On the Estate of Dicaeogenes

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.