On The Estate Of Pyrrhus

Argument

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.

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,[*](A deme belonging to the tribe of Hippothontis. A scholiast on Aristoph. Kn. 899, states that it was an island off Attica.) 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.

When our mother, the sister of Pyrrhus, claimed[*](She claimed as sister of Pyrrhus, not as mother of Endius, in which capacity she had no title.) the estate, the legal representative of the woman who was suing for the estate had the audacity to put in a protestation[*](For the meaning of διαμαρτυρία (protestation) see Isaeus 2, Introduction.) 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;

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.

That in the former trial Nicodemus's evidence was recognized as being false, the condemnation of the witness[*](i.e., Xenocles.) 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.

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,[*](The term ἀντωμοσίαwas given to the “counter-oaths” taken by the contending parties at the preliminary hearing in support of their respective declarations.) the evidence of Nicodemus, and the protestation which was overruled.

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.

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?[*](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.) 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?

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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

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.[*](An innuendo that Phile was perhaps a supposititious child.)

Depositions

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;

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?

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 deposition[*](When a witness was ill or abroad, his evidence duly attested, might be submitted in writing.) 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.

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.