witness10 has attested the truth of it, and my opponents cannot say a word against the actual fact of the adoption. [18]

After this, Menecles began to look about for a wife for me, and said I ought to marry. So I married the daughter of Philonides. Menecles exercised the forethought on my behalf which a father would naturally exercise for his son, and I tended him and respected him as though he were my true father, as also did my wife, so that he praised us to all his fellow-demesmen. [19]

That Menecles was not insane or under the influence of a woman but in his right mind when he adopted me, you can easily understand from the following facts. In the first place, my sister, with whom most of my opponent's argument has been concerned, and under whose influence he alleges that Menecles adopted me, had remarried long before the adoption took place, so that, if it had been under her influence that he was adopting his son, he would have adopted one of her boys; for she has two. [20] But, gentlemen, it was not under her influence that he adopted me as his son; his chief motive was his loneliness, and, secondly, the other causes I have mentioned, and the goodwill which he felt towards my father, and, thirdly, because he had no other relative from whose family he might have adopted a son. These were the motives which at the time induced him to adopt me; so that it is quite clear that he was not insane or under the influence of a woman, unless, indeed, my opponent wishes to describe his loneliness and childlessness in these terms. [21]

I feel that I should like my opponent, who thinks himself so wise, to tell me whom of his relatives Menecles ought to have adopted? Ought he to have adopted my opponent's son? But he would never have given him up and so rendered himself childless; he is not so avaricious as all that. Well then, the son of his sister or of his male or female cousin? But he had no such relative at all. [22] He was, therefore, obliged to adopt someone else, or, failing that, grow old in childlessness, as my opponent now thinks he ought to have done. I think, therefore, that you would all admit that, when he adopted a son, he could not have adopted anyone who was more closely connected with him than I was. Otherwise, let my opponent indicate such a person. He cannot possibly do so; for he had no other kinsman than those whom I have mentioned. [23]

But my opponent is now clearly blaming Menecles not for failing to adopt his own son but for adopting any son at all and not dying childless. It is for this that he blames him, a proceeding which is as spiteful as it is unjust; for while he has children of his own, he is obviously blaming Menecles for being childless and unfortunate. [24] All other men, whether Greek or barbarians, regard this law about adoption as a good one and therefore all make use of it; but my uncle here is not ashamed to deprive his own brother of this right to adopt a son, the enjoyment of which no one has ever grudged even those who were no relatives at all. [25] I think that my opponent, if anyone were to ask him what he would have done in the same circumstances as Menecles, would have nothing to say except that he would have adopted someone who was likely to look after him while he lived and bury him when he died; and it is obvious that the adoption would have been carried out under the same law as mine was. He himself, then, if he had been childless, would have adopted a son; but when Menecles acts in the same manner, he declares that he was insane and under the influence of a woman when he adopted me. [26] Is it not clear that he is talking in an abominable manner? I am of opinion that it is much rather my opponent who is insane by reason of the line of argument which he employs and the things which he does. For he is clearly arguing the contrary of the laws and of justice and of what he himself would have done, and is not ashamed of making the law about adoption valid for himself, while he seeks to render this same law of no effect for his brother. [27]

Next, it is right, gentlemen, that you should hear what cause of quarrel my opponent has that he seeks to make his own brother childless. For if he has any quarrel with me about my name, and repudiates the suggestion that I am to be called Menecles' son, is he not the victim of mean jealousy? But if it is a question of money with him, let him point out to you what land or building or house Menecles left behind of which I am now in possession. But if he left no such property, but my opponent took from him in his lifetime all that remained after he had paid off the money due to the orphan, is he not clearly convicted of shameless conduct? [28] I will put the facts of the case before you. When it became necessary to pay back the money to the orphan, and Menecles did not possess the requisite sum, and interest had accumulated against him over a long period, he was for selling the land. My opponent, seizing the opportunity and being desirous to pick a quarrel with him because he had adopted me, tried to prevent the land from being sold, in order that it might be held as a pledge, and that Menecles might be obliged to cede the possession of it to the orphan. My opponent, therefore, claimed a part of the property from Menecles, though he had never previously made any such claim, and tried to prevent the purchasers from completing the purchase. [29] Menecles was annoyed, as I can well imagine, and was obliged to reserve the portion which my opponent claimed; the rest he sold to Philippus of Pithos for seventy minae and thus paid off the orphan, giving him one talent and seven minae out of the price of the property; and he brought an action against his brother for restraining the sale. After long discussion had taken place and much bad feeling been aroused, we thought it best, in order that no one might say that I was avaricious and that I was setting these men, who were brothers, against one another, to submit the matter to the arbitration of my opponent's brother-in-law and our friends. [30] The latter told us that, if we were to entrust them to decide the rights of the case, they would refuse to act as arbitrators, for they did not wish to quarrel with either party; if, however, we would allow them to decide what was in the interest of all, they consented to act. So we, in order, as we thought, to get rid of the matter, entrusted the decision to them on these terms. [31] They, after having sworn an oath to us at the altar of Aphrodite at Cephale11 that they would decide what was to our common interest, gave as their verdict that we should give up what my opponent claimed and hand it over to him as a free gift; for they declared that the only way of settling the matter was that my opponent should receive a share of Menecles' property. [32] They decided that for the future we must behave in a proper manner towards one another, both in word and in deed, and they obliged both parties to swear at the altar that they would do so; so we swore that we would in future behave properly towards one another both in word and in deed, as far as lay within our power. [33] That the oath was sworn and that these men are in possession of the property which was awarded to them by my opponent's friends and that their notion of behaving well towards us is this, to try and make the deceased childless and drive me forth with insult from his family—of all this I will produce before you as witnesses the very men who gave the decision, if they are willing to appear （for they are my opponent's friends）, but, if not, those who were present on the occasion. [34] Please read these depositions; and, you, turn off the water-clock.12“Evidence”

Now, please, take these depositions to the effect that the land was sold for seventy minae and that the orphan received sixty-seven minae from the proceeds.“Evidence” [35]

Thus it is my uncle here, gentlemen, who has inherited the property of Menecles—really and not merely nominally, as I have—and has a much larger share than I have; for I received only the three hundred drachmae which remained over out of the proceeds of the sale and a small house not worth three minae. My opponent, on the other hand, being in possession of land worth more than ten minae, has now, moreover, come into court with the object of rendering desolate the house of the deceased.13 [36] I, the adopted son, with the aid of my wife, the daughter of Philonides here, tended Menecles while he lived and gave his name to my little son, in order that his family might not lack a representative. On his death, I buried him in a manner befitting both him and myself, and I erected a fine monument to him and celebrated the commemorative ceremony on the ninth day and performed all the other rites at the tomb in the best manner possible, so that I won the praise of all the members of my deme. [37] But my opponent, his kinsman, who blames him for having adopted a son, during his lifetime deprived him of the landed property which remained to him, and, now that he is dead, wishes to render him childless and wipe out his very name; that is the kind of man he is. In proof that I buried Menecles and performed the ceremonies on the third and ninth days and all the other rites connected with the burial, the clerk shall read you the depositions of those who are acquainted with the facts.“Evidence” [38]

In support of the truth of my assertion, gentlemen, that Menecles, when he adopted me, was not insane or under the influence of a woman, I wish to bring before you my opponents themselves as witnesses, not in word but in deed, by their own conduct. For it is notorious that both of them went through the process of reconciliation with me and not with Menecles, and swore an oath to me, as I did to them. [39] Yet if the adoption had not been carried out in proper legal form and I had not been recognized as heir to Menecles' property by my opponents themselves, what need was there for them to swear to me and to receive an oath from me? Surely none. By so acting then they themselves clearly bear witness that I was legally adopted and am the rightful heir of Menecles. [40] It is clear, I think, to you all that it was acknowledged even by my opponents themselves that Menecles was not insane but that it is much rather my opponent who is insane now, seeing that, after having effected a settlement of his quarrel with us and having sworn oaths, he has now again come forward in violation of his acknowledgements and oaths, and demands that I shall be deprived of these poor remnants of the estate. [41] Were it not that I think it an altogether base and shameful act to betray him whose son was called and who adopted me, I would have readily abandoned the right of succession to his estate in favor of my opponent; for there is nothing at all left, as I think you realize. [42] But, in the circumstances, I consider it terrible and disgraceful that, when Menecles possessed property, I accepted adoption as his son and out of his property, before the land was sold, acted as gymnasiarch14 in his deme and won credit as his son, and served in his tribe and deme on all the campaigns which took place during that period; [43] and, now that he is dead, if I shall betray him and go off leaving his house desolate, would it not seem a strange and ridiculous proceeding, and give those who wish to do so a good occasion to speak evil of me? And these are not the only motives which induce me to fight this case; but what grieves me is the possibility of being thought so worthless and good-for-nothing as not to be able to find a friend in his right senses, but only a madman, to adopt me. [44]

I beg you all therefore, gentlemen, and beseech and entreat you to pity me and to acquit the witness here. I have shown you that, in the first place, I was adopted by Menecles with the strictest possible legality, and that the form of adoption was not merely verbal or by will but by very act and deed; and of these things I produced before you the evidence of the wardsmen, the demesmen, and the members of the confraternity. [45] I further showed that Menecles lived for twenty-three years after he had adopted me. Further, I placed before you the laws which permit those who are childless to adopt sons. In addition to this I am shown to have tended him in his lifetime and to have buried him when he died. [46] My opponent wishes now to deprive me of my father's estate, whether it be large or small, and to render the deceased childless and nameless, so that there may be no one to honor in his place the family cults and perform for him the annual rites, but that he may be robbed of all his due honors. It was to provide against this that Menecles, being master of his own property, adopted a son, so that he might secure all these advantages. [47]

Do not therefore, gentlemen, listen to my opponents and deprive me of my name, the sole remnant of my inheritance, and annul Menecles' adoption of me; but since the matter has come before you for judgement and you have the sovereign right of decision, come to the aid both of us and of him who is in the other world, and do not allow Menecles, by the gods and deities I beseech you, to be insulted by my opponents, but mindful of the law and of the oath which you have sworn and of the arguments which have been used in support of my plea, pass in accordance with the laws the verdict which is just and in conformity with your oath.

1 This is incorrect; there was only one brother, whose son was also apparently associated with him in the case.

2 Isaeus 1

3 A deme of Attica about seven miles north of Athens .

4 See Introduction, p. 39.

5 This sentence is inappropriate and has clearly come into the text from a marginal gloss.

6 A deme south-west of Athens .

7 See Introduction, p. 38.

8 The words bracketed in the text have certainly come in from a marginal note and are unsuited to the context here.

9 A private religious association, cf. Isaeus 9.30 .

10 Philonides.

11 This sanctuary is mentioned on an inscription found near the E. coast of Attica about 12 miles N. of Sunium.

12 The length of the speeches was regulated by means of a water-clock, which was turned off during the reading of laws and depositions.

13 i.e., seeking to disinherit the adopted son and so deprive Menecles of a representative to carry on his family.

14 The duty of the gymnasiarch was to bear the expense of the torch-races at certain festivals.

[hypothesis] Pyrrhus had adopted one of his sister's two sons, Endius, who enjoyed the estate for more than twenty years and then died. Xenocles then sued for the property in the name of Phile, his wife, and declared upon oath that she was a legitimate daughter of Pyrrhus, the succession being claimed by Endius's mother. Xenocles was convicted of perjury. Nicodemus had also borne witness that he had given his daughter in legal marriage to Pyrrhus and that Phile was her child. The brother of Endius declares that while Phile is illegitimate, having been the child of Pyrrhus by a mistress, and that she was given as such in marriage to Xenocles. The question at issue is one of fact, and the action a charge of perjury against Nicodemus.

Judges, my mother's brother, Pyrrhus, having no legitimate issue, adopted my brother Endius as his son. The latter inherited his estate and survived him by more than twenty years; and during all this long period of possession no one claimed the estate or questioned his right of inheritance. [2] My brother having died last year, Phile, ignoring the existence of the last tenant, came forward, claiming to be the legitimate daughter of our uncle, and Xenocles of Coprus,1 as her legal representative, demanded to be given possession of the estate of Pyrrhus, who had died more than twenty years before, having fixed the value of the estate at three talents. [3] When our mother, the sister of Pyrrhus, claimed2 the estate, the legal representative of the woman who was suing for the estate had the audacity to put in a protestation3 that the estate was not adjudicable to our mother, because Pyrrhus, to whom it originally belonged, had a legitimate daughter. We denounced his protestation and brought before you the man who had the audacity to make it; [4] and, having clearly convicted him of having given false evidence, we obtained from you a verdict for perjury against him. At the same time we convicted Nicodemus, the present defendant, before the same judges, of the most shameless lying in the evidence which he then gave, since he had the impudence to bear witness that he had given his sister in marriage to our uncle in the proper legal manner. [5] That in the former trial Nicodemus's evidence was recognized as being false, the condemnation of the witness4 on that occasion most clearly proves. For if the present defendant had not been recognized as having given false evidence, the other witness would have been acquitted in the suit about the protestation, and the woman whom the protestation affirmed to be my uncle's legitimate daughter would have been established as his heiress instead of our mother. [6] But since the witness was convicted and the woman who claimed to be Pyrrhus's legitimate daughter abandoned her pretensions to the estate, it follows by absolute necessity that Nicodemus's evidence has been also condemned; for, having solemnly sworn to the truth of the same proposition, he was a party to the action for perjury which was to decide whether the woman who claimed my uncle's estate was the issue of a legitimate wife or of a mistress. You, too, will realize that this is so when you have heard our affidavit,5 the evidence of Nicodemus, and the protestation which was overruled. [7] Please take and read these documents to the court.“Affidavits”“Evidence”“Protestation”

It has now been shown that it was immediately apparent to all at the time that Nicodemus committed perjury; but it is proper that the falsity of his evidence should be proved before you also who are about to give your verdict on this very issue. [8] But I desire first to ask some questions. He has deposed that he married his sister to a man who possessed a fortune of three talents; what dowry does he allege that he gave with her? Next, did this wedded wife leave her husband during his lifetime or quit his house after his death?6 And from whom did the defendant recover his sister's dowry after the death of him to whom he has deposed that he gave her in marriage? [9] Or, if he did not recover it, what action did he think fit to institute to obtain her maintenance or the restitution of her dowry against the man who was for twenty years the tenant of the estate? Or did he ever, during all that long period, go and make any claim upon the heir regarding his sister's dowry in the presence of any witness? I should be glad to learn what was the reason why none of these steps has been taken in favor of a woman, who, according to the defendant's evidence, was legally married. [10] Furthermore, has anyone else taken this man's sister in legal marriage, either of those who had dealings with her before she knew our uncle, or of those who associated with her during his acquaintance with her, or of those who did so after his decease? For it is clear that her brother has given her in marriage on the same terms to all those associated with her. [11] If it were necessary to enumerate all these persons one by one, it would amount to no small a task. If you bid me do so, I would mention some of them; but if it is as unpleasant to some of you to hear as it is to me to mention such matters, I will content myself with producing the actual depositions made at the previous trial, none of which they thought fit to contest. Yet when once they have themselves admitted that the woman was at the disposal of anyone who wished to take her, how can it be reasonably conceived that she was also a wedded wife? [12] And indeed, since they have never impeached the evidence on this very point, they have in fact admitted all this. You, too, when you have heard the actual depositions, will understand that the defendant has obviously borne false witness, and that those who judged the case gave a proper and a legal sentence when they decided that the estate could not pass to a woman of irregular birth. Read the depositions; and you, please stop the water-clock.“Depositions” [13]

That the woman, whom the defendant has deposed that he gave in legal marriage to our uncle, was a courtesan who gave herself to anyone and not his wife, has been testified to you by the other acquaintances and by the neighbors of Pyrrhus, who have given evidence of quarrels, serenades, and frequent scenes of disorder which the defendant's sister occasioned whenever she was at Pyrrhus's house. [14] Yet no one, I presume, would dare to serenade a married woman, nor do married women accompany their husbands to banquets or think of feasting in the company of strangers, especially mere chance comers. Yet, our adversaries did not think fit to make any protest against the evidence of any of those who testified to these things. And to prove that what I say is true, read the deposition to them again.“Deposition” [15]

Now read the depositions about those who associated with her, so that the judge may realize that she was a courtesan at anyone's disposal and that she certainly never bore a child to any other man.7“Depositions” [16]

I beg you then to bear in mind the number of persons who have given evidence that this woman, whom the defendant has deposed that he gave in marriage to our uncle, was common to all who wished to associate with her, and that she obviously was never married to or lived permanently with anyone else. Let us next consider the circumstances in which it might be conceived that a marriage with such a woman might take place, supposing that such a thing really did happen to our uncle; [17] for young men before now, having fallen in love with such women and, being unable to control their passion, have been induced by folly to ruin themselves in this way. How then can one obtain a clearer knowledge as to what happened than by a consideration of the evidence submitted in favor of our opponents in the former trial and the probabilities of the case itself? [18] Now consider the impudence of their assertions. The man, who was, according to his own account, about to marry his sister to a man with a fortune of three talents, when he was arranging a matter of such importance, represents that only one witness was present on his behalf, namely, Pyretides, whose written deposition8 was produced by the other side in the previous trial. This deposition Pyretides has disavowed and refuses to admit that he made any deposition or has any knowledge of the truth of any of the facts which it contains. [19] We have here a striking indication that this deposition produced by our opponents is certainly forged. You all know that, when we are proceeding to a deliberate act which necessitates the presence of witnesses, we habitually take with us our closest acquaintances and most intimate friends as witnesses of such acts; but of unforeseen acts carried out on the spur of the moment, we always call in the testimony of any chance persons. [20] When direct evidence has to be given in court, we are obliged to employ those who were actually present, whosoever they are, as witnesses; but when it is a question of obtaining a written deposition from a witness who is ill or about to go abroad, each of us summons by preference the most reputable among his fellow-citizens and those best known to us, [21] and we always have written depositions made in the presence not of one or two only but of as many witnesses as possible, in order to preclude the deponent from denying his deposition at some future date, and to give his evidence more weight in your eyes by the unanimous testimony of many honest men. [22] Thus, when Xenocles went to our factory at the mines at Besa ,9 he did not think it sufficient to rely on any chance person who happened to be there as witness regarding the eviction, but took with him from Athens Diophantus of Sphettus, who defended him in the former case, and Dorotheus of Eleusis ,10 and his brother Philochares, and many other witnesses, having invited them to make a journey of nearly three hundred stades from here to there; [23] yet when, on the question of the marriage of the grandmother of his own children, he was obtaining, as he declares, a written deposition in Athens itself, he is shown to have summoned none of his own friends but Dionysius of Erchia and Aristolochus of Aethalidae. In the presence of these two men my opponents declare that they obtained the written deposition—a document of this nature in the presence of men whom no one else would trust in any matter whatsoever! [24] Perhaps it will be urged that it was a trifling matter of secondary importance about which they say that they obtained the deposition from Pyretides, so that negligence in the affair was not surprising. How so, when the trial for perjury, in which Xenocles was defendant, turned upon this very point, as to whether his own wife was the child of a concubine or of a legitimate wife? To attest a deposition like this, if it were really true, would he not have thought fit to summon all his own friends? [25] Most assuredly he would have done so, I should have thought, if the deposition had been genuine. We see then that he did not do so, but took this deposition before two chance witnesses; Nicodemus, however, the present defendant, says that, when he married his sister to a man with a fortune of three talents, he summoned only a single witness to accompany him! [26] He pretends that the only person present with him was Pyretides, who denies his assertion; on the other hand, Lysimenes and his brothers, Chaeron and Pylades, declare that they were summoned by Pyrrhus when he was about to make this brilliant match and were present at the ceremony, in spite of the fact that they were uncles of the bridegroom. [27] It is a matter for you to consider now whether their story seems to be credible. It appears to me, judging from probabilities, that Pyrrhus would have been much more likely to wish to keep the matter secret from all his friends, if he was meditating the making of a contract or the commission of an act discreditable to his family, rather than summon his own uncles as witnesses of so outrageous an act of folly. [28]

Another matter which surprises me is that there was no agreement about a dowry for the woman on the part either of him who gave her or of him who took her in marriage.11 For, on the one hand, if Nicodemus gave a dowry, it would have been only natural that the amount of the dowry should be mentioned in the evidence of those who allege that they were present; on the other hand, if our uncle, under the influence of his passion, contracted a marriage with a woman of this character, clearly he who gave her in marriage would have been all the more careful to procure an agreement from the other party stating that he received money with her, so that it might not be in the latter's power easily to get rid of the woman whenever he wished. [29] Also, it is probable that he who gave her in marriage would have summoned many more witnesses than the man who was marrying such a woman; for you all know that such unions are very seldom permanent. The man, then, who alleges that he gave his sister in marriage, declares that he married her to a man with a fortune of three talents without any agreement about a dowry, and the uncles have given evidence that they were present as witnesses on behalf of their nephew when he married a woman of this character without a dowry. [30]

These same uncles have deposed that they were present by invitation of their nephew at the tenth-day ceremony12 in honor of the child who was declared to be his daughter. Here I note with the utmost indignation that the husband, in claiming her paternal inheritance on behalf of his wife, has put down her name as Phile, while Pyrrhus's uncles, alleging that they were present, deposed that her father called her Cleitarete, after her grandmother. [31] I am amazed that the man who had lived with her for more than eight years did not know the name of his own wife. Could he not have found it out before from his own witnesses? Did his wife's mother never in all that long period tell him her daughter's name? Did his uncle, Nicodemus himself, never do so? [32] No, her husband, instead of giving her her grandmother's name—if it was really known that this name was given her by her father—inscribed her name as Phile, and this when he was claiming the paternal inheritance for her! What was his object? Did the husband wish to deprive his wife of any title to the name of her grandmother bestowed upon her by her father? [33] Is it not obvious, gentlemen, that the events which they deposed to have happened long ago were invented by them much later for the purpose of claiming the estate?13 For otherwise it would have been impossible that the uncles, who were summoned, according to their own account, to the tenth-day ceremony in honor of Pyrrhus's daughter, the defendant's niece, could ever have come into court with so accurate a recollection from that distant date, whenever it was, that her father at that ceremony named her Cleitarete, [34] but that the nearer relatives, the father and the uncle and the mother should not know the name of the child whom they declare to be Pyrrhus's daughter. They would most certainly have known it, if the fact had been true. But I shall have occasion to return to these uncles later.14 [35]

As for Nicodemus's evidence it is not difficult to decide from the actual text of the laws that he has obviously committed perjury. For seeing that, if a man gives with a woman a sum not duly assessed in a contract, and if the wife leaves her husband or the hushand puts away his wife, the man who gave the money cannot, as far as the law is concerned, demand back what he gave but did not assess in a contract—the defendant when he states that he gave his sister in marriage without any contract regarding a dowry, is obviously proved to be making an impudent assertion. [36] For what was likely to be the good to him of the marriage, if the husband could dismiss the wife whenever he wished? And this he certainly could do, if he had made no stipulation that he should receive a dowry with her. Would Nicodemus have married his sister to our uncle on these terms, and this, though he knew all the time that in the past she had produced no offspring, and though the dowry, if it had been assessed in a contract, was coming to him, if anything happened to her before she bore any children? [37] Does any one of you really think that Nicodemus is so disinterested in money matters that he would neglect any of these considerations? For my part, I do not think it possible. Further, would our uncle have thought of marrying the sister of a man, who, when he was accused of usurping the rights of citizenship by a member of the ward to which he claimed to belong, obtained those rights by a majority of only four votes? And to prove the truth of what I say, read the deposition.“Deposition” [38] The defendant then has given evidence that he gave his sister in marriage to our uncle without a dowry in spite of the fact that such a dowry was to come to him if anything happened to the woman before she had borne any children. Now take and read these laws to the judges.“Laws” [39]

Do you think that Nicodemus is so disinterested in money matters, that, if the fact which he alleges were true, he would not have provided for his own interests with scrupulous care? By heaven, I am sure he would have done so; for even those who give their womenkind to others as mistresses make stipulations in advance as to the benefits which such women are to enjoy. And was Nicodemus, when, according to his own account, he was going to give his sister in marriage, content with simply securing the requirements of a legal marriage15—a man who shows himself only too anxious to be dishonest for a paltry sum which he hopes to receive for speaking in court?16 [40]

As for his dishonesty, most of you know all about it without any words from me, so that at any rate I have abundant witnesses when I say anything about him. But I should like in the first place to convict him in the following manner of the most impudent lying in this evidence of his. Come, tell me this, Nicodemus: If you had given your sister in marriage to Pyrrhus and if you knew that Pyrrhus was leaving a legitimate daughter by her, [41] how is it that you allowed the inheritance to be adjudicated to our brother17 without the disposal of the legitimate daughter whom you say our uncle left behind him? Did you not know that by the demand that the estate should be adjudicated an attempt was being made to bastardize your niece? For, when he claimed to have the estate adjudicated to him, he thereby sought to bastardize the daughter of him who left the estate. [42] To go still further back, the adoption of my brother by Pyrrhus had a similar effect; for no one has the right to devise or dispose of any of his property without also disposing of any legitimate daughters whom he may have left at his decease. You will understand this when you hear the text of the laws read out. Read these laws to the judges.“Laws” [43] Can you suppose that the man who has declared in evidence that he gave his sister in marriage would have allowed any of these things to be done, and, at the moment when Endius claimed to be given possession and applied to the court, would not have set up his niece's title and lodged a protestation that her paternal inheritance was not adjudicable to Endius? And yet that our brother claimed to have the estate adjudicated to him and that no one contested his claim, is proved by a deposition. Read it.“Deposition” [44]

When this claim then for the adjudication of the estate was made, Nicodemus did not dare to contest the succession or put in a protestation that his niece was a legitimate daughter left by Pyrrhus. [45]

Regarding this claim some lying explanation may be offered to you: the defendant may either pretend that they knew nothing about it or else may accuse us of lying. Let us ignore the latter suggestion. As regards the former, when Endius gave your niece in marriage to Xenocles, did you, Nicodemus, allow the daughter borne to Pyrrhus by his legitimate wife to be married in the quality of the child of a mistress? [46] And did you fail to bring a denunciation in the archon's court for injury to the heiress thus maltreated by the adopted son and despoiled of her paternal inheritance, especially as this is the only class of public actions which involves no risk to the party who brings it, and anyone who wishes is allowed to defend the rights of heiresses? [47] For no fine can be inflicted for denunciations made to the archon, even if the informants fail to receive a single vote,18 and there are no deposits or court fees19 paid in any impeachments; but while the prosecutors may bring an impeachment without running any risk, extreme penalties are inflicted on those who are convicted in such impeachments. [48] If, then, the defendant's niece had been the child of our uncle by a legitimate wife, would Nicodemus have allowed her to be married in the quality of the child of a mistress? And, when this happened, would he not have lodged a denunciation before the archon that the heiress was being injured by him who thus gave her in marriage? If what you have now dared, Nicodemus, to depose, were true, you would have immediately have had punishment inflicted on him who was wronging her. Or will you pretend that you knew nothing of these circumstances either? [49] Next, did not the dowry which was given with her awake your suspicion? This alone might well have aroused your indignation and induced you to denounce Endius, namely, that he himself was claiming as his right a fortune of three talents, but thought fit, when he was giving Pyrrhus's legitimate daughter in marriage to another man, to bestow with her a portion of only a thousand drachmas.20 Would not this have aroused the defendant's indignation and would he not have denounced Endius? By heavens he would, if his story were true. [50] I cannot imagine it possible that Endius, or any other adopted son, could be so foolish, or so regardless of the existing laws, as to give the legitimate daughter of the man who left the estate in marriage to another instead of marrying her himself; for he knew perfectly well that the children of a legitimate daughter have a right to succeed to the whole of their grandfather's estate. Knowing this, would anyone hand over his own property to another man, especially if it were of the value that our opponents claim? [51] Can you imagine an adopted son being so shameless and brazen-faced as to give the legitimate daughter in marriage with a dowry of not even a tenth of her father's fortune? And if he had done so, can you imagine that her uncle, who has borne witness that he gave her mother in marriage, would have allowed it? For my part I cannot believe it; rather would he have contested the estate and put in a protestation and denounced him to the archon and taken any stronger action if it were possible. [52] Endius then gave this woman, whom Nicodemus alleges to be his niece, in marriage in the quality of the daughter of a mistress; and the defendant did not think fit to claim the estate of Pyrrhus from Endius, or, when Endius gave his niece in marriage in the quality of the daughter of a mistress, denounce him to the archon, nor did he express any indignation at the dowry which was bestowed upon her; no, he took no action at all in these matters. Yet the laws are precise on all these points. [53] The clerk shall read to you first of all, for the second time, the deposition about the claim for the adjudication of the estate and then that concerning the marriage of the woman. Read them to the court.“Depositions”

Now read the laws.“Laws”

Now take Nicodemus's deposition.“Deposition” [54]

How could an accuser establish a charge of perjury more clearly than by adducing proofs from the actual conduct of my adversaries themselves and from all the laws of our state?

I have now said most of what I have to say about the defendant. Consider now whether the conduct of the niece's husband does not provide a convincing argument that Nicodemus's evidence is false. [55] That he married her and took her to be his wife as the daughter of a mistress, has been proved and attested and that this evidence is true, Xenocles himself has testified by his conduct over a long period. For it is evident that, if he had not received the woman in marriage from Endius as the daughter of a mistress, seeing that he had children by her who have already reached a certain age,21 he would have claimed her patrimony on behalf of the legitimate daughter from Endius during his lifetime, [56] especially as he was prepared to deny that the adoption of Endius by Pyrrhus ever took place; and it was because he denied it that he denounced those who have deposed that they were present when Pyrrhus made his will. And to prove that I am speaking the truth, the clerk shall read you the deposition then made. Read it to the court.“Deposition” [57]

Here is another proof that they do not admit that the adoption of Endius by Pyrrhus ever took place, namely, that they would never otherwise have thought of demanding the award of the inheritance to this woman, ignoring the long tenancy of the last heir. For Pyrrhus has been dead for more than twenty years, whereas Endius died in the month of Metageitnion22 last year, in which month they promptly claimed the inheritance only two days after his death. [58] Now the law ordains that a petition for the adjudication of an inheritance must be presented within five years of the death of the last heir. Two courses were, therefore, open to the woman, either to claim her paternal inheritance during Endius's lifetime, or else, when the adopted son had died to claim that her brother's estate should be adjudicated to her, especially if, as our opponents allege, he had given her in marriage to Xenocles as his legitimate sister. [59] We all know perfectly well that every one of us has the right to claim the adjudication of a brother's estate, but that, if he has left legitimate children born of his body, no child need claim to have his patrimony adjudicated to him.23 It is quite unnecessary to labor this point, for all of you, and all other citizens as well, possess your patrimonies without any adjudication by the courts. [60] Our opponents, then, have pushed their effrontery so far that, while they denied that the adopted son need obtain the adjudication of an estate which has been bequeathed to him, they thought fit to claim the adjudication of her father's estate to Phile, whom they allege to have been a legitimate daughter left by Pyrrhus. Yet, as I have already said, when testators leave legitimate issue, their children need not demand the adjudication of their patrimony; but, on the contrary, when testators adopt children by will, such children must obtain an adjudication of what is bequeathed to them. [61] Since the former are the issue of the deceased, no one, I suppose, could dispute their possession of their patrimony; but all blood-relations think they have the right to dispute a bequest to an adopted son. In order, therefore, that suits for such estates may not be brought by any chance claimant and that persons may not dare to demand the adjudication of them as vacant inheritances, adopted sons apply to the court for an adjudication. [62] Let none of you, therefore, imagine that, if Xenocles had believed his wife to be a legitimate child, he would have brought a suit claiming her patrimony; no, the legitimate daughter would have entered into possession of her father's estate, and, if anyone had tried to seize it or deprive her of it by violence, he would have been ousting her from her patrimony and would have been liable not only to a civil prosecution but also to a public denunciation to the archon and would have risked his person and all his possessions. [63]

Even before any action on the part of Xenocles, Pyrrhus's uncles, if they had known that their nephew had left a legitimate daughter and that none of us was willing to take her in marriage, would never have allowed Xenocles, who was an entire stranger in blood to Pyrrhus, to take and marry one who belonged to them by right of kinship. [64] Such a proceeding would have been extraordinary. The law ordains that daughters who have been given in marriage by their father and are living with their husbands—and who can judge better than a father what is to his daughter's interest?—in spite of the fact that they are thus married, shall, if their father dies without leaving them legitimate brothers, pass into the legal power of their next-of-kin; and indeed it has frequently happened that husbands have been thus deprived of their own wives.24 [65] While, then, the necessary consequence of this law is that women who have been given in marriage by their fathers are thus liable to be legally claimed, would any one of Pyrrhus's uncles, if Phile were a legitimate daughter left by him, have allowed Xenocles to take and marry a woman who belonged to them by right of kinship and thus make him heir25 to so large a fortune instead of themselves? Do not believe it, gentlemen; [66] no man so hates his own advantage and prefers the interest of strangers to his own. If, therefore, they pretend that the adoption of Endius annulled their rights over this woman and allege that it is for this reason that they laid no claim to her, the following questions must be put to them: First, why have they attacked those who have borne witness to the adoption of Endius by Pyrrhus if they admit that it took place? [67] And, secondly, why did they think fit to claim the succession to Pyrrhus's estate illegally, ignoring him who was its last tenant? Furthermore, you should ask them whether any legitimate child ever thinks of requesting the court to adjudicate to him what is his own. These are the questions with which you should oppose their impudence. That the woman could be legally claimed by her next-of-kin, if she was really a legitimate daughter of the deceased, appears most evidently from the laws. [68] The law states explicitly that, in the absence of legitimate male issue, a man can dispose of his property as he pleases, but that, if he has daughters, the legatees must take them as well. Thus a man may bequeath and dispose of his property with his daughters, but he may not either adopt a son or leave any of his possessions to anyone without also disposing of his legitimate daughters. [69] If, therefore, Pyrrhus adopted Endius as his son without also disposing of his legitimate daughter, the adoption would have been void in the eyes of the law; if, on the other hand, he intended to give him his daughter and after adopting him on these terms left her to him, how could you, the uncles of Pyrrhus, have allowed Endius to have the estate of Pyrrhus adjudicated to him without his taking also his legitimate daughter, if he had one, especially as you testified that your nephew solemnly charged you to look after this girl? [70] Can you say, my good friends, that this point escaped your notice? Yet when Endius betrothed the woman and gave her in marriage, did you, his uncles, allow your own nephew's daughter to be betrothed as his daughter by a mistress, though you declare that you were present when your nephew took her mother to be his wife in due legal form, and further, that you took part by invitation in the celebrations on the tenth day after her child's birth? [71] Furthermore—and this is the worst part of your conduct—though you declare that your nephew solemnly charged you to look after this girl, your mode of looking after her was to allow her to be married as the daughter of a mistress, although, as you testified, she bore the name of your own sister. [72]

From all this, gentlemen, and from what actually happened, it is easy to see that these men attain the limit of human impudence. For why did our uncle, if he had a legitimate daughter who survived him, adopt and leave behind my brother as his son? Had he nearer relatives than us whom he wished, by adopting my brother, to exclude from the right of claiming his daughter? In the absence of legitimate sons of his own, he neither has nor ever had a single relative nearer than us; for he had no brother or brother's sons, and we were the children of his sister. [73] But, it may be urged, he might have adopted some other kinsman and given him the possession of his estate and his daughter. Yet what need had he openly to incur the enmity of any one of his relatives, when it was in his power, if he had really married the sister of Nicodemus, to introduce the child, who has been declared to be her offspring, to the members of his ward as his own legitimate child, and leave her sole heiress to all his estate and direct that one of her sons should be introduced as his adopted son? [74] For it is clear that, if he left her sole heiress, he would have been fully aware that one of two things was likely to happen to her: either one of us, the nearest relatives, would obtain an adjudication and take her as wife; or, if none of us wished to take her, one of these uncles who just now gave evidence, or, failing them, one of the other relatives, would, on the same principle, obtain an adjudication of her together with the whole estate and take her as his wife. [75] By presenting, then, his daughter to the members of his ward without adopting my brother as his son, he might have obtained this result; whereas, by adopting my brother without introducing his daughter to the members of his ward, he made her illegitimate, as it was right that he should, and therefore incapable of succession, and left my brother heir to his estate. [76] Further, to prove to you that our uncle never gave a marriage-feast and never thought fit to introduce his daughter, whom our opponents declare to be his legitimate child, to the members of his ward, though their statutes demand that this should be done, the clerk shall read you the deposition of the members of Pyrrhus's ward. Read this; and you, stop the water-clock.“Deposition”

Now take the deposition which shows that Pyrrhus adopted my brother.“Deposition” [77]

After this will you regard the testimony of Nicodemus as more worthy of credence than the evidence provided by our uncle's own acts?26 And will anyone attempt to persuade you that our uncle made a legal marriage with this woman who was a common courtezan? No, you will never, I am sure, believe it unless Nicodemus can explain the following points, which I mentioned at the beginning of my speech; [78] First, with what dowry does he say that he married his sister to Pyrrhus? Secondly, before what archon did this married woman give notice of having quitted her husband or his domicile? Next, from whom did Nicodemus recover her dowry, when the man had died to whom he says that he gave her in marriage? Or if, though he demanded it back, he was unable to recover in the course of twenty years, what action did he bring for alimony or for her dowry on behalf of this married woman against the tenant of Pyrrhus's estate? [79] Furthermore, in addition to all this, let him explain to whom he married his sister at an earlier or later date and whether she had children by another man. These, then, are the questions which you must make him answer, and do not forget to interrogate him also about the marriage-feast to the members of his ward. This is among the proofs which are most damaging to his evidence; for it is obvious that if Pyrrhus was induced to marry this woman, he would also have been induced to give a marriage-feast for her to the members of his ward and to introduce to them the child, who has been declared to be this woman's daughter, as his legitimate offspring. [80] Again in his deme, since he possessed the fortune of three talents, he would have been obliged on behalf of this wedded wife of his to entertain the wives of his fellow-demesmen at the Thesmophoria,27 and to perform for her the other offices which the possession of such a fortune entails. It shall therefore be made clear to you that nothing of the kind has ever been done. The members of his ward have already given you their evidence; take now and read the deposition of Pyrrhus's fellow-demesmen.“Deposition”

1 A deme belonging to the tribe of Hippothontis. A scholiast on Aristoph. Kn. 899 , states that it was an island off Attica .

2 She claimed as sister of Pyrrhus, not as mother of Endius, in which capacity she had no title.

3 For the meaning of διαμαρτυρία （protestation） see Isaeus 2 , Introduction.

4 i.e., Xenocles.

5 The term ἀντωμοσία was given to the “counter-oaths” taken by the contending parties at the preliminary hearing in support of their respective declarations.

6 A widow might either remain in her late husband's house, if there were no children, or return to the house of her legal representative （κύριος ）, and, through him, obtain the return of her dowry or the payment of interest upon it for her maintenance.

7 An innuendo that Phile was perhaps a supposititious child.

8 When a witness was ill or abroad, his evidence duly attested, might be submitted in writing.

9 Besa is situated in the extreme south of Attica near Laurium . It appears that the estate of Pyrrhus included a factory at Besa and that Xenocles proceeded thither after the death of Pyrrhus in order to take possession of it: knowing that he would be forcibly prevented from doing so, he took with him witnesses of his eviction.

10 See Introduction.

11 The legal contract involved by the bestowal of a dowry constituted the most important proof of the legal character of the union.

12 i.e., the ceremony of naming the child.

13 The restoration of the text here is uncertain but the meaning clear.

14 Isaeus 3.63-71

15 i.e., without insisting on stipulations regarding a dowry which might eventually benefit him.

16 i.e., as a reward for his false evidence.

17 The permission of the court was necessary when the heir was a son adopted by will and not by the deceased in his lifetime.

18 The prosecutor in other public actions was liable to a fine of 1000 drachmas if he failed to obtain one-fifth of the votes.

19 πρυτανεῖα , deposits made by both parties in a suit and repayable to the successful litigant: παράστασις , fees payable by a prosecutor on entering upon certain suits.

20 The MS. reading gives “3000 drachmas,” which does not accord with the statement of Isaeus 3.51 , where the dowry is said to be less than a tenth of Pyrrhus's estate which amounted to three talents （18,000 drachmas）.

21 Xenocles and Phile had been married eight years （Isaeus 3.31 ）.

22 August to September.

23 i.e., would succeed naturally without consent of the courts, which had to be obtained by collateral and testamentary heirs.

24 Though the legal principle here stated is correct, it does not apply to all cases indiscriminately. For example, if a daughter, who was an heiress, married and had children, her rights accrued to the children when thy came of age; no doubt also, if she had no children, she could renounce her rights and remain with her husband.

25 As a matter of fact the husband of an heiress enjoyed the use of her fortune only during the minority of their son or sons.

26 ἐκμαρτυρία , which is strictly a technical term meaning a deposition taken in writing outside the court, is here rhetorically used for the evidence of a person's acts.

27 A festival in honor of Demeter and Persephone. The argument is particularly effective, since women of evil life were rigorously excluded from this festival （cf. Isaeus 6.49-50 .）

[hypothesis] Nicostratus having died in a foreign land, Hagnon and Hagnotheus, as being his first cousins （their father having been brother to Nicostratus's father）, contend for the succession to his estate against Chariades, who claims to be heir by bequest, that is to say, by will. Isaeus, the orator, being a kinsman of Hagnon and his brother, speaks as their advocate.1 The question at issue is one of fact.

Hagnon here and Hagnotheus, gentlemen, are intimate friends of mine, as was their father before them. It seems, therefore, only natural to me to support their case to the best of my ability.

For the events which happened in a foreign land it is not possible to find witnesses or easy to convict our adversaries of any lies which they may tell, because neither of my clients has ever been to the country in question; but the events which have occurred here in Athens seem to me to provide you with sufficient proof that all those who lay claim to Nicostratus's estate on the ground of bequest are desirous of deceiving you. [2] In the first place, gentlemen, it is proper that you should consider the different names attributed to the deceased and determine which of the two parties has laid his claim in the more straightforward and natural manner. Hagnon here and Hagnotheus described Nicostratus in their claim as the son of Thrasymachus and declare that they are his first cousins and prove these statements by witnesses. [3] Chariades and his supporters, on the other hand, assert that Nicostratus was the son of Smicrus and yet claim the estate of the son of Thrasymachus. My clients make no pretence that they know anything of the name of Smicrus or that it has anything to do with them; they declare that Nicostratus was the son of Thrasymachus, and it is likewise his estate which they claim. [4] If the parties were in agreement as to the name of Nicostratus's father and were disputing only about the estate, you would only have to consider whether Nicostratus, on whose identity both were agreed, did or did not leave a will. But as it is, how is it possible to assign two fathers to the man? Yet this is what Chariades has done; he himself claimed the estate of Nicostratus the son of Smicrus, and paid the deposit for a suit against my clients when they claimed the estate of the son of Thrasymachus, just as though it were a question of one and the same person. [5] It is all an insolent plot and conspiracy. They think that my clients, if the matter is simple and nothing is introduced to confuse the issue, will have no difficulty in proving that Nicostratus made no will; whereas, if they allege that the father is not the same and likewise claim the estate, they know full well that my clients will have to employ a longer argument to prove that Nicostratus was the son of Thrasymachus than to convince you that he left no will. [6] Further, if they admitted that Nicostratus was the son of Thrasymachus, they would be unable to prove that my clients are not his cousins; but, by inventing another father for the deceased, they have introduced a discussion about his parentage as well as about the will. [7]

But it is not only from these proceedings but from all that has happened from the beginning that you can be sure that those who are thus plotting against my clients are strangers to the family. For who did not cut the hair2 when the two talents arrived from Ace3? Who did not wear black, hoping by mourning to inherit the estate? What was the number of would-be kinsmen and adopted sons who claimed Nicostratus's property? [8] Demosthenes declared himself to be his nephew, but renounced his claim when he was unmasked by my clients. Telephus asserted that Nicostratus had made him a gift of all his property; he too soon desisted. Ameiniades appeared before the archon and produced as Nicostratus's son a child not yet three years old, although it was eleven years since Nicostratus had been in Athens. [9] Pyrrhus of Lamptra declared that the property had been consecrated by Nicostratus to Athena but that it had been given him by Nicostratus himself.4 Ctesias of Besa and Cranaus at first asserted that Nicostratus had been condemned to pay them a talent; when they could not prove this, they pretended that he was their freedman;5 they were no better able to prove their statement. [10] These were the men who at the very beginning swooped down upon the estate of Nicostratus. Chariades at that time made no claim, but came forward later, foisting in not only himself but also his child by his mistress. It was all the same to him whether he was going to inherit the estate or have his son recognized as a citizen. He, too, perceiving that he would be defeated on the question of the child's birth, jettisoned the child's claim and paid a deposit to bring an action asserting his own right under a will. [11]

It would be a good thing, gentlemen, that any claimant to an inheritance under a will, if he fails, should not be fined at the usual rate6 but be made to pay into the treasury the full amount of the fortune which he set out to obtain; thus the laws would not be despised nor would the relatives be insulted, and above all, no fictions would be invented against the dead. But, since full liberty is given to anyone according to his fancy to claim anyone else's estate, it behoves you to sift their claims with every possible care and to omit no possible precaution. [12] It seems to me that in suits concerning inheritances, and in these alone, more credit ought to be given to circumstantial proof than to the statements of witnesses. When other legal instruments are the subject of litigation, it is not very difficult to convict those who give false evidence, for they give their evidence to the prejudice of the supposed party to the deed alive and present; but when a will is in question, how can one recognize those who are not telling the truth, unless the divergences in the evidence are great, since the party against whom they bear witness is dead, the relatives know nothing of the facts, and the method of refuting the evidence is by no means clear? [13] Further, gentlemen, most of those who make wills do not even mention to those who are present the purport of their will, but only invite them to attest the fact that they have made a will, and it is within the range of possibility that a will has been substituted or alterations made in a sense directly opposed to the wishes of the deceased; for the witnesses will have no more knowledge than anyone else whether the will produced is that which they were summoned to attest. [14] Since, then, it is possible to deceive those who were admittedly present when the will was made, how much more easily might an attempt be made to impose upon you who know nothing of the matter?

Again, gentlemen, the law ordains that a will in order to be valid must not merely be executed but executed by a man in his right senses. You ought, therefore, to examine, first, whether the deceased made a will and, secondly, whether he was in his right mind at the time. [15] Since, however, we deny that a will was made at all, how can you decide whether that a man was insane when he made a will, until you are convinced that actually he made a will? Observe, then, how difficult it is to discover whether those who claim under a will are telling the truth; those, on the other hand, who claim by right of kinship, in the first place, need not produce witnesses to prove that the inheritance is theirs—for it is universally admitted that the property of a deceased person devolves on his next-of-kin— [16] and, secondly, the laws, not only those which deal with consanguinity but also those which treat of testamentary disposition, are in favor of kinsmen. For the law allows no one to dispose of his own property if his reason is impaired by old age or disease or the other causes with which you are familiar; but by right of relationship the next-of-kin has an undisputed title to the property of a deceased person, whatever was the state of the latter's faculties. [17] Beside this, in order to believe in a will, you are obliged to rely on witnesses, by whom it is possible to be deceived—if this were not so, there would be no prosecutions for perjury—but when the claim is based on kinship, you act on your own authority, for the next-of-kin assert their right in accordance with the laws which you have laid down. [18] In addition to this, gentlemen, if those who claim under the will were admittedly close friends of Nicostratus, even then the conclusive proof would be lacking, though there would be a greater probability that the will could be regarded as genuine; for before now testators, being ill-disposed towards their kinsmen, have preferred strangers who were their friends to their nearest relatives by blood. But in the present case Nicostratus and Chariades were neither members of the same mess nor friends nor members of the same company,7 and on all these points we have produced witnesses before you. [19] And consider this further point, which is of great importance and is the clearest possible proof of Chariades' impudence. Whereas he neither took up the body of his adopted father nor committed it to the flames nor collected the bones, but left all these duties to be done by complete strangers, should he not be regarded as most impious in claiming to inherit the property of the deceased, though he never performed any of the customary rites over him? [20] Shall I be told that, after having performed none of these duties, he administered Nicostratus's property?8 Evidence of these facts, too, has been given you, and even he himself does not deny most of them. Makeshift excuses have, of course, been found to explain all his acts; for what other resource remains to one who expressly admits the facts? [21]

You must now be well aware, gentlemen, that these persons have no legal right to the property of Nicostratus, but wish to deceive you and to deprive my clients, who are his kinsmen, of an inheritance which lawfully belongs to them. Chariades is not the only person who has acted thus; many other claimants to the property of men who have died abroad have arisen, sometimes even without having been acquainted with them. [22] For they consider that, if they are successful, it will be possible for them to enjoy the property of others, while, if they fail, the risk is inconsiderable; there are always men who are willing to perjure themselves, and the attempted refutations of their evidence are dealing with the unknown. In a word, there is a vast difference between claiming by right of kinship and claiming under a will. But your duty, gentlemen, is first of all to examine the will and decide whether you think that it is genuine; for this is what the laws enjoin and is the justest course. [23] But since you have no certain personal knowledge of the truth, and since the witnesses to the will were friends not of the deceased but of Chariades, who wishes to seize property which does not belong to him, what could be juster than by your verdict to award the property of a kinsmen to his kinsmen? For, indeed, if anything had happened to my clients, their property would have passed to none other than Nicostratus; for he would have claimed it by the same right of kinship, being their first cousin, the son of their father's own brother. [24] But, by Heaven, I am forgetting; Hagnon and Hagnotheus are not kinsmen of Nicostratus according to the allegation of our adversaries, but his kinsmen are quite different people. Are these kinsmen then bearing witness in favor of the claimant under the will rather than themselves contesting the property by right of kinship? Surely they are not so insane as to believe so easily in the will and renounce their claim to so much money! Nay, to judge from what these men themselves say, it is to the advantage of these supposed kinsmen themselves that my clients, rather than Chariades, should have the estate of Nicostratus adjudicated to them. [25] For, if my clients, who claim by right of kinship, receive the estate, it will be always open to the supposed kinsmen whenever they like at any future date to claim the estate on the grounds of relationship, and prove to you that they are themselves more nearly related to Nicostratus, and that he was the son of Smicrus and not of Thrasymachus. On the other hand, if Chariades inherits the estate, it will never be possible for any relative to bring an action for the property of Nicostratus; for when once the property is in possession of one to whom it has been adjudicated in virtue of a will, what will those who claim by right of kinship be able reasonably to allege? [26]

Whatever each of you would consider just on his own behalf, let that be your determination in favor of these young men. They have produced before you witnesses to prove, first, that they and Nicostratus are first cousins, the sons of own brothers; secondly, that they never had any quarrel with him; thirdly, that they carried out his burial; and further that Chariades was never a friend of Nicostratus either here in Athens or in the army, and, lastly, that the supposed business association between them, on which Chariades most relies, is a fiction. [27]

Apart from this, gentlemen, it is only right that you should examine the characters of the respective claimants. Thrasippus, the father of Hagnon and Hagnotheus, has before now supported public burdens and paid contributions and otherwise proved himself a worthy citizen. My clients themselves have never quitted this country unless they have been sent somewhere by your orders, and at home they are not unserviceable to the state; they serve in the army, they make contributions and in every other respect perform what is required of them, and, as everyone knows, they behave as law-abiding citizens; [28] so that it is much more fitting that they should claim to receive the estate by gift than Chariades. The latter, when he resided here, was first caught in the act of theft and thrown into prison; he was subsequently released with certain other criminals by the Eleven,9 all of whom you publicly condemned to death,10 and, having been again denounced to the Council as a malefactor, he absconded and did not appear to answer the charge, [29] and for seventeen years after this he never came near Athens, and only returned on the death of Nicostratus. He has never once served the state as a soldier nor made any contribution, except perhaps since he claimed Nicostratus's estate, nor has he performed any other public service. And now, though such is his character, so far from being content if he avoids punishment for his misdeeds, he actually claims the property of others! [30] If my clients were fond of quarrelling or resembled so many of their fellow-citizens, he would not perhaps be claiming Nicostratus's estate but would be on trial for his life. But, as it is, gentlemen, it shall be left to someone else, if he wishes, to punish him; [31] your care let it be to assist my clients, and not to show favor to those who wish unjustly to possess the property of others rather than to the next-of-kin of the deceased, who have besides already rendered him service. Remember the laws and the oaths which you swore and also the evidence which we have placed before you, and give your verdict in conformity with justice.

1 This statement is improbable; see Introduction.

2 As a sign of mourning.

3 See Introduction.

4 The meaning is perhaps that Pyrrhus claimed a life-interest in the estate.

5 If a freedman died without issue, his property could, under certain circumstances, be claimed by his former master.

6 One-tenth of the estimated value of the estate claimed.

7 There is a lacuna in the text at this point and the sense is incomplete as it stands.

8 This sentence is apparently parenthetic and ironical. There is a further reference in Isaeus 4.26 to certain business relations between Nicostratus and Chariades.

9 The police-magistrates of Athens.

10 The context seems to imply that these magistrates were tried and condemned for allowing prisoners to escape, but nothing is known of the circumstance.

[hypothesis] On the death of Dicaeogenes （II.）, who had no children but left four sisters behind him, Proxenus came forward and produced a will by which the deceased Dicaeogenes （II.） adopted his （Proxenus's） son Dicaeogenes （III.） and left him a third of his estate. After they had distributed the whole property on this basis, Dicaeogenes （III.）, the son of Proxenus, eventually came and alleged that he had been adopted as heir to the whole property; he won his case and took possession, in addition to his own share, of the two-thirds which had been held by the sisters of the deceased. At a still later date the sons of the sisters brought a successful action against Dicaeogenes （III.）, and he agreed to hand back to them the two-thirds clear and free of all charges, Leochares acting as surety for the performance of this promise. In the present suit, as Dicaeogenes （III.） and Leochares repudiate their agreement, the sons of the sisters claim the two-thirds from Dicaeogenes （III.）, as having agreed to restore the property, and from Leochares as surety. The discussion turns on a question of fact; for the adversaries deny their engagement.

We thought, gentlemen, that in the matter of our dispute with Dicaeogenes （III.） the agreement arrived at in court would be conclusive; for when Dicaeogenes （III.） gave up the two-thirds of the estate and furnished sureties that he would hand over that portion to us without dispute, we reciprocally abandoned our claims. But, gentlemen, since Dicaeogenes （III.） does not perform his agreement, we are bringing an action against Leochares, his surety, in accordance with our affidavit.1 [2] Please read the affidavit.“Affidavit”

That the facts which we stated in the affidavit are true, Cephisodotus here is well aware and we will now produce witnesses before you to prove, first, that Dicaeogenes （III.） gave up to us the two-thirds of the estate, and, secondly, that Leochares became his surety. Please read the deposition.“Deposition” [3]

You have heard what the witnesses say, and I do not believe that even Leochares himself would declare that their evidence has not been true. He will, however, perhaps have recourse to the argument that Dicaeogenes （III.） has performed all that he agreed to do and that he himself has fulfilled his duties as surety. If he says this, he will be lying and will easily be convicted of doing so; for the clerk shall read you the inventory of all the property which formed the estate left by Dicaeogenes （II.） the son of Menexenus, and of the property received by Dicaeogenes （III.）.“Inventory” [4]

If they affirm that Dicaeogenes （II.）, our uncle, did not possess this property when he was alive and did not bequeath it to us at his death, let them prove it; if they declare that he left it and that we have recovered it, let them produce a witness to support their statement. We are producing witnesses to prove that Dicaeogenes （III.） agreed to hand over to us the two-thirds of the property which the son of Menexenus left, and that Leochares acted as surety for his doing so; for this is the basis of our present action and the subject of our affidavit. Please read me the affidavit.“Affidavit” [5]

If then, gentlemen, these were the only points with which Leochares or Dicaeogenes （III.） were going to deal in their defence, what I have already said would suffice; but since they are prepared to treat of the question of the inheritance from the beginning, I should like you to hear the facts from my side also, that, knowing the truth instead of being misled, you may give an unbiased verdict.

Our grandfather, Menexenus （I.） had an only son, Dicaeogenes （II.）, and four daughters, one of whom was married to my father, Polyaratus, another to Democles of Phrearrhi, the third to Cephisophon of Paeania, while the fourth was the wife of Theopompus, the father of Cephisodotus. [6] Dicaeogenes, having sailed out as commander of the Paralus,2 was killed in action at Cnidus.3 He died without issue, and Proxenus, the father of Dicaeogenes （III.） here, produced a will, in reliance on which our fathers4 distributed his estate. Under the will Dicaeogenes （III.） here was to be recognized as the adopted son of Dicaeogenes （II.）, the son of Menexenus （I.） and our uncle, and heir to a third of his estate of the remainder an equal share was adjudicated to each of the daughters of Menexenus （I.）. Of these facts I will produce before you as witnesses those who were present on that occasion.“Witnesses” [7]

When they had thus divided up the inheritance, having sworn not to transgress the terms agreed upon, each remained in possession of the share which he had received for twelve years. During all this period, though the courts sat, no one of them thought of claiming that there was any injustice in what had been done, until, when the city suffered misfortune and strife arose,5 Dicaeogenes （III.） here, acting at the instigation of Melas the Egyptian, whose advice he followed in everything, claimed from us the whole estate, alleging that he had been adopted as sole heir by our uncle. [8] We thought him mad in bringing the action; for we could never imagine that the same man could at one time state that he had been adopted as heir to one-third and at another time that he had been adopted as sole heir, and be believed by you to be speaking the truth. However, on coming into court, though we had by far the better case, we were cheated of our rights, not by the judges but by Melas the Egyptian and his friends, who thought that the misfortunes of the city gave them liberty to possess themselves of other people's property and to bear false witness in support of one another, and by their acting in this manner the judges were misled. [9] Thus we, the victims of perjury, lost our property; for our father died not long after the case was tried and before he could prosecute those of the witnesses whom he had indicted. Dicaeogenes （III.）, on obtaining against us the verdict which he desired, that very same day forcibly deprived of her share the daughter of Cephisophon of Paeania, the niece of Dicaeogenes （II.） who left the money; robbed the former wife of Democles of what Dicaeogenes （II.） had left her; and robbed the mother of Cephisodotus and Cephisodotus himself of all they possessed. [10] For of these persons he was at the same time the guardian and legal representative and the legal adversary; yet they did not meet with the slightest degree of pity from him on account of their relationship, but, orphans and unprotected and penniless, they even lacked all the necessities of life. This is how Dicaeogenes here, their nearest kinsman, carried out his duties as their guardian; what their father Theopompus left them he handed over to their enemies, and what their maternal uncle and their grandfather gave them he himself appropriated before any judgement had been given. [11] What was worst of all, while they were minors, he bought the house which they had inherited from their father and demolished it and used the site to make a garden adjoining his town-house. Also, though he was receiving an income of seventy minae from the property of our uncle Dicaeogenes （II.）, he sent the latter's nephew Cephisodotus with his own brother Harmodius to Corinth6 as a body servant; such was his insolence and rascality. Nay, he added insult to injury by reviling and upbraiding him for wearing heavy shoes and a coarse cloak, as though it was Cephisodotus who was wronging him by wearing such shoes, and not he who was wronging Cephisodotus by having reduced him to poverty by robbing him of his property. [12]

So much must suffice on these topics; I will now return to the point from which I digressed.7 Menexenus （II.）, the son of Cephisophon and cousin to Cephisodotus here, and to me, who had a right to the same share of the estate as I had, proceeded to prosecute those who had borne false witness against us and him, and obtained a conviction against Lycon, the first man whom he brought into court. His evidence had been that Dicaeogenes （III.） had been adopted as sole heir by our uncle; [13] he was convicted of perjury for giving evidence to this effect. When Dicaeogenes （III.）, gentlemen, found that he could no longer deceive you, he advised Menexenus （II.）, who was acting for us as well as for himself （I am ashamed to be obliged by his rascality to mention it）, to do—what do you think?—himself to take the share of the estate which was due to him and to throw over us, on whose behalf he was acting, and let off those of the witnesses who had not yet been convicted! And we, thus treated by our friends and our enemies, kept quiet. On these points I will now produce witnesses before you.“Witnesses” [14]

Menexenus （II.） was paid out as he deserved for his evil conduct, being deceived by Dicaeogenes （III.）; he let off the accused witnesses and threw us over, but he received no reward for his services. Having been thus wronged by Dicaeogenes （III.）, he made common cause with us again; and we, judging that Dicaeogenes （III.） had no longer any right to any part of the property forming the estate, since the witnesses had been convicted, claimed from him the whole estate on the ground of affinity. That our decision to act thus has been a right one and that Dicaeogenes （III.） has no longer any right to a share in the estate, I shall easily prove to you. [15] Two wills were produced, one made long ago, the other much more recent. Under the old will, which Proxenus, the father of Dicaeogenes （III.） here, produced, the latter was to be heir by adoption to one-third of our uncle's estate; according to the will which Dicaeogenes （III.） himself produced, he was to be heir to the whole estate. Of these two wills Dicaeogenes （III.） persuaded the judges that the one, namely that produced by Proxenus, was not genuine; those who bore witness that the other, namely that which Dicaeogenes （III.） produced, was our uncle's genuine will, were convicted of perjury. [16] Both wills being thus invalidated and it being admitted that no other will existed, no one had any claim to the estate under testamentary disposition, but it could be claimed on grounds of affinity by the sisters of the deceased Dicaeogenes （II.）, among whom were our mothers.8 We therefore resolved to claim the estate on grounds of affinity, and we each claimed our share. When we were on the point of making our affidavit,9 Leochares here put in a protestation that the estate was not adjudicable to us.10 [17] We then indicted Leochares, with the result that the suit claiming the estate was struck off the list, and the action for perjury came on. In court, after we had brought forward all the arguments which we are presenting on the present occasion, and Leochares had made a lengthy defence, the judges decided that Leochares had committed perjury. When this result became evident after the votes had been taken out of the urns, I do not think I need dwell upon the appeals which Leochares made to the judges and to us or the penalties which we were entitled to exact on that occasion; but I will tell you the compromise to which we came. [18] On our agreeing with the archon not to count the votes but to mix them together, Dicaeogenes （III.） gave up two-thirds of the estate in favor of the sisters of Dicaeogenes （II.） and agreed to hand over these shares without further discussion, and Leochares here undertook to be surety that he would carry out his promise. He was not the only surety, for Mnesiptolemus of Plotheia gave a similar undertaking. Of these facts I will now produce witnesses before you.“Witnesses” [19]

Having been thus treated by Leochares, though it was possible for us to have him deprived of civil rights since we had obtained a verdict for perjury against him, we did not wish to do so, but were satisfied to recover what belonged to us and be quit of him. Having behaved thus towards Leochares and Dicaeogenes （III.） we were deceived by them, gentlemen; for Dicaeogenes （III） did not hand over the two-thirds of the estate, though he had agreed in court to do so, and Leochares refuses to admit that he undertook to be surety on that occasion. [20] Yet if he had not given surety in the presence of the judges, five hundred in number, and of those who were present in court, I don't know what he could have done.11 To prove, therefore, that they are obviously lying, we are producing as witnesses those who were present when Dicaeogenes （III.） gave up two-thirds of the estate and promised to hand it over without further dispute to Dicaeogenes' （II.） sisters, and Leochares undertook to be surety that he would actually perform what he promised. And we beseech you, gentlemen, if any of you were present on that occasion, to recollect whether we are speaking the truth and to aid us. [21] For, gentlemen, if Dicaeogenes （III.） is speaking the truth, what advantage was it to us to have won our case, and what disadvantage was it to my opponent to be defeated? For if he simply renounced, as he alleges, his claim to the two-thirds of the estate but did not agree to hand it over without further dispute, what did he lose by renouncing property, the value of which he was still holding? For even before he lost his case, the property which we are claiming was not in his possession but in the hands of those who bought it from him or held it on mortgage, whom he ought to have paid off and then given us our share. [22] That is why we insisted on his providing sureties, because we had no confidence that he would carry out his agreement. Indeed except two small buildings outside the walls and sixty plethra12 of land in the Plain13 we have recovered nothing: the rest is in the possession of those to whom he sold or mortgaged it. We are making no attempt to eject them, because we are afraid of losing suits against them; for when we tried to eject Micion from the bath-house at the suggestion of Dicaeogenes （III.）, who said that he would not confirm his title,14 we were fined forty minae, all through Dicaeogenes, gentlemen. [23] For thinking that he would not confirm any title to any of the property to which he renounced his claim in our favor in the court, we vigorously attacked Micion before the judges, being willing to run any risk of Dicaeogenes （III.） confirming Micion's title to the bath-house, and never imagining that he would do the very opposite of what he had agreed to do, our sole reason for so acting being that the sureties had been given. [24] Dicaeogenes （III.）, however, having renounced the portion of the property which he still admits that he renounced in our favor, confirmed Micion's title to the bath-house. Thus I was in the unfortunate position of not only having received nothing from the estate but of having also lost forty minae, and left the court having been fooled by Dicaeogenes （III.）. Of these things I will now produce witnesses before you.“Witnesses” [25]

Such is the treatment, gentlemen, which we have received from Dicaeogenes （III.）. Leochares, who became his surety and is the cause of all our troubles, says that he never undertook to act as surety to the extent stated in the evidence against him, on the ground that it is not implied in the document drawn up before the tribunal. We, gentlemen, being hurried at the time in court, wrote down some of the points and obtained witnesses in support of others; but our opponents affirm the validity of those parts of the agreement then made which are to their own advantage, even if they are not in writing, while they deny the validity of what is contrary to their interests unless it exists in writing. [26] For myself, gentlemen, I am not surprised that they repudiate their verbal agreements, for they are unwilling to execute the written conditions. We will furnish another proof of our veracity. Dicaeogenes （II.） gave his sister15 in marriage to Protarchides of Potamos with a dowry of forty minae, but instead of paying the dowry to her in cash he made over to Protarchides the house which he possessed in the Cerameicus. Now this woman, the wife of Protarchides, has a right to just the same share of the estate as my mother. [27] Now when Dicaeogenes （III.） renounced the two-thirds of the estate in favor of the women, Leochares suggested that Protarchides should hand over to him the building which he possessed in lieu of the dowry, on the ground that he was surety, and receive from him on his wife's behalf the share of the estate which accrued to her.16 He took over the building, but never paid over the share of the estate. And of these facts I will now produce Protarchides as witness.“Witness” [28]

Regarding the repairs to the bath-house and the cost of building, Dicaeogenes （III.） has declared on a former occasion, and will now perhaps again declare, that we agreed to re-imburse him his expenses but failed to do so, and that he therefore cannot get rid of the creditors and restore what he ought to us. [29] Now, gentlemen, we in court, when we obliged him to renounce this property, let him off the payment of the revenue he had received from it in consideration of the public services which he had performed17 and the expenses which he had incurred on the buildings, in accordance with the decision of the judges and subsequently, under no compulsion but of our own free will, in consideration of the repairs which he had carried out, gave him as a special gift, in addition to his third share of the estate, the town-house which he sold to Philonicus for 5000 drachmae. [30] We made Dicaeogenes （III.） this present not because of his honesty, but as a proof that we have more regard for our relatives, even though they may be thorough rascals, than for money. For, indeed, on an earlier occasion, when it was in our power to punish Dicaeogenes （III.） and deprive him of his property, we did not wish to possess ourselves of anything which belonged to him but were satisfied with merely obtaining what was our own. He, on the other hand, when he had us in his power, robbed us of all he could and tried to ruin us, as though we were his foes and not his relatives. [31] We will now furnish a strong proof of our own forbearance and the injustice of Dicaeogenes. When the action against Leochares was coming on, gentlemen, in the month of Maemacterion,18 Leochares and Dicaeogenes （III.） asked us to postpone the action and submit the matter to arbitration. We, just as though we had suffered only slight injuries, agreed to this and submitted the matter to four arbitrators, two of whom were nominated by us and two by our opponents. In their presence we agreed to abide by their decision and swore an oath to this effect. [32] The arbitrators said, that if they could effect a compromise without putting themselves under an oath, they would do so; otherwise they would themselves also take an oath and declare what they regarded as just. The arbitrators interrogated us many times and learnt the facts. The two whom I had proposed, Diotimus and Melanopus, expressed their readiness, with or without an oath, to declare what they regarded as the truth in the statements; but the arbitrators whom Leochares had proposed refused to do so. [33] Yet Diopeithes, one of the two arbitrators,19 was brother-in-law of Leochares here and a personal enemy of mine, and had been my opponent in other actions regarding contracts, while Demaratus, his colleague, was a brother of Mnesiptolemus, who acted with Leochares as surety for Dicaeogenes （III.）. These men, however, refused to pronounce their opinion, although they had made us swear that we would abide by whatever they themselves decided. Of these facts I will now produce witnesses before you.“Witnesses” [34]

Is it not extraordinary, gentlemen, that Leochares should ask you to absolve him where Diopeithes his brother-in-law condemned him? Or how can it be right for you to acquit Leochares when even his relatives did not acquit him?20 I beseech you, therefore, to condemn Leochares, in order that we may recover what our forefathers left to us and possess not merely their names but their property also. The personal property of Leochares we do not covet. [35] Dicaeogenes （III.）, gentlemen, has no claim to your pity for misfortune or poverty, nor does he deserve any kindness for having done any good service to the city; he has no title to your consideration on either of these grounds, as I will prove to you, gentlemen. I will show you that he is at once rich and the meanest of men in his relations both to the city and to his kinsmen and to his friends. Having received by your verdict the property which brought in a yearly revenue of eighty minae, and having enjoyed it for ten years, he refuses to admit that he has saved money out of it nor can he show how he expended it, gentlemen. [36] It is well worth your while to look into the matter. He acted as choregus for his tribe at the Dionysia and was fourth; as choregus in the tragic contest and Pyrrhic dances he was last.21 These were the only public services which he undertook and then only under compulsion, and this was the fine show he made as choregus in spite of his great wealth! Moreover, though so many trierarchs were appointed, he never acted in this capacity by himself nor has he ever been associated in it with another22 in all those years of crisis; yet others possessing less capital than he has income, act as trierarchs. [37] Yet, gentlemen, his large fortune was not bequeathed to him by his father but given to him by your verdict; so that, even if he were not an Athenian citizen, he was in duty bound for this reason alone to do the city good service. Though so many extraordinary contributions for the cost of the war and the safety of the city have been made by all the citizens, Dicaeogenes （III.） has never contributed anything, except that after the capture of Lechaeum,23 at the request of another citizen, he promised in the public assembly a subscription of 300 drachmas, a smaller sum than Cleonymus the Cretan.24 [38] This sum he promised but did not pay, and his name was posted on a list of defaulters in front of the statues of the Eponymous Heroes,25 which was headed: “These are they who voluntarily promised the people to contribute money for the salvation of the city and failed to pay the amounts promised.” Indeed, gentlemen, what ground is there for astonishment that he deceived me, a single citizen, when he acted in this manner towards all of you united in assembly? Of these facts I will now produce witnesses before you.“Witnesses”

Such are the manner and extent of the public services which Dicaeogenes has rendered to the city out of so large a fortune. [39] Towards his relatives he is the sort of man that you see; some of us he robbed of our property because he was stronger than we were, others he allowed to resort to paid employment through lack of the necessities of life. Everyone saw his mother seated in the shrine of Eileithyia26 and calling down upon him reproaches which I am ashamed to mention but which he was not ashamed to justify. [40] Amongst his intimates he deprived Melas the Egyptian, who had been his friend from youth upwards, of money which he had received from him, and is now his bitterest enemy; of his other friends some have never received back money which they lent him, others were deceived by him and did not receive what he had promised to give them if he should have the estate adjudicated to him. [41] And yet, gentlemen, our forefathers, who acquired and bequeathed this property, performed every kind of choregic office, contributed large sums for your expenses in war, and never ceased acting as trierarchs. As evidence of all these services they set up in the temples out of the remainder of their property,27 as memorials of their civic worth, dedications, such as tripods which they had received as prizes for choregic victories in the temple of Dionysus, or in the shrine of Pythian Apollo. [42] Furthermore, by dedicating on the Acropolis the first-fruits of their wealth, they have adorned the shrine with bronze and marble statues, numerous, indeed, to have been provided out of a private fortune. They themselves died fighting for their country; Dicaeogenes （I.）, the son of Menexenus, the father of my grandfather Menexenus （I.）, while acting as general when the battle took place at Eleusis;28 Menexenus （I.）, his son, in command of the cavalry at Spartolus in the territory of Olynthus;29 Dicaeogenes （II.）, the son of Menexenus （I.）, while in command of the Paralus30 at Cnidus. [43] It is the property of these men, Dicaeogenes, that you inherited and have wickedly and disgracefully squandered, and having converted it into money you now plead poverty. On what did you spend it? For you have obviously not expended anything on the city or your friends. You have certainly not ruined yourself by keeping horses—for you have never possessed a horse worth more than three minae—, nor by keeping racing teams—for you never owned even a pair of mules in spite of possessing so many farms and estates. Nor again did you ever ransom a prisoner of war. [44] You have never even transported to the Acropolis the dedications upon which Menexenus （I.）31 expended three talents and which his death prevented him from setting up, but they are still knocking about in the sculptor's workshop; and thus, while you yourself claimed the possession of money to which you had no title, you never rendered up to the gods statues which were theirs by right. [45] What possible reason will you give, Dicaeogenes, that the judges should acquit you? Will you allege that you have performed many public services for the city and added to the dignity of the city by lavish expenditure? Will you say that as trierarch you have inflicted heavy losses upon the enemy, or bestowed great benefits upon your country in her hour of need by contributing to the expenses of the war? No, you have done none of these things. [46] Do you claim acquital on the ground that you have proved yourself a good soldier? But you never served at all in the whole course of the long and critical war, during which the Olynthians and the islanders are dying fighting against the foe in the defence of our land,32 but you, Dicaeogenes, though you were an Athenian citizen, have never served at all. Perhaps you will claim an advantage over me for the sake of your forefathers, because they slew the tyrant?33 I pay them all due homage, but I do not think that you have any share of their valor. [47] In the first place, you preferred to possess our property rather than their glory, and wished to be called son of Dicaeogenes rather than of Harmodius,34 despising the right of dining in the town hall and disdaining the seats of honor and the immunities granted to the descendants of those heroes.35 Further, the great Aristogeiton and Harmodius were honored, not because of their birth but because of their bravery, of which you, Dicaeogenes, have no share.

1 On the meaning of ἀντωμοσία see Antiph. 5, On the Murder of Herodes fn. 5.

2 The Paralus, which in time of peace was one of the two sacred vessels used for the conveyance of religious missions, ambassadors, etc., was used in war as the flagship of the commander of a squadron.

3 The engagement at Cnidus probably refers to the battle near Syme in 411 B.C. （see Thuc. 8.42）.

4 Menexenus III., the speaker, is pleading on behalf of himself and his cousins Menexenus II. and Cephisodotus, whose fathers had married two of the sisters of Dicaeogenes II.

5 The reference is to the internal troubles at Athens which followed the defeat at Aegospotami in 405 B.C.

6 i.e., during the Corinthian war of 394-386 B.C.

7 The end of Isaeus 5.9.

8 The mothers of Cephisodotus, Menexenus II., and Menexenus III.

9 For ἀντωμοσία see note on Isaeus 3.6.

10 Leochares in his protestation put in evidence that Dicaeogenes III. had been adopted under his uncle's will and that therefore an adjudication by the court was unnecessary. The contention of his opponents was that the will was a forgery; they therefore applied to the court to have the intestate estate adjudicated to them as next-of-kin.

11 i.e., his becoming surety for the restoration of the property was the only way in which he could hope to escape punishment for his perjury.

12 About 13 acres.

13 The upper valley of the river Cephissus.

14 Under Athenian law the vendor undertook to guarantee the title of any property which he sold and assumed an obligation if any attempt was made to evict the purchaser.

15 If the manuscript reading is retained, the reference must be to the giving in marriage of one of his sisters by Dicaeogenes II., since a sister of Dicaeogenes III. would have no claim to a share in the estate. The sister in question must, therefore, be the widow or divorced wife of Democles （Isaeus 5.5-9 τὴν Δημοκέος γενεμένην γυναῖκα）.

16 If the interpretation suggested in the last note is correct, the meaning here can only be that the dowry of the sister of Dicaeogenes II., having originally come from him, had to return into hotchpotch before his estate could be re-divided.

17 Apparently during the period when Dicaeogenes III. held the whole estate, his fortune was such that he was obliged to undertake public burdens to which he otherwise would not have been liable.

18 The fifth month of the Attic calendar, October to November.

19 i.e., as the context shows, one of the two arbitrators nominated by the speaker's opponents.

20 i.e., by refusing to give an opinion in his favor.

21 In the dithyrambic contests the competition was by tribes, thus the chorus of which Dicaeogenes was choregus was placed fourth out of ten competing choruses. The tragic competition was between three choruses, not organized on a tribal basis. The Pyrrhic or Warrior Dance was executed at the Panathenaic festival; there is no evidence as to the number of competing choruses.

22 After the battle of Aegospotami （405 B.C.） two citizens might jointly equip a vessel of war.

23 One of the harbors of Corinth which was captured by the Spartans in 392 B.C.

24 i.e., one who was not even an Athenian citizen.

25 The statues of the heroes who gave their names to the ten tribes stood below the north side of the Areopagus and above the Metroum and the Council Chamber （Paus. 1.5.1）.

26 The goddess of childbirth. In his edition, Reiske （Leipzig, 1773） conjectures that the speaker is insinuating that Dicaeogenes committed incest with his own mother.

27 The expenses would be incurred in providing monuments, of which the well-known Choregic Monument of Lysicrates is a speciman, to support the tripods won as prizes.

28 Nothing is known of any battle at Eleusis. Dobree reads Ἁλιεῦσι（cf. Thuc. 1.104）.

29 In 429 B.C. （cf. Thuc. 2.79）.

30 See Isaeus 5.6 and note.

31 If the text is correct, the reference must be to Menexenus I.; but in that case, it would have been the duty of Dicaeogenes II. to set up the statues after his father's death.

32 Probably in the Corinthian War （394-386 B.C.）.

33 Hipparchus.

34 i.e., was willing to be adopted into another family in order to inherit money.

35 The senior male representatives of the families of Harmodius andAristogeiton enjoyed the right to dine with the prytaneis in the town hall （θόλος）, seats of honor at public functions, and certain immunities from taxation.

[hypothesis] Philoctemon, a son of Euctemon, adopted Chaerestratus, the son of one of his two sisters and of Phanostratus, in a will which was deposited with Chaereas, the husband of the other sister, and died during his father's lifetime. When the latter also died, Chaerestratus claimed possession in accordance with the law. When Androcles lodged a protestation that the estate was not adjudicable because Euctemon had a legitimate son, namely, Antidorus,1 Chaerestratus and his supporters impugned the protestation, declaring that both Antidorus and his sister2 were illegitimate and that the law ordains that an illegitimate son or daughter cannot inherit as next-of-kin. The discussion turns on questions of fact; for it is uncertain whether Philoctemon adopted Chaerestratus as his son, and further, whether Antidorus and the other child are legitimate.

That I am on terms of very close friendship with Phanostratus and with Chaerestratus here, I think most of you, gentlemen, are aware, but to those who are not aware of it I will give a convincing proof. When Chaerestratus3 set sail for Sicily in command of a trireme, although, having sailed thither myself before, I knew well all the dangers which I should encounter, yet, at the request of these friends of mine, I sailed with him and shared his misfortune, and we were both made prisoners of war. [2] It would be strange if I endured all this in the face of evident danger because of my friendship and affection for them, and yet were not now to attempt so to plead their cause that you shall pass a sentence in accordance with your oath and that justice shall be done to my clients. I entreat you, therefore, to grant me indulgence and to listen to me with goodwill; for the suit is of no slight importance to them, but their most vital interests are at stake. [3]

Philoctemon of Cephisia was a friend of Chaerestratus here, and died, having bequeathed to him his property and having adopted him as his son. Chaerestratus in accordance with the law4 claimed the estate. But, since it is lawful for any Athenian who wishes to do so to dispute an inheritance by bringing a direct action before you, and if he can establish a better claim, to obtain possession of the estate, [4] Androcles here put in a protestation declaring that the succession was not adjudicable, thus depriving my client of his right to claim the estate and you of your right to decide who ought to be declared heir to Philoctemon's property. He thus thinks by a single verdict and by a single suit to establish as brothers of the deceased men who have no sort of connection with him, to place himself in possession of the estate without further legal procedure, to, become legal representative of the sister of the deceased, and to annul the will. [5] Androcles has made a number of extraordinary allegations in his protestation; I will take one point first and prove that Philoctemon made a will and adopted Chaerestratus here as his son. Seeing that Philoctemon had no issue by the woman to whom he was married, and since, as it was war-time, he was running considerable risks, serving in the cavalry and often sailing as trierarch, he resolved to dispose of his property by will, so that he might not leave his house desolate if anything happened to him. [6] He had had two brothers, both of whom died without issue: of his two sisters one, who was the wife of Chaereas, had no son and had never had one, though she had been married for many years; the other, who was wife of Phanostratus here, had two sons. It was the elder of these, Chaerestratus here, whom Philoctemon adopted as his son. [7] Under the terms of his will, if he had no child by his wife, Chaerestratus inherited his estate. He deposited his will with Chaereas, his brother-in-law, the husband of his other sister. This will shall now be read to you, and those who were present at its execution shall give evidence. Please read it.“Will. Witnesses” [8]

You have now heard that Philoctemon made a will, and on what conditions he adopted Chaerestratus as his son. To prove that he had a right to do so, I will produce the text of the law which is in my opinion the best source of information in such matters. Please read it.“Law” [9]

This law, gentlemen, holds good for all men alike, permitting anyone to dispose of his property in default of male issue, providing that, at the time of doing so, he is not insane or mentally incapacitated by old age or any other of the causes mentioned in the law. That Philoctemon did not fall under any of these exceptions, I will prove to you in a few words. For how could anyone dare to say that a man was not in full possession of his faculties, who all his life showed himself so good a citizen, that, owing to your esteem for him, he was considered worthy to hold command, and who died fighting against the enemy? [10]

That he made a will and adopted a son when he was in full possession of his faculties, as he was entitled to do, has been proved to you; it follows from this that Androcles has been proved to have committed perjury. But since he has further stated in his protestation that my opponent is a legitimate son of Euctemon, I will prove this also to be false. The real sons of Euctemon, the father of Philoctemon, namely, Philoctemon himself, Ergamenes, and Hegemon, and his two daughters and their mother, Euctemon's wife, the daughter of Meixiades of Cephisia, are well known to all their relatives and to the members of the ward and to most of the demesmen, and they shall testify to you; [11] but no one is aware or ever heard a word during Euctemon's lifetime of his having married any other wife who became mother by him of our opponents. Yet it is only natural that these should be most trustworthy witnesses; for relatives ought to know about such matters. Please call them first and read the depositions.“Depositions” [12]

Further, I will prove that our adversaries have actually given evidence in support of these facts. When the interrogations took place before the archon, and my opponents paid money into court in support of their claim that these young men were the legitimate sons of Euctemon, on being asked by us who, and whose daughter, their mother was, they could not supply the information, although we protested and the archon ordered them to reply in accordance with the law. It was surely a strange proceeding, gentlemen, to make a claim on their behalf as legitimate and to lodge a protestation, and yet not be able to state who was their mother or name any of their relatives. [13] At the time they alleged that she was a Lemnian and so secured a delay; subsequently, when they appeared at the interrogation, without giving time for anyone to ask a question, they immediately declared that the mother was Callippe and that she was the daughter of Pistoxenus, as though it was enough for them merely to produce the name of Pistoxenus. When we asked who he was and whether he was alive or not, they said that he had died on military service in Sicily, leaving a daughter, this Callippe, in the house of Euctemon, and that these two sons were born to her while she was under his guardianship, thus inventing a story surpassing the limits of impudence and quite untrue, as I will prove to you first of all from the answers which they themselves gave. [14] Fifty-two years have passed since the Sicilian expedition, reckoning from the date of its departure in the archonship of Arimnestus;5 yet the elder of these two alleged sons of Callippe and Euctemon has not yet passed his twentieth year. If these years are deducted, more than thirty years still remain since the Sicilian expedition; so that Callippe, if she were thirty years of age,6 ought to have been no longer under a guardian, nor unmarried and childless, but long ago married, given in marriage either by her guardian, according to the law, or else by an adjudication of the court. [15] Furthermore, she must necessarily have been known to the relatives and to the slaves of Euctemon if she had really been married to him and lived so long in the house. It is not enough merely to produce such statements at the interrogations, but it must be proved that the alleged events really took place and they must be supported by the testimony of the relatives. [16] When we insisted that they should indicate one of Euctemon's family who knew of anyone of the name of Callippe as having been either married to him or under his guardianship, and that they should make an inquiry from our slaves, or hand over to us for examination any of their slaves who said they had knowledge of these facts, they refused to take any of our slaves for examination or to hand over any of their own to us. Now please read their answer to the interrogation and our depositions and challenges.“Answer to Interrogation. Depositions. Challenges” [17]

My opponents, then, avoided a mode of proof so vital to their case; but I will show you the origin and position of these men whom my opponents testified to be legitimate and are seeking to establish as heirs of Euctemon's property. It is perhaps painful, gentlemen, to Phanostratus to bring to light the misfortunes of Euctemon; but it is essential that a few facts should be given, so that, knowing the truth, you may more easily give your verdict aright. [18] Euctemon lived for ninety-six years, and for most of this period had the reputation of being a fortunate man; he possessed considerable property and had children and a wife, and in all other respects enjoyed a reasonable degree of prosperity. In his old age, however, a serious misfortune befell him, which brought ruin to his house, caused him great financial loss, and set him at variance with his nearest relatives. [19] The cause and manner of it I will set forth in the fewest possible words. He had a freed-woman, gentlemen, who managed a tenement-house of his at the Peiraeus and kept prostitutes. As one of these she acquired a woman of the name of Alce, whom I think many of you know. This Alce, after her purchase, lived the life of a prostitute7 for many years but gave it up when she became too old. [20] While she was still living in the tenement-house, she had relations with a freedman whose name was Dion, whom she declared to be the father of these young men; and Dion did, in fact, bring them up as his own children. Some time later Dion, having committed a misdemeanor and being afraid of the consequences, withdrew to Sicyon. The woman Alce was then installed by Euctemon to look after his tenement-house in the Cerameicus,8 near the postern gate, where wine is sold. [21] Her establishment there, gentlemen, had many evil consequences. Euctemon, going there constantly to collect the rent, used to spend most of his time in the tenement-house, and sometimes took his meals with the woman, leaving his wife and children and his own home. In spite of the protests of his wife and sons, not only did he not cease to go there but eventually lived there entirely, and was reduced to such a condition by drugs or disease or some other cause, that he was persuaded by the woman to introduce the elder of the two boys to the members of his ward under his name. [22] When, however, his son Philoctemon refused to agree to this, and the members of the ward would not admit the boy, and the victim for the sacrifice of admission was removed from the altar,9 Euctemon, being enraged against his son and wishing to pay him out, announced his intention of marrying a sister of Democrates of Aphidna and recognizing any children who should be born to her and bringing them into the family, unless he consented to allow Alce's son to be introduced. [23] His relatives, knowing that no more children would be born to him at his time of life but that they would be forthcoming in some other manner, and that, as a result, still more serious quarrels would arise, advised Philoctemon, gentlemen, to allow him to introduce this child on the conditions which he demanded, giving him a single farm. [24] And Philoctemon, ashamed at his fathers folly but at a loss how to deal with the embarrassment of the moment, made no objection. An agreement having been thus concluded, and the child having been introduced on these terms, Euctemon gave up his project of marriage, proving thereby that the object of his threatened marriage was not to procure children but to obtain the introduction of this child into the ward. [25] For what need had he to marry, Androcles, if these children had been born to him from a marriage with an Athenian citizen, as you have affirmed them to have been in your evidence? If they were legitimate, who could prevent him from introducing them? And why did he introduce them on special terms, when the law ordains that all the legitimate sons have an equal right to share in their father's property? [26] And why did he introduce the elder child on special terms, but said not a word about the younger child during the lifetime of Philoctemon either to Philoctemon or to his other relatives? Yet you have explicitly borne witness that they are legitimate and heirs to the property of Euctemon. In proof of the truth of these assertions, read the depositions.“Depositions” [27]

It was after this, then, that Philoctemon died by the enemy's hands while commanding a trireme off Chios.10 Some time later Euctemon informed his sons-in-law that he wished to make a written record of his arrangement with his son and place it in safe place. Phanostratus was on the point of setting out with Timotheus11 in command of a trireme, and his ship lying at anchor at Munychia,12 and his brother-in-law Chaereas was there bidding him farewell. Euctemon, taking certain persons with him, came to where the ship was anchored, and having drawn up a document detailing the conditions under which he introduced the child, deposited it in the presence of those men with his relative Pythodorus of Cephisia. [28] The very fact that he acted thus is sufficient proof, gentlemen, that Euctemon was not dealing with them as legitimate children, as Androcles has declared in his evidence; for no one ever makes a gift by will of anything to the sons of his own body, because the law of itself gives his father's estate to the son and does not even allow anyone who has legitimate children to dispose of his property. [29]

When the document had remained deposited for almost two years and Chaereas had died, my opponents, having come under the influence of Alce and seeing that the property was going to ruin and that the old age and imbecility of Euctemon gave them an excellent opportunity, made a combined plan of attack. [30] They first urged Euctemon to cancel the will on the ground that it was not to the boys advantage; for no one would have any claim to the real estate on Euctemon's death except the daughters and their issue; whereas, if he sold part of the property and left it in cash, they would get secure possession of it. [31] Euctemon listened to them and immediately demanded the document back from Pythodorus and served upon him a summons to produce it. When Pythodorus appeared before the archon, Euctemon stated that he wished to annul the will. [32] Pythodorus was prepared to agree with Euctemon and Phanostratus, who was present, that the document should be destroyed; but, as Chaereas, who had been a party to its deposition, had left an only daughter, he suggested that it should be destroyed only in the presence of her legal representative, and the archon decided in favor of this course. Euctemon, after agreeing to this in the presence of the archon and his assessors, called many persons to witness that the will deposited by him no longer existed and then went his way. [33] In a very short time—and this was the object of their advice to Euctemon to annul the will—he sold a farm at Athmonon13 to Antiphanes for seventy-five minas and the bath-house at Serangion14 to Aristolochus for 3000 drachmas; and he realized a mortgage of forty-five minas on a house in Athens from the hierophant.15 Further, he sold some goats with their goat-herd for thirteen minas and two pairs of mules, one for eight minas and the other for five hundred and fifty drachmas, and all the slaves he had that were craftsmen. [34] In all, the value of the property which he hurriedly sold after Philoctemon's death, was more than three talents. And to prove that I am speaking the truth, I will first call witnesses in support of each of my statements.“Witnesses” [35]

So much for these transactions. They then immediately began scheming to obtain the rest of the property and planned the most outrageous plot of all, which merits your careful attention. Seeing that Euctemon was completely incapacitated by old age and could not even leave his bed, they began to look about for a means whereby all his property should be under their control after his death. And what did they do? [36] They inscribed these two boys before the archon as adopted children of the sons of Euctemon who had died,16 inscribing themselves as guardians, and requested the archon to grant a lease of the house-property as being the property of orphans, in order that part of the property might be leased and part might be used as a security, and mortgage notices adfixed to it in the children's names during the lifetime of Euctemon, and they themselves might become lessees and receive the income. [37] On the first day that the courts met, the archon put the lease up for auction and they offered to lease the property. Certain persons, however, who were present, denounced the plot to the relatives, and they came and informed the judges of the real state of affairs. The result was that the judges voted against allowing the houses to be leased. If the plot had not been detected, the whole property would have been lost. Please call as witnesses those who were present.“Witnesses” [38]

Before my opponents had made the woman's acquaintance and plotted with her against Euctemon, he and his son Philoctemon possessed so large a fortune that both of them were able to undertake the most costly public offices without realizing any of their capital, and at the same time to save out of their income, so that they continually grew richer. After the death of Philoctemon, on the other hand, the property was reduced to such a condition that less than half the capital remains and all the revenues have disappeared. [39] And they were not even content, gentlemen, with this misappropriation; but, when Euctemon died, they had the impudence, while he was lying dead in the house, to shut up the slaves, so that none of them might take the news to his two daughters or to his wife or to any of his relatives. Meanwhile, with the aid of the woman they conveyed the furniture from within to the adjoining house, which was leased and occupied by one of their gang, the infamous Antidorus. [40] When Euctemon's daughters and wife arrived, having learnt the news from others, even then they refused them admittance and shut the door in their faces, declaring that it was not their business to bury Euctemon. They only obtained admittance with difficulty about sunset. [41] When they entered, they found that he had been dead in the house for two days, as the slaves declared, and that everything in the house had been carried off by these people. While the women, as was right, were attending to the deceased, my clients here immediately called the attention of those who had accompanied them to the state of affairs in the house, and began by asking the slaves in their presence to what place the furniture had been removed. [42] When they replied that our opponents had conveyed it away to the next house, and my clients immediately claimed the right to search the house in the proper legal manner, and requested that the slaves who had removed it should be produced, our opponents refused to accede to any of their just demands. And to prove that I am speaking the truth, take and read these documents.“Depositions” [43]

Having removed all this furniture from the house, and sold so much property and kept the proceeds, and having further made away with the revenue which accrued during that period, they yet expect to obtain possession of what remains; and their impudence is such that, not daring to bring a direct action, they lodged a protestation—as though it were a question of legitimate children—which is at once false and in contradiction to their own previous action. [44] For, whereas they had inscribed the children before the archon, one as the son of Philoctemon and the other as the son of Ergamenes, they have now stated in their protestation that they are the sons of Euctemon. Yet if they were Euctemon's legitimate sons and had afterwards been adopted,17 as our opponent states, even so they cannot be described as the sons of Euctemon: for the law does not allow the return of an adopted son to his original family, unless he leaves a legitimate son in the family which he quits. So that in the light of their own acts their evidence is necessarily untrue. [45] If our opponents had then so contrived that the houses were leased, my clients would no longer have been able to claim them; but, as it is, since the judges decided against them as having no right, they have not dared to put in a claim, but, to put the finishing touch to their impudence, they have submitted additional evidence to the effect that these young men, whom you excluded by your verdict, are heirs. [46]

Further, mark the effrontery and impudence of the witness himself, who has claimed for himself Euctemon's daughter18 as being an heiress and a fifth part19 of Euctemon's estate as being adjudicable, while he has given evidence that Euctemon has a legitimate son. In doing so does he not clearly convict himself of having given false evidence? For obviously, if Euctemon had a legitimate son, his daughter could not be heiress or the estate adjudicable. To prove, then, that he made these claims, the clerk shall read you the depositions.“Depositions” [47]

Thus the contrary has been done of that which the law has prescribed; for according to the law no male or female bastard has any right, based on kinship, to participate in the cults or property of a family since the archonship of Eucleides20; yet Androcles and Antidorus consider themselves entitled to rob the legitimate daughters of Euctemon and their issue, and to possess the property both of Euctemon and of Philoctemon. [48] And the woman who destroyed Euctemon's reason and laid hold of so much property is so insolent, that relying on the help of our opponents, she shows her contempt not only for the members of Euctemon's family but for the whole city. When you have heard a single instance, you will easily realize the lawlessness of her conduct. Please take and read this law.“Law”21 [49]

Such are the solemn and pious terms in which you gave legal expression to the importance which you attach to piety towards these goddesses and all the other deities. Yet the mother of these young men, being admittedly a slave, and having always lived a scandalous life, [50] who ought never to have entered the temple and seen any of the rites performed there, had the effrontery to join in the procession when a sacrifice was being made in honor of these goddesses and to enter the temple and see what she had no right to see. That I am speaking the truth you will learn from the decrees which the Council passed concerning her. Take this decree.“Decree” [51]

You have, therefore, gentlemen, to consider whether this woman's son ought to he heir to Philoctemon's property and go to the family tombs to offer libations and sacrifices, or my client, Philoctemon's sister's son, whom he himself adopted; and whether Philoctemon's sister, formerly the wife of Chaereas and now a widow, ought to pass into the power of our opponents and be married to anyone they choose or else be allowed to grow old in widowhood, or whether, as a legitimate daughter, she ought to be subject to your decision as to whom she ought to marry. [52] These are the points which you have now to decide by your verdict; for the purpose of their protestation is to throw all the risk upon my clients, and that our opponents, even if they lose their case on this occasion and the estate is held to be adjudicable, may, by bringing forward a competing claim, fight a second action about the same property. Yet if Philoctemon disposed of his property by will when he was not entitled to do so, the point against which they ought to have protested is that he was not legally capable of adopting my client as his son; but if is lawful to make a will, and our opponent claims on the ground that Philoctemon made no donation or will, he ought not to have hindered proceedings by a protestation, but to have proceeded by means of a direct action. [53] As it is, what clearer method is there of convicting him of perjury than by putting the following question to him: “How do you know, Androcles, that Philoctemon neither made a will nor adopted Chaerestratus as his son?” For when a man has been present, gentlemen, it is just that he should give evidence of what he has seen, and when he has not been present but has heard someone else describe what happened, he can give evidence by hearsay; [54] but you, though you were not present, have given explicit evidence that Philoctemon made no will and died childless. How, gentlemen, can he possibly know this? It is as though he were to say, not having been present, that he knows about all the acts of you all. Impudent as he is, he will scarcely assert that he was present at and is acquainted with all the acts of Philoctemon's life; [55] for Philoctemon regarded him as his bitterest enemy, both because of his general bad character, and because he was the only one of his kinsmen who, in league with the infamous Alce, plotted with this friend of his22 and his other accomplices against the property of Euctemon, and committed the acts which I have described to you. [56]

But what calls for the greatest indignation is the wicked use which our opponents make of the name of Euctemon, my client's grandfather. For if, as they assert, Philoctemon had no right to make a will, and the estate was Euctemon's, who have a better right to inherit Euctemon's property? His daughters, who are admittedly legitimate, and we23 who are their sons? [57] Or men who bear no relation to him, and whose claims are refuted not only by you but also by the acts which they have themselves committed as guardians? For I beg and earnestly beseech you, gentlemen, to remember the point which I put before you a short while ago, that Androcles here declares that he is guardian of my clients as being the legitimate sons of Euctemon, and has also himself claimed for himself the estate of Euctemon and his daughter as heiress; and evidence of this has been placed before you. [58] By the gods of Olympus, is it not extraordinary, gentlemen, that, if the children are legitimate, their guardian should claim for himself the estate of Euctemon and his daughter as an heiress, and, if they are not legitimate, that he should have given evidence now in support of their legitimacy? For these acts are the very contrary of one another; so that he is convicted of perjury not only by us but by his own acts. [59] No one is putting in a protestation that the estate is not adjudicable, and Androcles was at liberty to proceed by means of a direct action; now he is depriving everyone else of their right to claim. Having explicitly stated in his evidence that the children are legitimate, he thinks that you will be satisfied with rhetorical digressions, and that if he does not attempt to prove his point or dwells only very lightly upon it, but rails against us in a loud voice and says that my clients are rich, while he is poor—all this will make it appear that the children are legitimate. [60] Now the family fortune, gentlemen, is being spent rather upon the city than upon the members of the family themselves. Phanostratus has already been trierarch seven times, and he has performed all the public services and has generally been victorious. Chaerestratus here, young as he is, has been trierarch; he has been choregus in the tragic competitions; he has been gymnasiarch at the torch-races. Both of them have paid all the special war-taxes, being numbered among the three hundred.24 Formerly only these two members of the family contributed, but now the younger son here is choregus in the tragic competitions and has been enrolled among the three hundred and pays the war-tax. [61] No grudge ought, therefore, to be felt against them, but rather, by Zeus and Apollo, against our opponents, if they obtain what does not belong to them. If the estate of Philoctemon is adjudicated to my client, he will hold it in trust for you, performing all the public services which you lay upon him, as he has done hitherto, and with even greater generosity. If, on the other hand, our opponents receive it, they will squander it and then seek other victims. [62]

I beseech you, therefore, gentlemen, in order that you may not be misled, to give your careful attention to the protestation about which you are going to give your verdict. Instruct him to make that the subject of his defence, just as it has been the subject of our accusation. The text of the protestation has stated that Philoctemon made no gift of property or will; this has been proved to be false, for those who were present are witnesses that he did so. [63] What further do they say? That Philoctemon died childless. How could he be childless, when he adopted and was survived by his own nephew, to whom the law gives the right of inheritance just as much as to children of his own body? Indeed, it is expressly stated in the law that, if children are born subsequently to one who has adopted a son, each child takes his share of the estate and both classes of children alike inherit. [64] Let Androcles, therefore, prove that the children are legitimate, as any one of you would have to do in similar circumstances. His mere mention of a mother's name does not suffice to make them legitimate, but he must prove that he is speaking the truth by producing the relatives who know that she was married to Euctemon, and the members of the deme and of the ward, if they have ever heard or have any knowledge that Euctemon performed any public services on her behalf. [65] We must know where she is buried and in what sort of tomb, and who has ever seen Euctemon performing the customary rights over her, and whither her sons still go to offer sacrifices and libations, and who of the citizens or of the slaves of Euctemon has ever seen these rites being performed. It is all these details, and not mere invective, which constitute a proof. If you bid him prove the actual contention which is the subject of his protestation, youwill give a verdict which accords with your oath and with the laws, and justice will be done to my clients.

1 This is a mistake. Antidorus was the name of one of the guardians （Isaeus 6.39, Isaeus 6.47）. The names of the two alleged sons are not stated anywhere in the speech.

2 Another mistake. No sister is mentioned in the speech.

3 If the reading here is correct, Chaerestratus, who is still a young man at the date of this speech （Isaeus 6.60） and therefore cannot have taken part in the famous Sicilian expedition of 415-413 B.C., must have sailed to Sicily on some occasion of which we have no historical record. The emendation Φανόστρατος adopted by most editors, is precluded by the wordsδεομένων τούτων, which can only refer to Phanostratus and Chaerestratus; although Phanostratus might have taken part in the Sicilian Expedition, Chaerestratus could not have been then alive and therefore would not have requested the speaker to accompany his father to Sicily.

4 Being adopted posthumously he had to obtain a legal adjudication before he could take possession. This formality was not necessary for a son adopted in the lifetime of the testator.

5 The Sicilian expedition set out in the summer of 415 B.C. （Thuc. 6.30）. The date of this speech must therefore be 364 B.C.

6 The speaker rather arbitrarily calculates the date of her marriage by the birth of her elder son.

7 καθήστο ἐν οἰκήματι = in cella meretricia sedebat, a technical term that refers to the activities of a working prostitute （see Wyse ad loc. in The Speeches of Isaeus, Cambridge, 1904）.

8 The “Potters' Quarter” at Athens, partly inside and partly outside the walls near the Dipylon Gate （see Frazer's note on Paus. 1.2.4）.

9 Apparently the effect of this action would be to defer the question of admission till a later meeting of the wardsmen.

10 Probably about 376 B.C.

11 This expedition under Timotheus probably took place in 375 or 373 B.C.

12 A small harbor on the east of the Peiraic peninsula in which part of the Athenian navy was docked.

13 The site of this place was near the modern Marusi, about seven miles north-east of Athens （See Frazer on Paus. 1.31.4）.

14 The site of these baths has been discovered below the eastern end of the hill on Munychia on the Peiraic peninsula. They consisted of a subterranean chamber with openings in different directions through the cliff （see Frazer's Pausanius 5. p. 477）.

15 The official who displayed the sacred emblems at the Eleusinian mysteries; he was a member of the house of the Eumolpidae.

16 Philoctemon and Ergamenes （cf. Isaeus 6.44）.

17 i.e., by Philoctemon and Ergamenes.

18 Namely, the widow of Chaeres, cf. Isaeus 6.51.

19 The words πέμπτου μέρους are certainly corrupt: there is no reason in law why a fifth part should have been claimed. No satisfactory emendation has been proposed.

20 403-402 B.C.

21 The law here cited must have been that which excluded slaves and women of immoral life from participating in the festival of the Thesmophoria celebrated in honor of Demeter and Persephone （see Isaeus 3.80 and note.）.

22 i.e., Antidorus.

23 The speaker here associates himself with his clients.

24 i.e., the richest class.

[hypothesis] Eupolis, Thrasyllus （I.）, and Mneson were brothers. Mneson died without issue; Thrasyllus （I.） died leaving a son, Apollodorus; Eupolis, the sole survivor of the three, acted with great injustice towards Apollodorus. Archedamus, therefore, the grandfather of the man who makes the speech, being married to Apollodorus's mother after her first husband's death, pitying Apollodorus because he was an orphan, claimed a large sum of money from Eupolis on account of the wrongs committed by the latter against Apollodorus. Mindful of this kindness Apollodorus introduced Thrasyllus, the son of his half-sister and grandson of Archedamus, to his fellow-wardsmen as his adopted son. Thrasyllus （II.） had already been inscribed among the members of the families and of the ward, but had not yet been placed on the official register of the deme, when Apollodorus died. After Apollodorus's death Thrasyllus （II.） was inscribed on the register; nevertheless the daughter of Eupolis, the uncle of Apollodorus contested the succession against Thrasyllus （II.）, alleging that it was not by any means in accordance with the wishes of Apollodorus that Thrasyllus had been inscribed among the wardsmen and kindred, and that the adoption was fictitious. Such is the subject of the trial; the discussion turns on a question of fact, and so, with great skill and ingenuity, the speaker explains the enmity of Apollodorus towards Eupolis, which supplies a strong presumption that he did not wish that his property should be inherited by Eupolis's daughter.

I should have thought, gentlemen, that there was one class of adoptions which could not be disputed, namely, those which are made by the adopter personally in his lifetime and in full possession of his faculties, after he has led his adopted son to the domestic shrines and presented him to his kindred and inscribed him in the official registers, and himself carried out all the proper formalities. [2] On the other hand, a dispute might well arise when a man, feeling that his end is near, has disposed of his property in favor of another, if anything should happen to him, and putting his wishes in a written document has sealed it up and deposited it in the custody of others. By the former method the adopter sets forth his wishes with perfect clearness, making the whole transaction valid in the manner permitted by the laws; whereas the man who commits his wishes to a sealed-up will makes them secret, with the result that claimants often think fit to contest the succession against adopted sons, alleging that the will is a forgery. It appears, however, that this distinction is of little practical value; for though my adoption was quite openly carried out, yet representatives of Eupolis's daughter have come forward to contest my right to Apollodorus's estate. [3] If I observed that you prefer a protestation1 to a direct action, I should have brought forward witnesses to show that the estate is not liable to adjudication, seeing that Apollodorus adopted me in the proper legal form; but since I am sensible that by the former method the rights of the case cannot fully be made known to you, I have myself come forward to explain the facts so that they may bring no charge against us of being unwilling to submit to such a trial. [4] I shall prove to you, not only that Apollodorus was prevented from leaving his estate to his nearest relatives by the many injuries which he had sustained at their hands, but also that he legally adopted me, his nephew, after having received great benefits from my family. I beg you all, gentlemen, to accord me your goodwill, and, if I can prove that my opponents are laying impudent claim to the estate, to help me to obtain my just rights. I will speak as briefly as I can, relating to you all that has happened from the beginning. [5]

Eupolis, Thrasyllus, and Mneson were brothers, children of the same father and mother. Their father left them a large property, so that each of them was considered able to perform public offices in the city. This fortune the three brothers divided amongst themselves. Two of them died about the same time, Mneson here in Athens, unmarried and without issue, Thrasyllus in Sicily,2 having been chosen as one of the trierarchs, leaving a son Apollodorus, who afterwards adopted me. [6] Eupolis, the sole survivor of the three brothers, was not content to enjoy only a part of the family fortune, but seized for himself the whole of Mneson's estate, half of which belonged to Apollodorus, alleging that his brother had given it to him, and, as guardian, so administered the affairs of Apollodorus that he was condemned to restore three talents to him. [7] For my grandfather Archedamus, from the time that he married Apollodorus's mother, my grandmother, seeing that he was deprived of all his fortune, took him to his own house and to his mother and brought him up while he was a boy, and, when he came to man's estate, assisted him to bring an action and secured the restitution of the half-share of the estate left by Mneson and all that Eupolis embezzled in his capacity as guardian, winning two law-suits, and so enabled Apollodorus to recover all his fortune. [8] As a result Eupolis and Apollodorus were always at enmity with one another, while my grandfather and Apollodorus were naturally close friends. The acts of Apollodorus supply the best evidence that he has received kind treatment for which he thought fit to make return to his benefactors. For, when my grandfather met with misfortune and was taken a prisoner of war, Apollodorus consented to contribute money for his ransom and act as a hostage for him until he could raise the necessary sum of money. [9] When Archedamus had been reduced from affluence to embarrassment, Apollodorus helped him to look after his affairs, sharing his own money with him. Again, when he was on the point of starting for Corinth on military service,3 he made a will in case anything happened to him and devised his property to Archedamus's daughter, his own sister and my mother, providing for her marriage with Lacratides, who has now become hierophant.4 Such was his conduct towards us who had originally saved him from ruin. [10] To prove the truth of my statements that Apollodorus won two actions against Eupolis, one in respect of his guardianship and the other concerning the half-share of Mneson's estate, my grandfather having supported his case and speaking on his behalf, and that it was thanks to us that he recovered his fortune, and that he requited these good services of ours—on all these points I wish first to produce the witnesses. Please summon them hither.“Witnesses” [11]

Such is the nature and importance of the benefits which Apollodorus received from us; on the other hand, his feelings of enmity towards Eupolis had their origin in disputes about such large sums of money that it is impossible to pretend that they could ever make up their quarrel and become friends. A convincing proof of their enmity is the fact that, though Eupolis had two daughters and was descended from the same ancestors and saw that Apollodorus was possessed of money, yet he gave neither of them to him in marriage. [12] Yet it is generally held that marriages reconcile serious animosities not only between relatives but also between ordinary acquaintances, when they entrust one another with what they value most. Whether Eupolis has been to blame in not wishing to give his daughter or Apollodorus in being unwilling to accept her, the fact has proved that their enmity continued. [13]

What has been said about their quarrel is, I think, sufficient; for I know that the older men among you remember that they were opponents in the law-courts, for the importance of the cases and the fact that heavy damages were obtained by Archidamus gave publicity to their quarrel. I must now ask you, gentlemen, to give your kind attention to the proofs, that Apollodorus himself adopted me during his lifetime and gave me power over his property and inscribed me in the registers of the members of the families and of the ward. [14] Now Apollodorus had a son whom he brought up and dearly cherished, as indeed was only natural. As long as this child lived, he hoped to make him heir to his property; but when he fell ill and died in the month of Maemacterion5 of last year, Apollodorus, depressed by his misfortunes and viewing his advanced age with regret, did not fail to bethink him of the family at whose hands he had in earlier years received kindness; so he came to my mother, his own sister, for whom he had a greater regard than for anyone else, and expressed a wish to adopt me and asked her permission, which was granted. [15] He was so determined to act with all possible haste that he straightway took me to his own house and entrusted me with the direction of all his affairs, regarding himself as no longer capable of managing anything himself, and thinking that I should be able to do everything. When the Thargelia6 came round, he conducted me to the altars and to the members of the families and ward. [16] Now these bodies have a uniform rule, that when a man introduces his own son or an adopted son, he must swear with his hand upon the victims that the child whom he is introducing, whether his own or an adopted son, is the offspring of an Athenian mother and born in wedlock; and, even after the introducer has done this, the other members still have to pass a vote, and, if their vote is favorable, they then, and not till then, inscribe him on the official register; such is the exactitude with which their formalities are carried out. [17] Such being the rule, the members of the families and of the ward having full confidence in Apollodorus and being well aware that I was his sister's son, passed an unanimous vote and inscribed my name in the public register, after Apollodorus had sworn with his hand upon the victims. Thus I was adopted by him in his lifetime and my name inscribed in the public register as Thrasyllus the son of Apollodorus, after he had adopted me in this manner, as the laws have given him the power to do. To prove that I am speaking the truth, please take the depositions.“Depositions” [18]

I imagine, gentlemen, that you would more readily believe those who have given evidence, if certain of the relatives of the same degree as my opponent have obviously attested by their conduct that Apollodorus carried out the adoption in a correct and legal manner. Now Eupolis left two daughters, one who is the present claimant and the wife of Pronapes, and another whom Aeschines of Lusia married and who is dead, but left a son Thrasybulus, who is now of full age. [19] There is a law which provides that, if a brother by the same father dies without issue and intestate, his property shall be divided equally between his surviving sister and any nephew who has been born from another sister. My opponents themselves are well aware of this, as their actual conduct has proved; for, Eupolis's son, Apollodorus （II.）, having died without issue, Thrasybulus has received half his estate, which may fairly be estimated at five talents. [20] Thus the law gives the sister and the sister's son an equal share of their father's and their brother's estate; but when a first cousin, or any other kinsman in a remoter degree, dies, it no longer grants such equality, but gives the male relatives the right of succession as next-of-kin in preference to the female. For it declares that “the males and the issue of the males, who are descended from the same stock, shall be preferred, even though their relationship to the deceased is more remote.” The wife of Pronapes, therefore, had no right to claim a share at all, and Thrasybulus ought to have claimed the whole if he regarded my adoption as invalid. [21] Yet from the first he has never disputed my title nor has he now made any claim at law to the estate, but has admitted that everything is in order. On the other hand, those who are acting for this woman have dared—such is their impudence—to claim the whole estate. Take the clauses of the law7 which they have violated and read them to the court.“Clause of the Law” [22]

Under this clause the sister and the nephew share and share alike. Now take this clause and read it to the court.“Clause of the Law”

If there are no first cousins or their children or other relatives on the father's side, then the law gives the right of inheritance to the relatives on the mother's side, specifying the order of succession. Now take this clause and read it to the court.“Clause of the Law” [23]

Such being the provisions of the law, Thrasybulus, a male relative, has not claimed even a portion of the estate, but those who are acting for this woman, a female relative, have claimed the whole of it; so persuaded are they that loss of honor is no loss. With this object, to prove that the whole estate ought to be awarded to them, they will have the impudence to use the argument that Thrasybulus has been adopted out of his own family into that of Hippolochides. While the fact is true, the conclusion drawn from it does not apply. [24] For what detriment was caused by this adoption to the bond of kinship which is in question? For it was not in the right of his father but in that of his mother that he has received half the estate of Apollodorus （II.）, the son of Eupolis; and by this right of kinship he might have claimed the estate now in dispute, since he has a claim prior to that of this woman, if he thought that the act of adoption was not valid; [25] he is not, however, so devoid of honor. Now the act of adoption into another family does not detach a son from his mother; she is his mother just the same, whether he remains in his father's house or is adopted out of it. That is why Thrasybulus was not deprived of his share of the fortune of Apollodorus （II.）, but has received half of it, sharing it with this woman. And to prove that I am speaking the truth, please call the witnesses to these facts.“Witnesses” [26]

Thus not only have the members of the families and of the ward borne testimony to my adoption, but also Thrasybulus has made it clear, by his conduct in not himself claiming the estate, that he considers the acts of Apollodorus8 to be valid and in conformity with the laws; for otherwise he would not fail now to claim so large a fortune. But there have been other witnesses to these facts. [27] For before my return from the Pythaid festival,9 Apollodorus informed his fellow demesmen that he had adopted me as his son and had registered me with the members of the families and of the ward and had committed his property to my care, and he begged them, if anything should happen to him before my return, to enroll me on the public register as Thrasyllus the son of Apollodorus and not to fail him in the matter. [28] Having heard this expression of his wishes, although our opponents complained at the electoral meeting of the deme and declared that Apollodorus had not adopted me, the members, as a result of what they had heard and from their own knowledge of the facts, took the oath over the victims and registered my name in accordance with Apollodorus's injunctions; so notorious among them was the fact of my adoption. And to prove the truth of my statements, please call the witnesses to these facts.“Witnesses” [29]

It was before all these witnesses, gentlemen, that my adoption took place, at a time when an inveterate enmity existed between Apollodorus and my opponent, and a close friendship as well as kinship between Apollodorus and us. But it is, I think, quite easy to prove to you, that, even if he had had neither of these sentiments—enmity towards my opponents and affection towards us—Apollodorus would never have left his estate to them. [30] All men, when they are near their end, take measures of precaution on their own behalf to prevent their families from becoming extinct and to secure that there shall be someone to perform sacrifices and carry out the customary rites over them. And so, even if they die without issue, they at any rate adopt children and leave them behind. And there is not merely a personal feeling in favor of this course, but the state has taken public measures to secure that it shall be followed, since by law it entrusts the archon with the duty of preventing families from being extinguished. [31] Now it was quite clear to Apollodorus that, if he left his estate in the hands of my opponents, he would be securing the extinction of his house. For what did he see before his eyes? He saw that these sisters of Apollodorus （II.） inherited their brother's estate, but never gave him a son by adoption, though they had sons of their own, and that their husbands had sold the landed property which he left behind him and his possessions for five talents and divided up the proceeds, but that his house had been left shamefully and deplorably desolate. Knowing that their brother had been treated thus, could he himself have ever expected, even if there had been friendship between him and them, to receive the customary rites from them, being only their cousin and not their brother? [32] Surely he could have no such expectation. And now please summon the witnesses to show that my opponents have viewed with indifference their brother's childlessness, and are in possession of his fortune, and have allowed a family to die out which was obviously capable of supporting the expense of a trierarchy.“Witnesses” [33]

Since such was the disposition of the cousins towards one another and so grave the resentment towards Apollodorus who adopted me, how could he have done better than follow the course which he did? Would he, in Heaven's name, have done better if he had chosen a child from the family of one of his friends and adopted him and given him his property? But even such a child's own parents would not have known, owing to his youth, whether he would turn out a good man or worthless. [34] On the other hand, he had had experience of me, having sufficiently tested me; he well knew what had been my behavior towards my father and mother, my care for my relatives and my capacity for managing my own affairs. He was well aware that in my official capacity as thesmothete10 I have been neither unjust nor rapacious. It was then not in ignorance, but with full knowledge, that he was making me master of his property. [35] Further, I was no stranger but his own nephew; the services which I had rendered him were not unimportant but very considerable; he knew that I was not a man devoid of public spirit, who would be likely to squander his possessions, as my opponents have squandered the property which composes the estate, but that I should be anxious to act as a trierarch and go on service and act as choregus and do everything else that the state requires, as he himself had done. [36] Since I was his kinsman, his friend, his benefactor, and a man of public spirit, and had been approved as such, who could maintain that my adoption was not the act of a man of sound judgement? Indeed, I have already performed one of those acts, the promise of which had won his approval; for I have acted as gymnasiarch11 at the festival of Prometheus in the present year with a liberality which all my fellow-tribesmen acknowledge. Please call the witnesses to prove that these statements are true.“Witnesses” [37]

These, gentlemen, are the just grounds on which we claim that we are entitled to keep the estate; and we beseech you to help us for the sake of Apollodorus and his father, for you will find that they were useful citizens and as zealous as possible for your interests. [38] His father not only performed all the other state services but also acted continuously as a trierarch, not contributing jointly with several others,12 as is the practice nowadays, but bearing the expenses out of his own fortune, and not jointly with one other but by himself alone; nor did he intermit his duties for two years13 but served continuously, not performing his duties in a perfunctory manner but providing the most perfect equipment. Wherefore, mindful of these services you honored him and saved his son when he was being robbed of his fortune, forcing those who were in possession of his property to restore it. [39] Again, Apollodorus himself did not, like Pronapes, assess his property below its value, but, paying taxes as a knight, aspired to hold the offices open to that rank, nor did he seek to possess himself by violence of the property of others and think that you ought to have no advantage from his wealth, but he openly declared the amount of his fortune and met whatever demands for service you made upon him, and wronging no man he tried to live honorably on his own fortune, considering that he ought to be moderate in his personal expenditure and dedicate the surplus to the service of the state, so that it might meet its expenses. [40] As a result of these principles, what public service did he fail perfectly to discharge? To what war-tax was he not among the first to contribute? What duty has he ever failed to perform? When he undertook the provision of a choir of boys, he was victorious in the competition, and the well-known tripod still stands as a memorial of his honorable ambition. And what is the duty of a respectable citizen? Was it not his duty, while others were trying to take by force what did not belong to him, to do no such thing himself but to try and preserve what was his own? Is it not his duty, when the state needs money, to be among the first to contribute and not to conceal any part of his fortune? [41] Such then was Apollodorus; and you would make a just return for his services if you ratified his intentions as to the disposal of his own property. As for myself, you will find me, as far as my youth allows, neither a bad nor a useless citizen. I have served on your military expeditions, I perform all the duties which are laid upon me; for this is the function of men of my age. [42] For the sake, then, of Apollodorus and his father and for the sake of me and my family you would be justified in considering our case with benevolence, especially since our adversaries have made away with and sold an estate that supported the trierarchy and reduced it to desolation, whereas we have already supported public burdens and will continue to do so in the future, if you ratify the intentions of Apollodorus by restoring to us this estate. [43]

But, in order that I may not seem tedious by dwelling any longer on these facts, I should like, before I step down, to lay before you, by way of brief reminder, the points on which each party bases its claim. My mother was Apollodorus's sister, and a close affection, never interrupted by any quarrel, existed between them; being his nephew and having been adopted by him as his son during his lifetime and when he was in full possession of his faculties, and having been registered with the members of the families and of the ward, I claim to possess the estate which he gave me and demand that my opponents should not be in a position to make his house desolate. What does Pronapes claim on behalf of the plaintiff? [44] He claims to keep half of the estate of his wife's brother, valued at two-and-a-half talents, and also to receive this estate, although there are others more nearly related to the deceased than his wife; yet he has not given him a son by posthumous adoption but has left his house desolate, and he would similarly fail to give Apollodorus a son by adoption and would leave his house likewise desolate; and he makes this claim although such enmity existed between them and no subsequent reconciliation took place. [45] You must take these facts into consideration, gentlemen, and remember that I am the nephew of the deceased, while the plaintiff is only his cousin; that she claims two estates, I claim only one, to which I have a right by adoption; that she was not on good terms with him who left the property, whereas I and my grandfather have been his benefactors. Having considered all these points and weighing them in your own minds, give your verdict in accordance with justice.

I do not know of anything more that I need say; for I think that no part of my argument has escaped your attention.

1 See Isaeus 2, Introduction.

2 During the Sicilian expedition of 415-413 B.C.

3 Athenian troops were engaged in the region of Corinth from 394 to 390 B.C.

4 The official who displayed the sacred emblems at the Eleusinian mysteries; he was a member of the house of the Eumolpidae.

5 October to November.

6 A festival celebrated on the 6th and 7th of the month of Thargelion （May to June）.

7 The law is given in extenso in Dem. 43.51.

8 i.e. the adoption of the speaker.

9 See Introduction.

10 This title was given to six junior archons, who presided at the allotment of the magistrates and were responsible for revising the laws.

11 The duty of a gymnasiarch at the festival of Prometheus was to provide a team to compete in the inter-tribal torch-race.

12 The system under which several citizens could jointly contribute to provide a trireme for the service of the state appears to have come into force about 357 B.C.; see Introduction.

13 i.e., he did not avail himself of the period of exemption allowed by law.

[hypothesis] Ciron having died without legitimate offspring, his nephew, the son of his brother, claimed his estate and took over the property from the widow. After this the speaker of the present oration indicts the nephew, alleging that he himself is a son of Ciron's daughter and that the wife of the deceased designedly handed over the estate to the nephew with the intention of giving him a part and appropriating the remainder. Such is the subject; the discussion turns on a question of fact, the point at issue being whether the claimant is a legitimate grandson of Ciron or not. A further question is also involved, namely, one of qualification: for the nephew argued that, even if we grant that his opponent's mother is a legitimate daughter of Ciron, since she is dead and it is her son who now claims, the nephew, the son of a brother, ought to have preference over a daughter's issue under the law which ordains that the descendants of males have precedence over those of females. The speaker with great skill completely ignores this law and bases his case upon the different qualifications of the parents, showing that, in as much as a daughter is nearer in kin to the deceased than a brother, so her son has a stronger claim than a brother's son. It is a strong case in equity but a weak case in law. The working out of the various topics is carried out with Isaeus's usual skill.

It is impossible, gentlemen, not to feel indignation against men who not only have the impudence to claim the property of others but also hope by their arguments to abolish the rights which the laws confer; and this is what our opponents are now trying to do. For, though our grandfather Ciron did not die childless but has left us behind him, the sons of his legitimate daughter, yet our opponents claim the estate as next-of-kin and insult us by alleging that we are not the issue of his daughter, and indeed that he never had a daughter at all. [2] The reason of their acting thus is their avarice, and the high value of the estate which he has left behind him and which they have taken by force and still hold; and they have the impudence both to assert that he has left nothing and at the same time to lay claim to the estate. [3] Now you must not imagine that my real opponent in this case is the man who has brought the suit claiming the estate; no, it is Diocles of Phlya, surnamed Orestes.1 He it is who has suborned our opponent to cause us trouble by trying to deprive us of the fortune which our grandfather left us at his death and exposing us to these dangers, in order that he may not have to give back any of it, if you listen to him and are misled by his words. [4] Such being their machinations, you must be informed of all the facts, in order that, being well aware of all that has happened, you may give your verdict with perfect knowledge of them. If, therefore, you have ever listened with scrupulous attention to any other case, I beg you to give like attention to this case, as indeed justice demands. Though lawsuits abound in our city, yet it will be shown that no parties have ever claimed the property of others with greater impudence and effrontery than my opponents. [5] It is a difficult task therefore, gentlemen, for one who is wholly without experience of litigation, when such important interests are at stake, to contend against fabricated stories and witnesses whose evidence is false; yet I have great hopes that I shall obtain my rights from you, and that I shall myself speak sufficiently well at least to state what those rights are, unless some such chance should befall me as it is now my lot to anticipate.2 I beg you, therefore, gentlemen, to listen to me with goodwill, and, if I seem to have been wronged, to aid me to obtain my rights. [6]

First, then, I shall prove to you that my mother was Ciron's legitimate daughter; for events which have happened long ago I shall rely on report and statements which have been heard by witnesses, while for events within living memory I shall employ witnesses who know the facts, and proofs which are better than any evidence. When I have established this, I shall then show that we have a better claim to Ciron's estate than our opponents. Starting, therefore, from the point at which they began their narrative of the events, I, too, shall try and put my version before you. [7]

My grandfather Ciron, gentlemen, married my grandmother, his first cousin, herself the daughter of his own mother's sister. She did not live long with him; she bore my mother, and died after four years. My grandfather, being left with an only daughter, married the sister of DiocIes as his second wife, who bore him two sons. He brought up his daughter in the house with his wife and her children, [8] and while the latter were still alive, he gave her in marriage, when she reached the proper age, to Nausimenes of Cholargus, giving her a dowry of twenty-five minae including raiment and jewelry. Three or four years later Nausimenes fell ill and died without leaving any issue by our mother. My grandfather received her back again—without, however, recovering the dowry which he had given, owing to the embarrassed condition of Nausimenes' affairs—and gave her in a second marriage to my father with a dowry of one thousand drachmae. [9] How is one to prove clearly that all these events occurred in face of the imputations which our opponents are now uttering? I sought and discovered a way. Whether my mother was or was not the daughter of Ciron, whether she lived in his house or not, whether he did or did not on two occasions give a feast in honor of her marriage, and what dowry each of her husbands received with her—all these things must necessarily be known to the male and female slaves who belonged to Ciron. [10] Wishing, therefore, in addition to the witnesses which I already had, to obtain proof of these facts by evidence given under torture3—in order that the veracity of my witnesses might be tested before, and not after, they gave their evidence, and so your belief in them might be confirmed4—I demanded that our opponents should surrender the male and female slaves to be put to the question on these points and any others of which they had cognizance. [11] My adversary, however, who will presently demand that you shall believe his witnesses, refused the examination under torture. Yet, if he shall be shown to have refused my request, what remains to be thought of his witnesses except that they are giving false evidence, since he has refused so decisive a method of testing them? In my opinion no other conclusion is possible. But to prove that what am saying is true, please first take and read this deposition.“Deposition” [12]

You Athenians hold the opinion that both in public and in private matters examination under torture is the most searching test; and so, when you have slaves and free men before you and it is necessary that some contested point should be cleared up, you do not employ the evidence of free men but seek to establish the truth about the facts by putting the slaves to torture. This is a perfectly reasonable course; for you are well aware that before now witnesses have appeared not to be giving true evidence, whereas no one who has been examined under torture has ever been convicted of giving false evidence as the result of being tortured. [13] And will my opponent, the most impudent of men, demand that you shall believe his fictitious stories and lying witnesses, while he thus declines so sure a method of proof? Our conduct has been quite different. Seeing that we first demanded that recourse should be had to examination under torture on the points about which evidence was to be given, and my opponent refuses to allow this, under these conditions we shall consider that you ought to believe our witnesses. Take, therefore, these depositions and read them to the court.“Depositions” [14]

Who are likely to be best acquainted with the events of the distant past? Obviously those who were intimate with my grandfather; they, then, have given evidence of what was told them. Who must necessarily know the facts about the giving of my mother in marriage? Those who betrothed her and those who were present when they betrothed her; the relatives, then, of Nausimenes and of my father have given their evidence. Who know best that my mother was brought up in Ciron's house and was his legitimate daughter? The present claimants clearly give evidence of the truth of these facts by their action in declining to put the slaves to torture. Thus, I think, you have much better reason for disbelieving their witnesses than mine. [15]

Now there are other proofs which we can bring forward to show that we are the children of Ciron's daughter. For, as was natural, seeing that we were the sons of his own daughter, Ciron never offered a sacrifice without our presence; whether he was performing a great or small sacrifice, we were always there and took part in the ceremony. And not only were we invited to such rites but he also always took us into the country for the Dionysia, [16] and we always went with him to public spectacles and sat at his side, and we went to his house to keep all the festivals; and when he sacrificed to Zeus Ctesius5—a festival to which he attached a special importance, to which he admitted neither slaves nor free men outside his own family, at which he personally performed all the rites—we participated in this celebration and laid our hands with his upon the victims and placed our offerings side by side with his, and took part in all the other rites, and he prayed for our health and wealth, as he naturally would, being our grandfather. [17] Yet if he had not regarded us as his daughter's children and seen in us his only surviving lineal descendants, he would have done none of these things but would have placed at his side my opponent, who now claims to be his nephew. And that I am telling the truth on all these points is well known to my grandfather's attendants, whom my opponent refused to give up to be questioned; the same facts are perfectly well known to some of his intimate friends also, whose evidence I will produce. Please take and read the depositions.“Depositions” [18]

But it is not only from these proofs that our mother is clearly shown to be the legitimate daughter of Ciron; but there is also the evidence of our father's conduct and the attitude adopted by the wives of his fellow-demesmen towards her. When our father took her in marriage, he gave a wedding-feast and invited three of his friends as well as his relatives, and he gave a marriage-banquet to the members of his ward according to their statutes. [19] Also the wives of the demesmen afterwards chose our mother, together with the wife of Diocles of Pithus, to preside at the Thesmophoria6 and to carry out the ceremonies jointly with her. Again, our father at our birth introduced us to the members of his ward, having declared on oath, in accordance with the established laws, that he was introducing the children of an Athenian mother duly married; and none of the wardsmen made any objection or disputed the truth of his statements, though they were present in large numbers and always look carefully into such matters. [20] Yet do not for a moment suppose, that, if our mother had been such as our opponents allege, our father would have either given a wedding-feast or provided a marriage-banquet and not rather hushed up the whole matter; or that the wives of the other demesmen would have chosen her to celebrate the festival with the wife of Diocles and given the sacred objects into her hands and not rather entrusted this office to some other woman; or that the wardsmen would have admitted us and not rather objected and justified their objection, if it had not been universally admitted that our mother was a legitimate daughter of Ciron. As it was, owing to the notoriety of the fact and its recognition by so many persons, no such question was raised from any quarter. Now call the witnesses to prove the truth of these statements.“Witnesses” [21]

Furthermore, gentlemen, the conduct of Diocles on the occasion of our grandfather's death clearly shows that we were acknowledged as the grandchildren of Ciron. I presented myself, accompanied by one of my relatives, a cousin of my father, to convey away the body with the intention of conducting the funeral from my own house. I did not find Diocles in the house, and I entered and was prepared to remove the body, having bearers with me for this purpose. [22] When, however, my grandfather's widow requested that the funeral should take place from that house, and declared that she would like herself to help us to lay out and deck the corpse, and entreated me and wept, I acceded to her request and went to my opponent and told him in the presence of witnesses that I would conduct the funeral from the house of the deceased, since Diocles' sister had begged me to do so. [23] Diocles, on hearing this, made no objection, but asserting that he had actually bought some of the requisites for the funeral and had himself paid a deposit for the rest, demanded that I should pay him for these, and arranged to recover from me the cost of the objects which he had purchased and to produce those who had received the deposit for the objects for which he alleged that he had paid a deposit. Immediately afterwards he casually remarked that Ciron had left nothing at all, although I had not said a single word about his money. [24] Yet had I not been Ciron's grandson, he would never have made these arrangements with me, but would rather have said, “Who are you? What right have you to carry out the burial? I do not know you: you shall not set foot in the house.” This is what he ought to have said, and what he has now instigated others to say. As it was, he said nothing of the kind, but only told me to bring the money next morning. And to prove the truth of these statements, please summon the witnesses.“Witnesses” [25]

Diocles was not the only person who made no such objections at the time; the present claimant to the estate was also silent and is now making his claim because he has been suborned by Diocles. Though Diocles refused to accept the money which I brought and alleged next day that he had received payment from my opponent, yet I was not prevented from attending the burial but joined in all the ceremonies, the expenses of the funeral, so far from being paid by my opponent or Diocles, being defrayed from the property left by the deceased. [26] Yet if Ciron had not really been my grandfather, it was the duty of my opponent to repulse me and reject me and prevent me from taking part in the burial. My position with regard to him was quite a different one: for I allowed him, as my grandfather's nephew, to share in all the rites, but he ought never to have allowed me to do so, if what they now have the audacity to say were true. [27] But he was so overawed by his knowledge of the true facts, that at the tomb, when I spoke and accused Diocles of detaining the property and of having suborned him to dispute the inheritance, he did not venture to utter a sound or say a word of what he now has the impudence to assert. And to prove that I am telling the truth, please call the witnesses to these events.“Witnesses” [28]

What ought to induce you to believe the statements which you have heard? Ought not the evidence of witnesses to induce you to do so? I certainly think so. But what entitles you to believe the witnesses? Is it not the confirmation of their evidence under torture? It seems only reasonable. But what entitles you to disbelieve the statements of my opponents? Is it not their refusal to put the matter to the test? This is an absolutely necessary conclusion. How then could anyone prove that my mother is a legitimate daughter of Ciron more clearly than by the method which I am adopting? [29] For events in the distant past I furnished hearsay evidence vouched for by witnesses; where living witnesses are available, I produced those who are familiar with the facts, who knew perfectly well that my mother was brought up in Ciron's house, that she was regarded as his daughter, and that she was twice betrothed and twice married; I further showed that on all these points my opponents have refused to allow the evidence of slaves under torture, who knew all the facts. By the gods of Olympus, I could not possibly give stronger proofs than these, and I think that those which I have produced are sufficient. [30]

But to continue; let me next prove to you that I have a better right than my opponent to Ciron's fortune. I suppose that you admit in principle as a self-evident fact that those who are descended from the same stock as Ciron are not nearer in right of succession than those who are descended from him. （How, indeed, could they be, since the former are called collateral kinsmen, the latter lineal descendants of the deceased?） Since, however, even though this is so, they have the impudence to dispute my right, we will explain the point in greater detail from the actual laws. [31] Supposing that my mother, Ciron's daughter, were still alive and that her father had died intestate and that my opponent were his brother and not his nephew, he would have the right to claim the daughter in marriage, but he could not claim the estate, which would go to the children born of their marriage when they had completed two years after puberty; for this is what the laws ordain. Since, then, the children, and not my opponent himself, would have become masters of her property if she were alive, it is obvious, since she is dead and has left children, namely, my brother and myself, that we, and not our opponents, have the right to succeed to the estate. [32]

This is the clear intention not only of this law but also of that dealing with the neglect of parents. For if my grandfather were alive and in want of the necessities of life, we, and not our opponent, would be liable to prosecution for neglect. For the law enjoins us to support our parents, meaning by “parents” father, mother, grandfather, and grandmother, and their father and mother, if they are still alive; for they are the source of the family, and their property is transmitted to their descendants, and so the latter are bound to support them even if they have nothing to bequeath to them. How then can it be right that, if they have nothing to leave, we should be liable to prosecution for neglecting them, yet that, if they have something to leave, our opponent should be the heir and not we? Surely it cannot be right. [33]

I will now institute a comparison with the nearest collateral relative and question you on the various degrees of relationship;7 for this is the easier way of making the matter clear to you. Is Ciron's daughter or his brother the nearer of kin to him? Clearly his daughter; for she is his issue, while the brother is only born of the same stock. Next, is the brother nearer of kin or the daughter's children? Certainly the daughter's children; for they are lineal descendants and not mere collaterals. If then our rights are so far superior to those of a brother, a fortiori we are still more to be preferred to our opponent, who is only a nephew. [34] But I am afraid of seeming tiresome in repeating truths so universally recognized; for you all inherit the property of your fathers, grandfathers, and remoter ancestors by the incontrovertible title of lineal descent, and I do not know that such a case as the present has ever been brought against anyone before. I shall therefore read the law about the neglect of parents and then try and show you the motives which led to the whole affair.“Law” [35]

The property of Ciron, gentlemen, consisted of an estate at Phlya, easily worth a talent, two houses in the city, one near the sanctuary of Dionysus in the Marshes,8 let to a tenant and worth 2000 drachmae, the other, in which he himself used to live, worth thirteen minae; he also had9 slaves earning wages, two female slaves and a young girl, and the fittings of his private residence, worth, including the slaves, about thirteen minae. The total value of his real property was thus more than ninety minae; but besides this he had considerable sums lent out, of which he received the interest. [36] It was to obtain this property that Diocles, together with his sister, carried on his plots for a long time, ever since the death of Ciron's sons. For he did not try to find another husband for her, although she was still capable of bearing children to another man; for he feared that, if she were separated from Ciron, the latter would resolve to dispose of his estate in the proper manner;10 but he kept on urging her to remain with him, and to allege that she thought she was with child by him and then pretend that she had an accidental miscarriage, in order that he might be always hoping that a child would be born to him, and might not, therefore, adopt myself or my brother. Diocles also continually calumniated my father, alleging that he was intriguing against Ciron's property. [37] So he gradually persuaded Ciron to let him handle all the sums owing to him, and the interest upon them, and to manage his real property, cajoling the old man by his attentions and flattery until he had all his estate in his grasp. But, although he knew that in accordance with my rights I should seek to be master of this property when my grandfather was dead, yet he did not try to prevent me from visiting him and paying him attentions and conversing with him （for he was afraid that Ciron might become exasperated and be angry with him）; but he was all the time preparing a claimant to dispute my right to the property, promising him a small share, if he were successful, and securing the whole estate for himself, and not admitting even to his accomplice that my grandfather had any money to leave, but pretending that there was nothing. [38] Immediately after Ciron's death he lost no time in making preparations for the funeral, the expenses of which he required me to pay, as you have heard the witnesses testifying; but he afterwards pretended that he had received the money from my opponent and refused any longer to accept payment from me, stealthily thrusting me aside, in order that it might appear that my opponent, and not I, was burying my grandfather. And when my opponent claimed this house and everything else that Ciron left behind him, although he said that he had left nothing, I did not think （and my friends agreed with me） that in these painful circumstances I ought to use violence and carry off my grandfather's body, but I took part in the rites and was present at the burial, the expenses of which were defrayed out of my grandfather's estate. [39] Thus I acted in this manner under compulsion; but in order that they might gain no advantage over me by alleging to you that I bore no part of the funeral expenses, I consulted the interpreter of the sacred law and by his advice I paid for at my own expense and offered the ninth-day offerings in the most sumptuous manner possible, in order that I might confound their sacrilegious tricks, and that it might not seem that they had paid for everything and I for nothing, but that I might be thought to have done my share. [40]

Such in substance, gentlemen, are the events which have occurred and the causes of all this trouble. If you understood the impudence of Diocles and his behavior on all other occasions, you would have no difficulty in believing anything in my story. For the fortune which he now possesses, and with which he makes such a brave show, is not really his; for when his three half-sisters, the children of his mother, were left heiresses, he represented himself as the adopted son of their father, though the latter left no will to this effect. [41] When the husbands of two of the sisters tried to obtain possession of their fortune, he imprisoned the husband of the eldest of them by walling him up11 and by a plot deprived him of his civic rights, and though he was indicted for outrage he has not yet been punished. As for the husband of the next sister, he ordered a slave to kill him and smuggled away the murderer, and then threw the guilt upon his sister, [42] and having terrified her by his abominable conduct he has robbed her son, whose guardian he became, of his property, and is still in possession of his land and has only given him some stony ground. To prove that what I say is true, his victims, though they are afraid of him, yet may perhaps be willing to support me by their evidence; otherwise, I will produce as witnesses those who know the facts. Please call them first.“Witnesses” [43]

This man, then, having shown himself so brutal and violent and having robbed his sisters of their fortune, is not content with the possession of their property, but, since he has not been punished, has now come forward to rob us of our grandfather's fortune; and having given our opponent—so we are informed—the paltry sum of two minae is exposing us to the risk of losing not only our property but also our fatherland. For if you are misled into the belief that our mother was not an Athenian citizen, neither are we citizens; for we were born after the archonship of Eucleides.12 Can it be said, therefore, that the suit which he has trumped up against us is of only trifling importance? While our grandfather and our father were alive, no charge was ever brought against us and our rights were never impeached; [44] but now that they are dead, even if we win our case, we shall always hear the stigma of having had our rights disputed, thanks to this accursed Orestes,13 who, taken in adultery and having suffered the treatment which befits such evil-doers,14 has not even so abandoned the practice, as those who know the facts can testify. You know now the character of this fellow, and you will learn about it in still greater detail, when our suit against him comes on.15 [45] But do not, I beg and implore you, allow me to be insulted and robbed in the matter of this money which my grandfather left, but help me as far as each of you is able. Ample proof is before you from depositions, evidence given under torture, and the laws themselves that we are the children of a legitimate daughter of Ciron and that we have a better right than our opponents to inherit our grandfather's property as his lineal descendants. [46] Remember, therefore, the oaths under which you sit in judgement, the arguments which we have presented, and the laws, and give your verdict as justice demands.

I do not know of anything which I ought to add; for I think that nothing which I have said has escaped your attention. Now take the only remaining deposition, proving that Diocles was taken in adultery, and read it to the court.“Deposition”

1 An Orestes, son of Timocrates, is said to have been a notorious footpad; hence the name is applied to any violent character. Cf. Aristoph. Ach. 1166.

2 The allusion is obscure.

3 Slaves could give evidence only under torture.

4 If the slaves confirmed the evidence of his witnesses, the latter would come forward to give evidence in court with a presumption already established that the evidence which they were going to give was true.

5 Zeus as the guardian of family possessions.

6 Cf. Isaeus 3.80; Isaeus 6.49.

7 The text is doubtful here, but the general sense is clear.

8 On the probable position of this shrine S. of the Areopagus see Jane Harrison, Primitive Athens, pp. 83 ff.

9 A number has probably fallen out here.

10 i.e., by leaving it to the speaker and his brother.

11 The reading οἰκοδομήσας is supported by Hippocration, s.v. （i.q.κατακλεῖν εἰς οἴκημα）, but the meaning is uncertain. Possibly Diocles forcibly detained his brother-in-law from performing some duty to the state and thus caused his disenfranchisement.

12 The children of mothers who were not citizens, born after 403 B.C., did not enjoy civic rights.

13 Cf. Isaeus 8.3 and note.

14 Cf. Aristoph. Cl. 1083; and Suidas, s.v. ῥαφανίς.

15 Probably an allusion to the indictment for ὕβρις mentioned in Isaeus 8.41; see p. 449 for the evidence of the speech composed by Isaeus for delivery in this suit.

[hypothesis] Astyphilus and the speaker of this oration were half-brothers, children of the same mother. On the death of Astyphilus a certain Cleon, his first cousin, produced a will, alleging that it had been made in favor of his own son. The brother of Astyphilius attacks the will as being a forgery. The discussion turns on a question of fact.

Astyphilus, the owner of the estate, was my half-brother, gentlemen, the son of my mother. He went abroad with the force which sailed to Mytilene, and died there. I shall try and prove to you what I stated in my affidavit, namely, that the deceased did not adopt a son, that he did not bequeath his property, that he left no will, and that no one except myself has a right to the estate of Astyphilus. [2] Cleon, my adversary, is first cousin to Astyphilus on his father's side, and his son, whom he pretends that Astyphilus adopted, is his first cousin once removed. Cleon's father, however, passed by adoption into another family, and they still belong to that family, so that in law they have no sort of relationship with Astyphilus. Seeing that they had no claim on these grounds, gentlemen, they concocted a will, which, as I think I shall be able to prove, is a forgery, and are trying to deprive me of my brother's estate. [3] So confident, indeed, has Cleon here always been, and still is, that no one but himself is to have the estate, that, as soon as the news of Astyphilus's death was reported—my father being ill at the time and I abroad on military service—he entered into possession of the landed estate and declared that anything else which Astyphilus left belonged to his own son, without ever giving you the opportunity to decide the matter. [4] When, however, my brother's remains were brought home, the person who claims to have been long ago adopted as his son did not lay them out or bury them, but Astyphilus's friends and companions-in-arms, seeing that my father was ill and I was abroad, themselves laid out the remains and carried out all the other customary rites, and conducted my father, ill though he was, to the tomb, well knowing the affection in which Astyphilus held him. I will produce before you the friends of the deceased, who were amongst those who were present, as witnesses of this.“Witnesses” [5]

That Cleon did not bury Astyphilus, even he himself would not deny, and evidence of the fact has been given you. On my return home I found my opponents in enjoyment of the property of the deceased; [I, therefore, sought out Cleon, who informed me that]1 his son had been adopted by Astyphilus, and that the latter had left a will to this effect in the keeping of Hierocles of Iphistiadae.2 On hearing this from him I proceeded to the house of Hierocles, knowing full well that he was on terms of the closest possible intimacy with Cleon, [6] though I never thought that he would dare to lie against the wishes of Astyphilus now that he was dead, especially as he was his uncle as well as mine.3 Nevertheless, gentlemen, regardless of these considerations, Hierocles in reply to my questions stated that the will was in his possession and said that he had received it from Astyphilus when he was on the point of sailing to Mytilene. And to prove that he made these statements, please read this deposition.“Deposition” [7]

Since, then, gentlemen, no one of my brother's relatives was present when he died and I was abroad when his remains were brought hither, I am obliged to use the actual statements of my adversaries to prove that the will is a forgery. It is only reasonable to suppose that Astyphilus did not merely feel a desire to adopt a son, but also provided that whatever dispositions he made should be as effectual as possible, and that, whomsoever he adopted, that person should both possess his estate and have access to his ancestral altars and perform all the customary rites for himself after his death and for his forefathers. [8] He would be assured that all these intentions would be best effected, not if he made his will without the attestation of any of his friends, but if he summoned first his kinsmen, then the members of his ward and deme, and finally as many as possible of his other acquaintances; for then anyone who might claim the estate either as next-of-kin or as legatee could be easily convicted of false pretences. [9] Astyphilus is shown to have taken none of these precautions, and not to have summoned any of the persons whom I have mentioned when he made the will which my opponents allege that he made—unless, indeed, anyone has been suborned by them to state that he was present. I will myself produce all these persons before you as witnesses.“Witnesses” [10]

Cleon will perhaps contend that you ought not to draw any conclusions from the evidence of these witnesses, because they merely depose that they have no knowledge of the making of this will by Astyphilus. But in my opinion, since the controversy is about a will and about the adoption of a son by Astyphilus, more weight should be attached by you to the evidence of the intimate friends of the deceased, when they declare that they were not present on so important an occasion, than to the evidence of those who have no connection with him, to the effect that they were present. [11] Moreover, Cleon himself, being apparently no fool, when Astyphilus was adopting his son and making the will, ought to have summoned any relatives whom he knew to be in the city and practically any other person with whom he knew Astyphilus to be intimate. For no one could have prevented Astyphilus from devising his property to whomsoever he wished; but the fact that the will was not made in secret, would have been strong evidence in Cleon's favor. [12] Furthermore, gentlemen, if Astyphilus wished that no one should know that he was adopting Cleon's son or that he had left a will, no one else's name ought to have been inscribed in the document as witness; but if it appears that he made a will in the presence of witnesses, and those witnesses were not taken from among those who were most intimate with him but were chance persons, is there any probability that the will is genuine? [13] For my part I cannot believe that anyone, when he was adopting a son, would have ventured to summon as witnesses any other persons except those with whom he was about to leave that son, to take his own place as an associate for the future in their religious and civic acts. Moreover, no one ought to be ashamed of summoning the largest possible number of witnesses to the execution of such a will, when there is a law which permits a man to bequeath his property to whomsoever he wishes. [14]

Now consider the matter, gentlemen, from the point of view of the date which my opponents assign to the will. They say that he made these dispositions when he was sailing for Mytilene on military service; it is clear then from their account that he knew beforehand all that fate had in store for him! For he served first at Corinth, then in Thessaly and again throughout the Theban war,4 and wherever else he heard of an army being collected, he went abroad holding a command; yet never on his departure for any one of these campaigns did he leave a will behind him. The expedition to Mytilene was his last, for in it he perished. [15] Who among you can believe it possible that the decrees of fate should correspond so exactly with Astyphilus's conduct, that when he was preparing for other campaigns and was well aware that he was going to run risks on all of them, on no previous occasion did he make any disposition of his property, yet when he was about to set out on his last expedition, going out as a volunteer with every prospect of returning safe and sound from this campaign, on this occasion only did he make a will and then sail away and lose his life? How can you credit such a coincidence? [16]

But besides this, judges, I will produce still stronger indications that there is no truth in what my opponents say. I will prove to you that Astyphilus had no such bitter enemy as Cleon, and hated him so much and with such good cause, that he would have been much more likely to have arranged that no one of his family should ever speak to Cleon than to have adopted his son. [17] For the death of Euthycrates, the father of Astyphilus, is said to have been caused by an assault made upon him by Thudippus, the father of Cleon here, in the course of a quarrel which arose between them over the division of their land, and he is said to have received such treatment that he fell ill as a result of the blows and died not many days later. [18] That this story is true, many of the Araphenians,5 who were tilling their land at the time, would probably testify for me, but I could not find anyone to give positive evidence in so grave a matter. Hierocles, the man who alleges that the will was deposited in his custody, saw Euthycrates struck, but I am sure that he would not be willing to give evidence to the detriment of the will which he is himself producing. But for all that, summon Hierocles that he may give his evidence before the court or else swear to his ignorance of the fact.“Oath of Ignorance” [19]

I was quite sure he would say this; for it is quite in the same character for a man to swear that he is ignorant of facts which he really knows and to be willing to pledge his oath to the truth of what has never really happened. However, to prove that Euthycrates, the father of Astyphilus, on his death-bed charged his friends never to allow any of Thudippus's family to come near his tomb, I will produce as witness before you the husband of Astyphilus's aunt.“Evidence” [20]

Astyphilus, then, hearing of this in childhood from his uncle and his other relatives, as soon as he reached the age of reason, would never speak to Cleon, and maintained this attitude up to his death, holding the opinion that it was impious to speak to the son of Thudippus, when the latter was charged with so grave a crime against his father. To prove that he remained throughout his life at variance with Cleon, I will produce as witnesses before you those who know the facts.“Witnesses” [21]

It would have been only natural, I suppose, for Astyphilus, whenever he was at home, to attend the sacrifices, at which all the Athenians entertain one another, accompanied by Cleon rather than by anyone else, since he was of the same deme and his cousin and, moreover, intended to adopt his son. The clerk shall, therefore, read you the deposition of the demesmen to prove that on no occasion was he accompanied by him.“Deposition” [22]

Such then being the relations between Cleon and the deceased, he now demands that his son should inherit his property. Yet why should I speak of Cleon? It is rather Hierocles, the uncle of the deceased and of me, who has had the audacity to come here with a forged will and declare that Astyphilus left it in his keeping. [23] And yet, Hierocles, though you received many kindnesses from my father Theophrastus, when you were less prosperous than you are now, and from Astyphilus, you are paying to neither of them the return which is their due; for you are robbing me, the son of Theophrastus and your own nephew, of property which the laws awarded to me, and you are slandering the memory of the dead Astyphilus and doing your best to put his bitterest enemies in possession of his property. [24] Nay, before any formal claim was laid to the estate, Hierocles, well aware that the estate was coming by rights to me and to no one else, went round in turn to all the friends of the deceased, hawking his scheme and trying to persuade men who had no title to it to claim the estate, saying that he was Astyphilus's uncle and would show that he had left a will, if anyone would go shares with him; and now that he has made a bargain with Cleon and divided up my brother's property, he will demand to be believed on the ground that he is speaking the truth. He would, I believe, be delighted even to take an oath, if anyone were to propose it to him. [25] For me, though he is my kinsman, he refuses to testify even to events which have actually happened, but with my opponent, who is no relative of his, he co-operates in telling lies and has brought a document in his favor to prove events which have never occurred; for he considers that to make money is much more important than his kinship with me. To prove that he went round and promised to produce a will in favor of anyone who would share the estate with him, I will produce as witnesses the actual persons to whom he addressed himself.“Witnesses” [26]

What name ought to be given, gentlemen, to this man, who is willing so lightly for his own profit to slander one who is dead? This evidence will furnish you with a strong presumption that he is not producing this will in favor of Cleon for nothing, but has received a recompense. Such, however, are the artifices which they are concerting against me; for each regards as clear gain anything that he can filch from the property of Astyphilus. [27]

I have proved to you to the best of my ability that the will is not genuine, and that Cleon and Hierocles are seeking to mislead you; I will now proceed to show that, even if I had borne no relationship to Astyphilus, I have a better right to his property than my opponents. For when my father Theophrastus received my mother—who was also the mother of Astyphilus—in marriage from Hierocles, she brought with her Astyphilus, then a young child, and he lived continuously in our house, and was brought up by my father. [28] When I was born and was of an age to be instructed, I was educated with him. Please take this deposition, and after it that of the masters whose classes we attended.“Depositions”

My father, gentlemen, planted the paternal estate of Astyphilus and continued to cultivate it and doubled its value. Let the witnesses of this also, please, come up.“Witnesses” [29]

When my brother came of age, he received all his possessions in so correct and regular a manner that he never had any complaint to make against my father. After this my father gave Astyphilus's sister in marriage6 to a man of his choice and managed everything else to Astyphilus's complete satisfaction; for the latter thought that he had received an ample proof from my father of his goodwill towards him, in the fact that he had been brought up by him from early childhood. Those who know the facts are my witnesses before you about his sister's betrothal.“Witnesses” [30]

My father took Astyphilus with him when he was a child, as also he took me, to the religious ceremonies on every occasion; he also introduced him to the confraternity of Heracles in order that he might become a member of this association. The other members will themselves bear witness to this.“Witnesses”

Next consider, gentlemen, my own relations with my brother. In the first place, I was brought up with him from infancy; secondly, I never had a quarrel with him, but he had a great affection for me, as all the members of our family and our friends know. I should like them to come forward and testify to you.“Witnesses” [31]

Can you imagine, gentlemen, that Astyphilus, detesting Cleon so heartily and having experienced so many kindnesses at the hands of my father, would himself have adopted a son of one of his enemies or bequeathed his property to him, to the detriment of his benefactors and relatives? Personally, I regard it as impossible, even though Hierocles produces forged wills ten times over: no, I am convinced that, because I am his brother and we were bound together by every other tie, I have a much stronger claim than the son of Cleon; [32] for it was positively indecent in them to put forward pretensions to the estate of Astyphilus, when they were on the terms with him that I have described and never buried his remains, but entered into possession before performing the customary rites over him. Further, they intend now to demand the succession to Astyphilus's property not only because of the will which they allege to exist, but also by a comparison of their relationship and mine, on the ground that Cleon was a first cousin of the deceased on his father's side. [33] There is little likelihood, however, gentlemen, of your paying any attention to his claim of kinship; for no one, after passing by adoption into another family, has ever inherited from the family out of which he was adopted, unless he re-entered it in the proper legal manner.7 … These men,8 however, well knowing that Astyphilus never adopted Cleon's son, though he has often presented himself, have never given him any share in the victims. Please take this deposition also.“Deposition” [34]

I call upon you, therefore, to decide between us after considering our declarations under oath. Cleon declares that his son was adopted by Astyphilus and that the latter made dispositions to this effect; this I deny and declare that all Astyphilus's possessions belong to me, because I am his brother, as my opponents are themselves well aware. Do not, therefore, gentlemen, give Astyphilus an adopted son whom he himself never in his life adopted, but confirm in my favor the laws which you yourselves enacted; for it is in conformity with them that I make my claim, addressing to you a most pious prayer, that you should establish me as heir of my brother's property. [35] I have shown that he never devised his estate to anyone, and I have produced witnesses in support of all my statements. Assist me, therefore, and, if Cleon is a more clever speaker than I am, let not his talent avail him unsupported by law and justice, but constitute yourselves arbitrators on the whole case. You are gathered here that the impudent may gain no advantage and the weaker may venture to assert their righteous claims, knowing full well that you are intent upon justice and upon nothing else. Take, therefore, my part, all of you, gentlemen; [36] for if you allow yourselves, under the persuasion of Cleon, to give any other verdict, consider the responsibility which you will assume. First, you will send the bitterest enemies of Astyphilus to his tomb to celebrate the rites over him; secondly, you will make of none effect the injunctions of Euthycrates, the father of Astyphilus, which he himself never transgressed up to the end of his life; lastly, you will convict Astyphilus after his death of consummate folly. [37] For if he adopted this man as his son with whose father he was on terms of the bitterest enmity, will not those who hear of it imagine that he was mad or that his senses had been impaired by drugs? Further, judges, you will be allowing me, after having been brought up under the same roof and educated with Astyphilus, to be deprived of his estate by Cleon. I beg and beseech you by every means in my power to give your verdict in my favor; for then you would best gratify the wishes of Astyphilus and save me from injustice.

1 There is a lacuna in the text at this point. “Post τὰ ἐκείνου est lacuna. [ Adii Cleonem, qui dixit] suum filium ab Astyphilo adoptatum esse” （Dobree,Adversaria, 1. p. 305）.

2 A deme of the tribe Acamantis, situated on the left bank of the Cephissus.

3 The sister of Hierocles was mother of Astyphilus and of the speaker, cf. Isaeus 9.23, Isaeus 9.27.

4 See Introduction.

5 Members of the deme of Araphen in Eastern Attica, to which both the brothers belonged.

6 This duty would naturally fall to the brother when he came of age; but Astyphilus preferred that his stepfather should act for him.

7 There is obviously a lacuna in the text at this point, which must have contained a reference to the devices whereby Cleon attempted to obtain the recognition of his son by the member of Astyphilus's ward.

8 i.e., the fellow-wardsmen of Astyphilus.

[hypothesis] A certain Aristarchus was the father of four children, Cyronides, Demochares, the mother of the speaker of this oration, and another daughter. During his lifetime he gave Cyronides in adoption to be heir of the estate of his maternal grandfather Xenaenetus, and left his other children as his own heirs. Subsequently Demochares died without issue, as also did one of the daughters, and the whole estate passed by law to the mother of the speaker. Such was the position of affairs; but, after the death of Aristarchus, Aristomenes, his brother and now the legal representative of his brother's children, gave his own daughter in marriage to Cyronides, the son of Aristarchus, who had been adopted out of the family, having promised to obtain for him the estate of Aristarchus. This he succeeded in doing; for, when a son was born to Cyronides, they first gave him his grandfather's name, calling him Aristarchus （II.）, and then had him adopted into his grandfather's family, on the ground that the latter had given instructions to this effect, and Aristomenes handed over to him all his grandfather's estate. Aristarchus （II.）, dying without issue, constituted his own brother Xenaenetus （II.） by will as his heir. This being so and Xenaenetus being in possession of the property of Aristarchus the elder, the son of the latter's daughter claims the estate from him, asserting that he is himself by law the sole heir to the fortune of Aristarchus the elder. For, he declares, Cyronides passed out of the family by adoption, and his father, having a legitimate son, namely, Demochares, could not adopt a child; nor were Demochares, being under age, and the other sister who predeceased him in a position to adopt a son into their father's family. Therefore, he argues, since the adoption of Aristarchus the younger was not good in law, his will could not stand either; for how could he pass on to another property which he acquired without right? The will being thus annulled, the estate ought naturally to pass to the speaker as son of the legitimate daughter of Aristarchus the elder. Such is the subject; the discussion is concerned with validity, namely, that of a written document; for the questions are whether such a will ought to stand and which party has the better claim.

I could wish, gentlemen, that, as Xenaenetus here finds it easy to lie with boldness, so I with like confidence could speak the truth to you in presenting my claim; for then, I think, it would immediately become clear to you whether we have unjustly come forward to claim the inheritance and whether our opponents have been for a long time in wrongful possession of this fortune. But, as it is, we are not on equal terms; for they are both able speakers and clever plotters, so that they have often pleaded before you on behalf of others, whereas I, so far from speaking on behalf of another, have never before pleaded on my own behalf in a private suit, and therefore deserve great indulgence at your hands. [2]

I was obliged, it is true, owing to the impossibility of obtaining justice against my opponents, to add to my petition at the preliminary inquiry that my mother was sister of Aristarchus （II.）.1 This will not, however, make your decision any the less easy, if you ask yourselves the question in the light of the laws whether the estate which Aristarchus （II.） has bequeathed to my opponent was his own or whether it was property to which he had no right. This question is a perfectly legal one; for the law ordains that a man can dispose of what is his own to anyone he likes, but it has never given anyone power over the possessions of another. [3] This, then, is the first point which I shall try to make clear to you, if you will give me your kind attention; for you will recognize that this estate belonged from the first, not to my opponents but to my mother, who inherited it from her father, and, secondly, that Aristarchus （II.） seized it without the sanction of any law, and that he and the members of his family are wronging my mother in violation of every law. I will try to put the matter before you, going back to a point which will enable you to form the clearest conception of the facts. [4]

Aristarchus （I.）, gentlemen, belonged to the deme of Sypalettus. He married the daughter of Xenaenetus （I.） of Acharnae, by whom he had two sons, Cyronides and Demochares, and two daughters, one of whom was my mother. Cyronides, the father of my opponent and of the other party2 who illegally kept possession of this estate, was adopted into another family, so that he had no further claim to the property. On the death of Aristarchus （I.）, the father of these two sons, Demochares his son became his heir; but, when he died in his minority and the other sister also died, my mother became heiress to the whole of the family estate. [5] Thus from the beginning all this fortune really belonged to my mother; but, although she ought to have passed by marriage, together with her fortune, into the hands of her nearest relative, she is being abominably treated. For Aristomenes, the brother of Aristarchus the elder, having a son and a daughter of his own, neglected to make her his own wife or to have her married to his own son by an adjudication of the court; refusing both these alternatives, he gave his own daughter in marriage to Cyronides, endowing her with the fortune which belonged to my mother. Xenaenetus here and Aristarchus （II.）, now deceased, were the issue of this marriage. [6] This is the injury, this the manner, gentlemen, in which my mother was deprived of her fortune. Subsequently Aristomenes gave my mother in marriage to my father. On the death of Cyronides, they introduced Xenaenetus's brother3 as the adopted son of Aristarchus （I.）, a proceeding which cannot be justified by any law, as I will demonstrate to you by many proofs. [7] I will produce witnesses to testify, in the first place, that Cyronides entered by adoption into the family of Xenaenetus （I.） and belonged to that family at the time of his death; secondly, that Aristarchus （I.）, to whom this estate belonged, predeceased his son Demochares, and that Demochares died while yet a minor, as did also the other sister, with the result that the estate devolved on to my mother. Please summon the witnesses to these facts.“Witnesses” [8] Thus, gentlemen, the estate now in question belonged to my mother from the beginning, since Cyronides was adopted out of the family into that of Xenaenetus （I.）, and his father, Aristarchus （I.）, left his property to his son Demochares, who left it to his own sister, my mother. But since they are so exceedingly impudent and claim this fortune against all right, you must see, gentlemen, that no law whatever authorized the introduction of Aristarchus （the younger） into the ward of Aristarchus （the elder）; if you see this, you will clearly apprehend that the illegal detainer of the property had no right to dispose of it either. [9] I think that you are all aware, gentlemen, that the introduction of adopted children is always carried out by a will, the testator simultaneously devising his estate and adopting the son, and that this is the only legal method. If, therefore, anyone shall assert that Aristarchus （I.） himself made a will, he will be saying what is not true; for, while he possessed a legitimate son, Demochares, he could not have wished to do so and he was not permitted to devise his property to anyone else. Again, if they declare that Demochares adopted Aristarchus （II.） after the death of Aristarchus （I.）, they will likewise be lying. [10] For a minor is not allowed to make a will; for the law expressly forbids any child—or woman—to contract for the disposal of more than a bushel of barley. Now evidence has been given you that Aristarchus （I.） predeceased his son Demochares and that the latter died after his father; and so, even supposing they had made wills, Aristarchus （II.） could never have inherited this property under their wills.4 Now read the laws which show that neither of them had the right to make a will.“Laws” [11] Nor again, gentlemen, could Cyronides give Aristarchus （I.） a son by adoption; he could, it is true, have returned to his father's family, if he had left a son in the family of Xenaenetus （I.）, but there is no law which permits him to introduce a son of his own to take his place. If they assert the existence of such a law they will be lying. So, not even if they assert that the adoption was carried out by Cyronides, will they be able to point to any law which authorized him to do so; but from their own assertions it will become still more evident to you that they are illegally and impudently detaining my mother's property. [12] Furthermore, gentlemen, though Aristomenes or Apollodorus might have had my mother adjudicated to them in marriage, yet they had no right to her estate. Seeing that neither Apollodorus nor Aristomenes, if either of them had married my mother, could possibly have had the disposal of her property—in accordance with the law which does not allow anyone to have the disposal of the property of an heiress except her sons, who obtain possession of it on reaching the second year after puberty—it would be strange if Aristarchus is going to be allowed, after giving her in marriage to another, to introduce a son to inherit her fortune. [13] It would indeed be an extraordinary state of affairs. Again, her own father, in default of male heirs, could not have disposed of his estate without disposing of her with it; for the law ordains that he may dispose of his property to whomsoever he wishes, if he disposes of his daughters with it. But when one who has refused to take the heiress in marriage and is not her father but her cousin, introduces an heir to her fortune in violation of every law, is this to be recognized as a valid act? Who of you can possibly believe it to be so? [14] For myself, gentlemen, I am perfectly certain that neither Xenaenetus nor anyone else can prove that this estate does not belong to my mother, having come to her through her brother Demochares. But, if, after all, they venture to deal with the question, order them to indicate the law under which the adoption has been carried out in favor of Aristarchus （II.） and to declare who carried it out. This is a perfectly just demand. But I know that they will not be able to indicate any such law. [15]

That the estate, then, belonged to my mother from the beginning and that she has been unjustly deprived of it by my opponents, has, I think, been sufficiently demonstrated by my arguments, by the evidence which has been produced, and by the citation of the actual laws. Indeed, these men are so perfectly well aware that they are wrongfully in possession of this fortune that they do not rest their argument solely upon the legality of the introduction of Aristarchus （II.） to the members of the ward, but also allege that Xenaenetus's father has paid a judgement-debt on behalf of the estate5 in order that, if their claim on the former ground should not seem just, it may appear that they have a good claim to the estate on the second ground. [16] I shall show you, gentlemen, by convincing proofs that there is no truth in what they say. For if, as they allege, this estate had been insolvent, they would never have expended any money upon it—for it was not their business to do so, but those who had the right to claim my mother's hand ought to have concerned themselves with the matter—nor would they have introduced a son as the adopted child of Aristarchus （I.） to inherit his estate, if they were not going to get any advantage but only suffer considerable loss. [17] Other people indeed, when they have had monetary losses, introduce their children into other families in order that they may not share in their parents' loss of civic rights; and did my opponents adopt themselves into a succession and family which was insolvent, in order that they might lose in addition what they already possessed? Nay, it is impossible the estate was unencumbered and descended to my mother, and these men, in their greed for money and their anxiety to rob her, devised all this story. [18]

Some among you, gentlemen, may be surprised at the delay, and ask how it is that we allowed so long an interval to elapse, and, being defrauded, took no steps in the matter, and are only now putting in our claim. Now, although I think it unjust that anyone should have less than his due rights through inability or neglect to assert them—for such a consideration should not be taken into account, but only the justice or injustice of his plea—yet even for this delay, gentlemen, we can furnish an explanation. [19] My father received a dowry when he engaged himself to my mother and married her, but, while these men were enjoying the estate, he had no means of obtaining its restitution; for when, at my mother's instance, he raised the question, they threatened that they themselves would obtain the adjudication of her hand and marry her, if he were not satisfied to keep her with only a dowry. Now my father would have allowed them to enjoy an estate of even double the value so as not to be deprived of her. [20] That is why my father never brought a suit for the estate. Then came the Corinthian war,6 in which my father and I were obliged to serve, so that neither of us could have obtained justice. When peace was restored, I had unfortunate difficulties with the public treasury,7 so that it was not easy for me to contend with my opponents. Thus we have good reasons for our conduct in the matter. [21] But the time has now come when it is only right that my opponent should declare who it was that gave him the estate, and what laws justify his introduction in the ward, and why it is that my mother was not heiress to this fortune. These are the points on which you must give your verdict, not as to whether we are late in demanding what is our own. If they cannot explain these points, you would be justified in deciding that the estate is mine. [22]

I am sure they will not be able to do so; for it is difficult to argue against law and justice. But they will talk about the deceased, saying how sad it is that so brave a man has fallen in battle and declaring that it is unjust to set aside his will. I myself, gentlemen, am of opinion that any will which a man may make about his own property ought to be valid, but that wills which concern other people's property ought not to have the same validity as those in which a man disposes of what is his own. Now this property is clearly not theirs but ours; [23] and so, if he takes refuge in this argument and produces witnesses to testify that Aristarchus （I.） made a will, you must order him to prove also that what he devised was his own. This is only just, for it would be a most terrible state of affairs if Cyronides and my opponents, his children, are not only to possess the fortune of Xenaenetus （I.） of the value of more than four talents, but are also to receive this estate, while I, though my mother was the rightful owner and I am descended from the same ancestors as Cyronides, am not to receive even my mother's estate, especially as these men cannot indicate the person through whom it has been transmitted to them. [24] Yet in all justice, just as the holder of a disputed piece of land must produce the mortgagee or vendor, or else prove that he has had it adjudicated to him by the court, so ought these men to set forth their titles in detail and claim to have the estate adjudicated to them, instead of ejecting my mother, the daughter of Aristarchus （I.）, from her paternal inheritance before any suit has been heard. [25] But no doubt, gentlemen, it is not enough for Xenaenetus （II.） to have dissipated the fortune of Aristomenes in unnatural debauchery; he thinks that he ought to dispose of this estate also in like manner. I, on the other hand, gentlemen, though my means are slender, bestowed my sisters in marriage, giving them what dowry I could; and as one who leads an orderly life and performs the duties assigned to him and serves in the army, I demand not to be deprived of my mother's paternal estate. [26] I have proved to you that Cyronides, the father of my opponents, was adopted into another family and did not return to his father's house; that the father of Cyronides and of my mother left this estate to Demochares; that Demochares died in his minority, and that it was upon my mother that this estate then devolved.

1 See Introduction.

2 i.e., Aristarchus II.

3 i.e., Aristarchus II.

4 Which would be invalid because Aristarchus （I.） could not make a will in favor of anyone except Demochares, and predeceased Demochares, who, having died under age, was incapable of making a will.

5 Wyse suggests that Aristarchus I. died in debt to the state and therefore without civic rights, and that Cyronides settled his liabilities to save the estate from confiscation and the heir from the disabilities which he would inherit.

6 394-386 B.C.

7 Debtors to the public treasury were temporarily deprived of their rights as citizens and therefore could not engage in litigation.

[hypothesis] A certain Hagnias had several cousins, namely, Theopompus, his brother Stratocles, Stratius, and Eubulides. When he was at the point of death he adopted a daughter, stipulating in his will that, if anything should happen to her, the estate should pass to Glaucon, who was his half-brother, his mother's son. After making these arrangements he died; and the daughter received the inheritance and then herself died. Eubulides having also died, his daughter brought an action against Glaucon and was awarded the estate. After this, Stratocles and Stratius having died, Theopompus, acting alone, brought a suit against her and was awarded the estate. It is against him that the son of his brother Stratocles brings an action through a guardian, alleged that the inheritance belongs in equal shares to Theopompus and to his brother's son. The discussion turns on a point of fact. “Laws”

I have read you the laws because my opponent bases on the first of them the claim of the child to half the estate—a claim which is false. Hagnias, it is true, was not our brother; but in the matter of a brother's property the law1 has given the right of inheritance first to brothers and nephews provided they are on the father's side; for they are related to the deceased in the nearest degree. [2] In default of these, the law next names sisters by the same father and their issue. If these fail, it gives the right of succession as next-of-kin to the third degree, namely, first cousins on the father's side including their children. If this degree is also lacking, the law goes back and gives the succession to the relatives of the deceased on his mother's side on the same principles as originally regulated the rights of inheritance by the relatives on the father's side. [3] These are the only rights of next-of-kin which the framer of the law recognizes; the wording which he employs is briefer than my paraphrase, but he shows his intention quite clearly in the text of the law. This child does not possess a single one of these titles as next-of-kin to Hagnias, but is outside all relationship. In order that you may know exactly upon what points you are going to give your verdict, I challenge my opponent to state, without superfluous words, in which of the above-mentioned degrees of relationship this child stands to the former tenant of the estate. If he can be shown to be in any way related, I willingly concede that half the estate is his. [4] If, on the other hand, he cannot prove the existence of any such relationship, surely he will be clearly convicted of bringing a vexatious suit against me and of trying to deceive you in contravention of the laws. I intend, therefore, to make him stand up before you and to interrogate him, reading out the text of the law. You will thus learn whether, or no, the child has any right to the fortune of Hagnias. （To the Clerk） Please take these laws; and （to his opponent） you, come up here, since you are so clever at misrepresentation and at distorting the laws. Read on.“Laws” [5]

Stop. I wish to question you. Is the child a brother of Hagnias, or a nephew, the son of a brother or sister, or a first cousin, or the child of a first cousin on his mother's or his father's side? Which of these titles, which are regarded by the law as constituting kinship, does he possess? And beware of saying that he is my nephew; for it is not a question now of my estate, for I am still alive. If I had died without issue and he were claiming my property, it would be quite fitting that he should give this reply to one who interrogated him. On the present occasion, however, it is the half of Hagnias's estate that you say belongs to the child; you must, therefore, define the degree of relationship which unites him to Hagnias. Tell these gentlemen, therefore, what it is. [6]

You observe that he cannot define the relationship, but gives any sort of answer rather than the information which you require. Yet one who is acting in good faith ought not to be embarrassed, but ought to be able to answer immediately, and not only so but also swear an oath and produce witnesses about the degree of relationship, so that you might have attached greater credence to what he said. As it is, regarding matters about which he has given no answer, produced no witnesses, sworn no oath and quoted no law, he thinks that you, who have sworn to give your verdict according to the laws, ought to believe him and illegally condemn me in this criminal suit. This is the wicked and shameless sort of scoundrel that he is. [7] I have no intention of following his example; instead, I shall state my degree of relationship and the basis of my claim to the estate, and I shall prove, in such a manner as to win your assent, that the child and the former claimants against me for the estate are all outside the limits of kinship. I must state the facts from the beginning; for you will thus recognize my claim as next-of-kin and see that my opponent has no title to the succession. [8]

Hagnias, Eubulides, Stratocles, Stratius, the brother of Hagnias's mother, and I, gentlemen, are all the children of cousins, our fathers having been cousins, the children of brothers by the same father. When Hagnias was preparing to set out as ambassador on that mission2 which had such favorable results for the city, he did not leave his possessions, in case anything happened to him, to us, his nearest relatives, but adopted a niece; and if anything happened to her, he devised his property to Glaucon, his half- brother on his mother's side. These dispositions he embodied in a will. [9] After some interval of time Eubulides died. The daughter whom Hagnias had adopted also died, and Glaucon received the estate in accordance with the will. We never for a moment thought of contesting Hagnias's will, but considered that his intentions regarding his own property ought to be carried into effect, and by these we abode. But the daughter of Eubulides, with the assistance of her confederates, laid claim to the estate and obtained it, having gained an action against those who based their rights on the will. She was outside the prescribed degree of kinship, but hoped, it seems, that we should not bring an action against her, because we had not contested the will either. [10] But we—that is to say, Stratius, Stratocles, and myself—since the estate had now become adjudicable to the next-of-kin,3 all prepared to bring a suit. However, before the hearing of the case, Stratius and Stratocles both died; and thus I am the only surviving relative on the father's side, being the son of a cousin and the only person to whom, according to the law, the estate could pass, all the other relatives having died who possessed the same degree of kinship as myself. [11] But, it may be asked, how are you to know that I possess the rights of a next-of-kin, while the children of the other cousins, including this child, did not possess them? The law itself will make this clear. It is universally admitted that the rights as next-of-kin belong to cousins on the father's side, including their children, but the point which we have now to examine whether the law grants these rights to our children also. Take, therefore, the law and read it to the court.“Law[If there is no relative on the father's side as far as the degree of the children of cousins, then the right of inheritance passes to the mother's side in the same order of succession.]”4 [12]

Mark you, gentlemen, the legislator did not say that, in default of heirs on the father's side up to the degree of cousin's children, the rights descend to the latter's children; no, in default of us5, he gives the inheritance to the relatives of the deceased on his mother's side, namely, to brothers and sisters and their children, and so on, in the same order as was laid down before. But he has placed our children outside the right of succession. How, then, can those to whom, even if I were dead, the law does not award Hagnias's estate, imagine that, while I am alive and have a legal right to the property, they themselves can have any title as next-of-kin? Their claim is quite preposterous. [13] Indeed, if the right of succession is not possessed by those whose fathers stood in the same degree of relationship as myself, neither is it possessed by this child; for his father stood in the same degree as they. Is it not, therefore, outrageous, that, whereas the laws have thus explicitly given me the right of inheritance and have placed my opponents outside the requisite degree of kinship, this fellow should dare to play these pettifogging tricks and, at the moment when I was laying claim to the estate, should think fit, not to bring an action against me and pay the necessary deposit—this being the proper moment to have the question settled, if his claims were well-founded—but to annoy me in the name of this child and make me run the most serious risks? [14] His charge is not concerned6 with money which admittedly belongs to the child, nor can he say that I have received any such money—if I had administered any property in the manner in which he has done, I should deserve to be prosecuted; no, in bringing this kind of suit he has designs upon property which you, after permitting anyone who wished to dispute my claim to it, assigned by your verdict to me. Such is the extent of his impudence. [15]

From what I have already said I think that you fully recognize that I am doing no wrong to the child and that I am not in the least degree guilty of these charges; but you will, I think, understand this still more exactly from the rest of my story, and, in particular, when you have heard how the adjudication to me of the inheritance took place. When I brought the action claiming the inheritance, neither did my opponent, who is now bringing an impeachment against me, think fit to make the necessary deposit on behalf of the child, nor did the sons of Stratius, who stand in the same relationship as the child, <either for this>7 or for any other reason think that they had any right to the money; [16] for my opponent would not be troubling me now, if I had allowed him to dissipate the child's property and had not opposed him. These men, then, as I have said, knowing that they were outside the requisite degree of relationship, kept quiet; but those who were acting on behalf of the daughter of Eubulides, who stands in the same degree of relationship as the child and the sons of Stratius, and the legal representatives of Hagnias's mother, were disposed to contest my claim. [17] They found it so difficult to know what to say in their written counter-claim about the degree of relationship, that the woman who was in possession of the estate and those who were seeking to explain her kinship, when they lied, were easily convicted by me of daring to put in writing what was not true; and those who were supporting Hagnias's mother, who stands in the same degree of relationship as I do （being sister of Stratius） but who is excluded by the law which ordains that the males shall have the preference, omitted all reference to this point, and, thinking to gain an advantage over me, described her as the mother of the deceased—the nearest possible relationship by blood, but admittedly conferring no rights as next-of-kin. [18] Having thus described myself as the son of a cousin and having proved that these women were not within the requisite degree of kinship, I thus had the estate adjudicated to me by you; and her former success against those who claimed on the basis of the will was of no avail to the woman who was in possession of the inheritance, nor did it avail the other woman that she was mother of the deceased who left the estate, but those who were trying the case attached so much importance to justice and their oaths that they gave their verdict in favor of me, whose claim was in conformity with the law. [19] Yet since I thus triumphed over these women by proving that they were not within the requisite degree of kinship to Hagnias; and since my present opponent did not venture to go to law with me, claiming half the estate for the child; and since the sons of Stratius, who stand in the same degree of kinship as this child, do not even now think of bringing a suit against me for the estate; and since I am in possession of the estate by your adjudication; and since I can prove that my opponent even at the present time cannot state what relationship the child possesses which confers rights as next-of-kin to Hagnias—what further information do you require, and what more do you wish to hear on the subject? Since I regard you as men of good sense, I think that what I have said is sufficient. [20]

My opponent, thinking nothing of telling any lie whatever and considering that his own rascality does him no harm, dares to utter many calumnies against me, with which I will deal presently. In particular, he now alleges that Stratocles and I made a compact, when we were about to engage in the suit about the inheritance, though of those who had prepared to put in a claim we were the only persons for whom such a mutual agreement was impossible. [21] The daughter of Eubulides and the mother of Hagnias, in an action against me, since they were not claiming on the same grounds, might have made an agreement, that if one of them were successful, she should give a share to the defeated claimant; for the votes accorded to each of them would be placed in different urns. But with us it was quite otherwise; we stood in the same relationship and were making two separate claims, each to have half the estate; and when two claimants found their claims on the same grounds, only one voting urn is employed, so that it would be impossible for one to be unsuccessful and the other successful, but we both ran the same risk, so we could not possibly have made any compact or agreement about the inheritance. [22] But when Stratocles died before the actions claiming half the estate, which we were each bringing, could come on, and so there was no further question of his participating in the estate, nor had this child of his any title owing to the law, but the whole inheritance devolved upon me as next-of-kin, if I could defeat those who are now in possession, then and not till then does my opponent devise and invent these fictions, expecting easily to mislead you by these stories. That no such compact was possible but that all the details of procedure are already provided for, can easily be seen from the law. Please take and read it to the court.“Law” [23]

Does it appear to you that the law gives any liberty for a concerted arrangement? Or are not its provisions in an exactly contrary sense, since, even if a previous arrangement existed, it expressly ordains that each party shall bring an action for his own share, and prescribes a single voting-urn, when the two parties base their claims on the same ground, and makes this the system of adjudication? But my opponent, in spite of these legal provisions and the impossibility of a preconcerted arrangement, has had the impudence to invent this lie against all common sense. [24] But he has not stopped there; he has also invented the most inconsistent story possible, to which, gentlemen, please give your close attention. He declares that I agreed, if I won my case against the present possessors of the estate, to give the child a half-share of the inheritance. Yet if the child had any right to a share in virtue of his relationship, as my opponent declares, what need was there for this agreement between me and them? For the half of the estate was adjudicable to them just as much as to me, if what they say is true. [25] If, on the other hand, they had no claim by right of kinship, why should I have agreed to give them a share, when the laws have given me the right of succession to the whole estate? Was it then impossible for me to make my claim without their consent? But the law gives full liberty to anyone who likes to make a claim, so that they could not possibly make this allegation. Did I then require some evidence from them material to my case, in default of which I was unlikely to secure the adjudication of the estate? No, I was claiming by right of kinship, not of testamentary disposition, so that I had no need of witnesses. [26] And indeed, if it was impossible for me to have made an arrangement with Stratocles in his lifetime; if his father did not bequeath the estate to him, since he never had any of it adjudicated to him; if it was unlikely that I should have agreed to give the child half the inheritance; and since you awarded me the estate by your adjudication and my opponents brought no action at the time and have never yet thought of disputing the estate—how can you believe their allegations to be true? In my opinion you cannot possibly do so. [27]

Seeing that you might reasonably be astonished that they did not at the time bring a suit claiming half the estate, my opponent pretends that I was the cause of their not bringing a suit against the other parties, because I had agreed to give them a share and so they did not make the necessary deposit, while they allege that the laws forbade them to bring a suit against me on the ground that orphans may not bring actions against their guardians. Both these statements are untrue. [28] For my opponent could not point to any law which forbids him to bring a private action against me on behalf of the child; for no law exists which is opposed to such a proceeding, but, just as the law has granted the right to bring a public indictment against me, so it has created the opportunity either for me or the child to bring a private suit. Again, it was not because I agreed to give them a share that they failed to bring an action against the other parties who were in possession of the estate, but because they had absolutely no right to this money. [29] I am convinced that even had I agreed to let the child receive from me by the adjudication of the court a half of the inheritance, they would never have carried out this bargain or attempted to do so; they know perfectly well, that if, being outside the requisite degree of kinship, they had been in possession of anything which did not belong to them, they would have been easily deprived of it by the next-of-kin. For, as I said before, the law does not give any rights at all as next-of-kin to our children after us, but transfers them to the relatives of the deceased on his mother's side. [30] In the first place, then, Glaucon, the brother of Hagnias, would have come forward, against whom they could not urge a claim of closer relationship; on the contrary, they would have been clearly shown to be outside the requisite degree of kinship. Next, if Glaucon had been unwilling to come forward, the mother of Hagnias and Glaucon would have done so, since she possessed a claim of kinship to her son,8 and so, if she had engaged in a suit against those who possessed no title as next-of-kin, she would clearly have been awarded half the estate by you, since justice and the laws have given her a right to it. [31] These, then, are the reasons why he did not bring an action, and it was not because he was prevented from doing so by me or by the laws; and these are the pretexts which he has invented for resorting to these vexatious proceedings against me, and it is upon the basis of them, that having brought a public indictment against me and slandering me, he hopes to obtain money and to deprive me of my guardianship. He thinks that he is managing very cleverly in employing these devices, because, if he is unsuccessful, he will lose nothing of his own, whereas, if he can carry out his wishes, he will henceforward be able to squander the child's property as well with impunity. [32]

You must, therefore, not listen to his arguments nor tolerate his utterance of them, nor allow the custom to grow up of bringing public actions about matters for which the laws have prescribed private suits. For the rights of the case are perfectly simple and easy to understand. After dealing briefly with them and leaving them stored in your memory, I will then turn to the rest of my defence against the charges brought against me. [33] What then are the rights of the case and how do I define them? If my opponent declares that part of Hagnias's estate belongs to the child by right of kinship, let him bring an action before the archon claiming the half, and, if you decide in his favor, let him take it; for thus the laws ordain. But if he does not claim on these grounds but alleges that I agreed to give the child a share—though I declare that there is not a word of truth in his allegation—let him bring an action, and, if he can prove that I made such an agreement, let him secure the execution of it; for that is only right. [34] But if he declares that the child cannot either claim a share from me at law or sue me for breach of contract,9 let him name the law which prohibits this, and, if he can indicate it, let the child in these circumstances, too, receive the share of the estate. If, again, he contends that there is no need to have the half-share adjudicated or to go to law with me at all, but that this share already belongs to the child, let him make an application to the archon for its inclusion in the lease of the orphan's estate and let the lessee exact from me this portion as belonging to the child. [35] Such are the essential rights of the case, and such the provisions of the laws, which do not, thank heaven, oblige me to submit to criminal trials in matters about which they have instituted private suits nor to run any personal risk because I refuse to share with the child this estate, which I received by your verdict when I won my case against those who were in possession. If I were holding any property which admittedly belonged to the child and had maladministered it to his detriment, then he would be justified in bringing this criminal charge against me, but not, by heaven, when it is a question of my own property. [36]

That my adversary has in this matter acted entirely unjustly, and that otherwise he has never spoken a word of truth, but has cleverly devised the whole plot from motives of self-interest, uttering calumnies, misinterpreting the laws and seeking to get the better both of you and of me contrary to justice—of all this, by heaven, you are, I think, well aware and all alike understand; and so I do not know what more I need say. [37]

I notice, gentlemen, that most of his speech is taken up with a discussion of my fortune and of that of the child; he represents the circumstances of the child as embarrassed, while he attributes to me a position of wealth and accuses me of baseness on the ground that I cannot bring myself to provide any of the four daughters of Stratocles with a dowry, although, according to his account, I am in possession of the child's property. [38] I should like to deal with this point; for he hopes by his arguments to arouse in your minds a prejudice against me regarding the fortune which has accrued to me, and a feeling of pity in favor of the children, if they can be represented to you as reduced to poverty. You must not, therefore, be left in any ignorance on these points but must have an exact idea of them, so that you may understand that here, too, my opponent is lying, as he has lied about everything else. For, gentlemen, I would admit myself to be the basest of all men, if it could be shown that the affairs of Stratocles were left in a state of embarrassment at his death and that I, being myself in easy circumstances, gave not a thought to his children. [39] But if he left them a fortune more considerable and better secured than my own and sufficient to endow his daughters fittingly without sensibly diminishing his son's wealth, and if I am so managing the property as greatly to increase it, surely I cannot reasonably be blamed for not giving them my own money as well; I rather deserve to be praised for preserving and increasing their fortune. That these statements are true, I shall easily prove to you. [40] First, therefore, I will give you details about the property, and after that state the principles on which I think fit to administer the children's affairs.10

Stratocles and I had a patrimony sufficient to supply our needs but not large enough to defray the cost of public services. An indication of this is that each of us received a dowry of only 20 minae with his wife, and so small a dowry would not be given to a husband with a large fortune. [41] Stratocles, however, happened to receive an addition of more than two and a half talents to his fortune; for Theophon, his wife's brother, at his death adopted one of his daughters and left her his property, consisting of land at Eleusis worth two talents, 60 sheep, 100 goats, furniture, a fine horse which he rode when he was a cavalry commander, and all the rest of his goods and chattels. [42] Having had complete control of this property for nine whole years, he left a fortune of 5 talents 3000 drachmae, including his patrimony but excluding the fortune left to his daughter by Theophon. His property comprised land at Thria11 worth two and a half talents, a house at Melite12 which cost 3000 drachmae, and another at Eleusis which cost 500 drachmae. These made up his real property, the land being let at 12 minae and the houses at 3, a total of 15 minae; but he had also about 4000 drachmae lent out at interest, the yearly income of which, at a monthly rate of 9 obols, amounts to 720 drachmae. [43] He thus had a total income of rather more than 20 minae. Besides this he left furniture, sheep, barley, wine, and fruits, the sale of which brought in 4900 drachmae; also 900 drachmae were found in the house. In addition his—that is the child's—mother included in the inventory made in the presence of witnesses sums lent without interest, which were recovered, amounting to nearly 1000 drachmae. I make no mention now of the other property which was left, but which my opponents refuse to disclose; I only include what was declared and admitted by them. Please call the witnesses in support of the above statements.“Witnesses” [44]

Stratocles' fortune amounts to even more than this; but I will deal later with my opponents embezzlements. Now to what does my fortune amount? I have a property at Oenoe worth 5000 drachmae and another at Prospalta worth 3000 drachmae and a house in Athens worth 2000 drachmae; to this must be added the estate left by Hagnias, worth about two talents; for I am sure that it would not fetch more than this. This gives a total of only three talents 4000 drachmae—110 minae less than the fortune of the child. [45] I include in the reckoning the fortune of my son, who was adopted into another family, while I excluded from the child's fortune the property of Theophon, two and a half talents, which he left to his sister when he adopted her; for their family property could be easily reckoned at eight talents, but the money which came from Theophon has been reckoned separately. On my side, the estate left by Hagnias is not yet secured to me; for trials for perjury are still pending, [46] and the law ordains that, if there is any conviction for perjury, the action claiming an estate must be heard over again. On the other hand, the child's fortune bequeathed to him by Stratocles is admitted and not contested. To prove that this is the amount of my property, including that of my son who has been adopted into another family, and that suits for perjury in connection with Hagnias's estate are still pending, take and read the depositions.“Depositions” [47]

Is the difference, then, trifling between our respective fortunes? Or rather, is it not so great that mine is nothing in comparison with that of the children of Stratocles? No credence must therefore be attached to the statements of my opponent, who, though so large a fortune has been left to the children, has dared to utter such lies with the object of discrediting me. According to his reckoning I have received three inheritances and am in enjoyment of a large fortune, but I hide my wealth in order that you may derive as little advantage from it as possible.13 Those who have no just claims to urge on the facts are obliged to bring forward such arguments as will give them an advantage over their adversaries by calumniating them. [48] But you all are my witnesses that my wife's brothers, Chaereleos and Macartatus, were not among those who supported public burdens but among those who possessed only slender fortunes. You know that Macartatus sold his land and bought a trireme which he manned and sailed away in it to Crete. The affair was no secret but even gave rise to a discussion in the Assembly,14 since it was feared that he might bring about a state of war instead of peace between us and the Lacedaemonians. [49] Chaereleos left the estate at Prospalta, which would not fetch more than 30 minae. The brother who left this estate happened to die before Macartatus, who in his turn perished with all the property which he took with him when he sailed away; for he lost the trireme and everything else in the war as well as his own life. The estate at Prospalta was left and passed to their sister, who is my wife, and I was persuaded by her to allow one of our two sons to be adopted into the family of Macartatus.15 My object was not to avoid the performance of public services which the addition of this estate would involve; [50] for my having allowed my son to be adopted made no difference, for indeed I performed public services16 no less than before, but was among those who paid war contributions and carried out all the duties imposed by the state. My opponent, however, in representing me as a wealthy but unprofitable citizen is using these terms to calumniate me.

As the strongest argument of all, I will sum the matter up in a single proposal, which, I am sure, will appear to you to be just. I am willing to bring my whole estate into hotchpotch with that of the child, and let us each take half of the aggregate amount, whether it be large or small, so that neither party may have more than is fitting; but my opponent will never consent to this.17

1 The text of the law is given in Dem. 43.51 （Πρὸς Μακάπτατον）.

2 See Introduction.

3 The will having been set aside, the next-of-kin would have to prove his title to the intestate estate.

4 This is the only law which is quoted in the manuscripts of Isaeus; it has probably been invented on the basis of the following section.

5 i.e., on the failure of the children of cousins on the male side.

6 Grammatically the whole of this sentence depends on οὔκουν δεινόν （Isaeus 13.4）.

7 There is a lacuna in the text at this point.

8 Not as his mother but as her son's cousin.

9 An action claiming property was described as πρός τινα, an action for breach of contract as κατά τινος.

10 This part of the speech is lost.

11 North-west of Eleusis.

12 A quarter of Athens west of the Areopagus.

13 i.e. in order to avoid the performance of public services.

14 See Introduction.

15 This child is the Macartatus attacked in the pseudo-Demosthenic speech, Dem. 43.

16 Theopompus has already stated that his fortune did not render him liable to perform any λειτουργία （e.g., the τριηραχία or χωρηγία）: he is, therefore, here using the term in the wider sense of the duties of a citizen （e.g., the payment of the war-tax and service in the army）.

17 The rest of the speech is lacking.