On the Estate of Dicaeogenes

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.

Yet if he had not given surety in the presence of the judges, five hundred in number, and of those who were present in court, I don't know what he could have done.[*](i.e., his becoming surety for the restoration of the property was the only way in which he could hope to escape punishment for his perjury.) To prove, therefore, that they are obviously lying, we are producing as witnesses those who were present when Dicaeogenes (III.) gave up two-thirds of the estate and promised to hand it over without further dispute to Dicaeogenes' (II.) sisters, and Leochares undertook to be surety that he would actually perform what he promised. And we beseech you, gentlemen, if any of you were present on that occasion, to recollect whether we are speaking the truth and to aid us.

For, gentlemen, if Dicaeogenes (III.) is speaking the truth, what advantage was it to us to have won our case, and what disadvantage was it to my opponent to be defeated? For if he simply renounced, as he alleges, his claim to the two-thirds of the estate but did not agree to hand it over without further dispute, what did he lose by renouncing property, the value of which he was still holding? For even before he lost his case, the property which we are claiming was not in his possession but in the hands of those who bought it from him or held it on mortgage, whom he ought to have paid off and then given us our share.

That is why we insisted on his providing sureties, because we had no confidence that he would carry out his agreement. Indeed except two small buildings outside the walls and sixty plethra[*](About 13 acres.) of land in the Plain[*](The upper valley of the river Cephissus.) we have recovered nothing: the rest is in the possession of those to whom he sold or mortgaged it. We are making no attempt to eject them, because we are afraid of losing suits against them; for when we tried to eject Micion from the bath-house at the suggestion of Dicaeogenes (III.), who said that he would not confirm his title,[*](Under Athenian law the vendor undertook to guarantee the title of any property which he sold and assumed an obligation if any attempt was made to evict the purchaser.) we were fined forty minae, all through Dicaeogenes, gentlemen.

For thinking that he would not confirm any title to any of the property to which he renounced his claim in our favor in the court, we vigorously attacked Micion before the judges, being willing to run any risk of Dicaeogenes (III.) confirming Micion's title to the bath-house, and never imagining that he would do the very opposite of what he had agreed to do, our sole reason for so acting being that the sureties had been given.