On The Estate of Cleonymus

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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!

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!

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.

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.

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.

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?