On the Estate of Dicaeogenes
Isaeus
Isaeus. Forster, Edward Seymour, translator. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: William Heinemann Ltd., 1927 (1962 printing).
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.