On The Estate of Cleonymus

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?

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.

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.

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.

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[*](A harbor on the south-east coast of Attica between Thoricus and Sunium.) with Simon and met Pherenicus, he could not bring himself to speak to him.

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

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?

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,

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?

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?

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.

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.

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—