On The Estate Of Pyrrhus

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,

how is it that you allowed the inheritance to be adjudicated to our brother[*](The permission of the court was necessary when the heir was a son adopted by will and not by the deceased in his lifetime.) 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.

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

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

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.

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?

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?

For no fine can be inflicted for denunciations made to the archon, even if the informants fail to receive a single vote,[*](The prosecutor in other public actions was liable to a fine of 1000 drachmas if he failed to obtain one-fifth of the votes.) and there are no deposits or court fees[*](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.) 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.

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?

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.[*](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).) 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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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,[*](Xenocles and Phile had been married eight years (Isaeus 3.31).) he would have claimed her patrimony on behalf of the legitimate daughter from Endius during his lifetime,

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

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 Metageitnion[*](August to September.) last year, in which month they promptly claimed the inheritance only two days after his death.

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.

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.[*](i.e., would succeed naturally without consent of the courts, which had to be obtained by collateral and testamentary heirs.) 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.