On the Estate of Nicostratus

Argument

Nicostratus having died in a foreign land, Hagnon and Hagnotheus, as being his first cousins (their father having been brother to Nicostratus's father), contend for the succession to his estate against Chariades, who claims to be heir by bequest, that is to say, by will. Isaeus, the orator, being a kinsman of Hagnon and his brother, speaks as their advocate.[*](This statement is improbable; see Introduction.) The question at issue is one of fact.

Hagnon here and Hagnotheus, gentlemen, are intimate friends of mine, as was their father before them. It seems, therefore, only natural to me to support their case to the best of my ability.

For the events which happened in a foreign land it is not possible to find witnesses or easy to convict our adversaries of any lies which they may tell, because neither of my clients has ever been to the country in question; but the events which have occurred here in Athens seem to me to provide you with sufficient proof that all those who lay claim to Nicostratus's estate on the ground of bequest are desirous of deceiving you.

In the first place, gentlemen, it is proper that you should consider the different names attributed to the deceased and determine which of the two parties has laid his claim in the more straightforward and natural manner. Hagnon here and Hagnotheus described Nicostratus in their claim as the son of Thrasymachus and declare that they are his first cousins and prove these statements by witnesses.

Chariades and his supporters, on the other hand, assert that Nicostratus was the son of Smicrus and yet claim the estate of the son of Thrasymachus. My clients make no pretence that they know anything of the name of Smicrus or that it has anything to do with them; they declare that Nicostratus was the son of Thrasymachus, and it is likewise his estate which they claim.

If the parties were in agreement as to the name of Nicostratus's father and were disputing only about the estate, you would only have to consider whether Nicostratus, on whose identity both were agreed, did or did not leave a will. But as it is, how is it possible to assign two fathers to the man? Yet this is what Chariades has done; he himself claimed the estate of Nicostratus the son of Smicrus, and paid the deposit for a suit against my clients when they claimed the estate of the son of Thrasymachus, just as though it were a question of one and the same person.

It is all an insolent plot and conspiracy. They think that my clients, if the matter is simple and nothing is introduced to confuse the issue, will have no difficulty in proving that Nicostratus made no will; whereas, if they allege that the father is not the same and likewise claim the estate, they know full well that my clients will have to employ a longer argument to prove that Nicostratus was the son of Thrasymachus than to convince you that he left no will.

Further, if they admitted that Nicostratus was the son of Thrasymachus, they would be unable to prove that my clients are not his cousins; but, by inventing another father for the deceased, they have introduced a discussion about his parentage as well as about the will.

But it is not only from these proceedings but from all that has happened from the beginning that you can be sure that those who are thus plotting against my clients are strangers to the family. For who did not cut the hair[*](As a sign of mourning.) when the two talents arrived from Ace[*](See Introduction.)? Who did not wear black, hoping by mourning to inherit the estate? What was the number of would-be kinsmen and adopted sons who claimed Nicostratus's property?