On the Estate of Dicaeogenes

Argument

On the death of Dicaeogenes (II.), who had no children but left four sisters behind him, Proxenus came forward and produced a will by which the deceased Dicaeogenes (II.) adopted his (Proxenus's) son Dicaeogenes (III.) and left him a third of his estate. After they had distributed the whole property on this basis, Dicaeogenes (III.), the son of Proxenus, eventually came and alleged that he had been adopted as heir to the whole property; he won his case and took possession, in addition to his own share, of the two-thirds which had been held by the sisters of the deceased. At a still later date the sons of the sisters brought a successful action against Dicaeogenes (III.), and he agreed to hand back to them the two-thirds clear and free of all charges, Leochares acting as surety for the performance of this promise. In the present suit, as Dicaeogenes (III.) and Leochares repudiate their agreement, the sons of the sisters claim the two-thirds from Dicaeogenes (III.), as having agreed to restore the property, and from Leochares as surety. The discussion turns on a question of fact; for the adversaries deny their engagement.

We thought, gentlemen, that in the matter of our dispute with Dicaeogenes (III.) the agreement arrived at in court would be conclusive; for when Dicaeogenes (III.) gave up the two-thirds of the estate and furnished sureties that he would hand over that portion to us without dispute, we reciprocally abandoned our claims. But, gentlemen, since Dicaeogenes (III.) does not perform his agreement, we are bringing an action against Leochares, his surety, in accordance with our affidavit.[*](On the meaning of ἀντωμοσία see Antiph. 5, On the Murder of Herodes fn. 5.)

Please read the affidavit.

Affidavit

That the facts which we stated in the affidavit are true, Cephisodotus here is well aware and we will now produce witnesses before you to prove, first, that Dicaeogenes (III.) gave up to us the two-thirds of the estate, and, secondly, that Leochares became his surety. Please read the deposition.

Deposition

You have heard what the witnesses say, and I do not believe that even Leochares himself would declare that their evidence has not been true. He will, however, perhaps have recourse to the argument that Dicaeogenes (III.) has performed all that he agreed to do and that he himself has fulfilled his duties as surety. If he says this, he will be lying and will easily be convicted of doing so; for the clerk shall read you the inventory of all the property which formed the estate left by Dicaeogenes (II.) the son of Menexenus, and of the property received by Dicaeogenes (III.).

Inventory

If they affirm that Dicaeogenes (II.), our uncle, did not possess this property when he was alive and did not bequeath it to us at his death, let them prove it; if they declare that he left it and that we have recovered it, let them produce a witness to support their statement. We are producing witnesses to prove that Dicaeogenes (III.) agreed to hand over to us the two-thirds of the property which the son of Menexenus left, and that Leochares acted as surety for his doing so; for this is the basis of our present action and the subject of our affidavit. Please read me the affidavit.

Affidavit

If then, gentlemen, these were the only points with which Leochares or Dicaeogenes (III.) were going to deal in their defence, what I have already said would suffice; but since they are prepared to treat of the question of the inheritance from the beginning, I should like you to hear the facts from my side also, that, knowing the truth instead of being misled, you may give an unbiased verdict.

Our grandfather, Menexenus (I.) had an only son, Dicaeogenes (II.), and four daughters, one of whom was married to my father, Polyaratus, another to Democles of Phrearrhi, the third to Cephisophon of Paeania, while the fourth was the wife of Theopompus, the father of Cephisodotus.

Dicaeogenes, having sailed out as commander of the Paralus,[*](The Paralus, which in time of peace was one of the two sacred vessels used for the conveyance of religious missions, ambassadors, etc., was used in war as the flagship of the commander of a squadron.) was killed in action at Cnidus.[*](The engagement at Cnidus probably refers to the battle near Syme in 411 B.C. (see Thuc. 8.42).) He died without issue, and Proxenus, the father of Dicaeogenes (III.) here, produced a will, in reliance on which our fathers[*](Menexenus III., the speaker, is pleading on behalf of himself and his cousins Menexenus II. and Cephisodotus, whose fathers had married two of the sisters of Dicaeogenes II.) distributed his estate. Under the will Dicaeogenes (III.) here was to be recognized as the adopted son of Dicaeogenes (II.), the son of Menexenus (I.) and our uncle, and heir to a third of his estate of the remainder an equal share was adjudicated to each of the daughters of Menexenus (I.). Of these facts I will produce before you as witnesses those who were present on that occasion.

Witnesses

When they had thus divided up the inheritance, having sworn not to transgress the terms agreed upon, each remained in possession of the share which he had received for twelve years. During all this period, though the courts sat, no one of them thought of claiming that there was any injustice in what had been done, until, when the city suffered misfortune and strife arose,[*](The reference is to the internal troubles at Athens which followed the defeat at Aegospotami in 405 B.C.) Dicaeogenes (III.) here, acting at the instigation of Melas the Egyptian, whose advice he followed in everything, claimed from us the whole estate, alleging that he had been adopted as sole heir by our uncle.

We thought him mad in bringing the action; for we could never imagine that the same man could at one time state that he had been adopted as heir to one-third and at another time that he had been adopted as sole heir, and be believed by you to be speaking the truth. However, on coming into court, though we had by far the better case, we were cheated of our rights, not by the judges but by Melas the Egyptian and his friends, who thought that the misfortunes of the city gave them liberty to possess themselves of other people's property and to bear false witness in support of one another, and by their acting in this manner the judges were misled.

Thus we, the victims of perjury, lost our property; for our father died not long after the case was tried and before he could prosecute those of the witnesses whom he had indicted. Dicaeogenes (III.), on obtaining against us the verdict which he desired, that very same day forcibly deprived of her share the daughter of Cephisophon of Paeania, the niece of Dicaeogenes (II.) who left the money; robbed the former wife of Democles of what Dicaeogenes (II.) had left her; and robbed the mother of Cephisodotus and Cephisodotus himself of all they possessed.

For of these persons he was at the same time the guardian and legal representative and the legal adversary; yet they did not meet with the slightest degree of pity from him on account of their relationship, but, orphans and unprotected and penniless, they even lacked all the necessities of life. This is how Dicaeogenes here, their nearest kinsman, carried out his duties as their guardian; what their father Theopompus left them he handed over to their enemies, and what their maternal uncle and their grandfather gave them he himself appropriated before any judgement had been given.

What was worst of all, while they were minors, he bought the house which they had inherited from their father and demolished it and used the site to make a garden adjoining his town-house. Also, though he was receiving an income of seventy minae from the property of our uncle Dicaeogenes (II.), he sent the latter's nephew Cephisodotus with his own brother Harmodius to Corinth[*](i.e., during the Corinthian war of 394-386 B.C.) as a body servant; such was his insolence and rascality. Nay, he added insult to injury by reviling and upbraiding him for wearing heavy shoes and a coarse cloak, as though it was Cephisodotus who was wronging him by wearing such shoes, and not he who was wronging Cephisodotus by having reduced him to poverty by robbing him of his property.

So much must suffice on these topics; I will now return to the point from which I digressed.[*](The end of Isaeus 5.9.) Menexenus (II.), the son of Cephisophon and cousin to Cephisodotus here, and to me, who had a right to the same share of the estate as I had, proceeded to prosecute those who had borne false witness against us and him, and obtained a conviction against Lycon, the first man whom he brought into court. His evidence had been that Dicaeogenes (III.) had been adopted as sole heir by our uncle;

he was convicted of perjury for giving evidence to this effect. When Dicaeogenes (III.), gentlemen, found that he could no longer deceive you, he advised Menexenus (II.), who was acting for us as well as for himself (I am ashamed to be obliged by his rascality to mention it), to do—what do you think?—himself to take the share of the estate which was due to him and to throw over us, on whose behalf he was acting, and let off those of the witnesses who had not yet been convicted! And we, thus treated by our friends and our enemies, kept quiet. On these points I will now produce witnesses before you.

Witnesses

Menexenus (II.) was paid out as he deserved for his evil conduct, being deceived by Dicaeogenes (III.); he let off the accused witnesses and threw us over, but he received no reward for his services. Having been thus wronged by Dicaeogenes (III.), he made common cause with us again; and we, judging that Dicaeogenes (III.) had no longer any right to any part of the property forming the estate, since the witnesses had been convicted, claimed from him the whole estate on the ground of affinity. That our decision to act thus has been a right one and that Dicaeogenes (III.) has no longer any right to a share in the estate, I shall easily prove to you.

Two wills were produced, one made long ago, the other much more recent. Under the old will, which Proxenus, the father of Dicaeogenes (III.) here, produced, the latter was to be heir by adoption to one-third of our uncle's estate; according to the will which Dicaeogenes (III.) himself produced, he was to be heir to the whole estate. Of these two wills Dicaeogenes (III.) persuaded the judges that the one, namely that produced by Proxenus, was not genuine; those who bore witness that the other, namely that which Dicaeogenes (III.) produced, was our uncle's genuine will, were convicted of perjury.

Both wills being thus invalidated and it being admitted that no other will existed, no one had any claim to the estate under testamentary disposition, but it could be claimed on grounds of affinity by the sisters of the deceased Dicaeogenes (II.), among whom were our mothers.[*](The mothers of Cephisodotus, Menexenus II., and Menexenus III.) We therefore resolved to claim the estate on grounds of affinity, and we each claimed our share. When we were on the point of making our affidavit,[*](For ἀντωμοσία see note on Isaeus 3.6.) Leochares here put in a protestation that the estate was not adjudicable to us.[*](Leochares in his protestation put in evidence that Dicaeogenes III. had been adopted under his uncle's will and that therefore an adjudication by the court was unnecessary. The contention of his opponents was that the will was a forgery; they therefore applied to the court to have the intestate estate adjudicated to them as next-of-kin.)

We then indicted Leochares, with the result that the suit claiming the estate was struck off the list, and the action for perjury came on. In court, after we had brought forward all the arguments which we are presenting on the present occasion, and Leochares had made a lengthy defence, the judges decided that Leochares had committed perjury. When this result became evident after the votes had been taken out of the urns, I do not think I need dwell upon the appeals which Leochares made to the judges and to us or the penalties which we were entitled to exact on that occasion; but I will tell you the compromise to which we came.

On our agreeing with the archon not to count the votes but to mix them together, Dicaeogenes (III.) gave up two-thirds of the estate in favor of the sisters of Dicaeogenes (II.) and agreed to hand over these shares without further discussion, and Leochares here undertook to be surety that he would carry out his promise. He was not the only surety, for Mnesiptolemus of Plotheia gave a similar undertaking. Of these facts I will now produce witnesses before you.

Witnesses

Having been thus treated by Leochares, though it was possible for us to have him deprived of civil rights since we had obtained a verdict for perjury against him, we did not wish to do so, but were satisfied to recover what belonged to us and be quit of him. Having behaved thus towards Leochares and Dicaeogenes (III.) we were deceived by them, gentlemen; for Dicaeogenes (III) did not hand over the two-thirds of the estate, though he had agreed in court to do so, and Leochares refuses to admit that he undertook to be surety on that occasion.