Aegineticus

Isocrates

Isocrates. Isocrates with an English Translation in three volumes, by Larue Van Hook, Ph.D., LL.D. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1945-1968.

In truth, in my own case, I was reduced to such a condition that all my friends who visited me expressed fear that I too would perish with the dying man and they advised me to take care, saying that the majority of those who had nursed this disease themselves fell victims to it also. My reply to them was this—that I would much prefer to die than to see him perish before his fated day for lack of a friend to nurse him.

And although my behavior was as I have described, this woman has had the hardihood to contest with me his fortune, she who never even saw fit to visit him during his long illness, though she had daily information about his condition, and though the journey was easy for her. To think that they will now attempt to “brother” him,[*](A)DELFI/ZEIN, a rare word, “to call brother.”) as if the effect of calling the dead man by a mane of closer kinship would not be to make her shortcomings seem worse and more shocking!

Why, when he was at the point of death, and when she saw all our fellow-citizens who were in Troezen sailing to Aegina to take part in his funeral, she did not even at that moment come, but was so cruel and heartless in conduct that while she did not see fit to come to his funeral, yet, less than ten days thereafter she arrived to claim the property he had left, as if she were related to his money and not to him!

And if she will admit that her hatred for him was so bitter that this conduct was reasonable, then Thrasylochus would be considered not to have been ill-advised in preferring to leave his property to his friends rather than to this woman; but if there existed no variance between them and yet she was so neglectful of him and so unkind toward him, surely with greater justice would she be deprived of her own possessions than become heir to his.

Bear in mind that, so far as she was concerned, he had no care during his illness, nor when he died was he thought worthy of the customary funeral rites, whereas it was through me that he obtained both. Surely you will justly cast your votes in favor, not of those who claim blood-relationship yet in their conduct have acted like enemies, but with much greater propriety you will side with those who, though having no title of relationship, yet showed themselves, when the deceased was in misfortune, more nearly akin than the nearest relatives.

My opponents say that they do not doubt that Thrasylochus left the will, but they assert that it is not honorable and proper. And yet, citizens of Aegina, how could anyone have given better or greater evidence of interest in the disposal of his own property? He did not leave his home without heirs and he has shown due gratitude to his friends and, further, he made his mother and his sister possessors, not only of their own property, but of mine also by giving the latter to me as wife and by making me, by adoption, the son of the former.

Would he have acted more wisely if he had taken the alternative course—if he had failed to appoint a protector for his mother, and if he had made no mention of me, but had abandoned his sister to chance and permitted the name of his family to perish?