On the Estate of Philoctemon

When they replied that our opponents had conveyed it away to the next house, and my clients immediately claimed the right to search the house in the proper legal manner, and requested that the slaves who had removed it should be produced, our opponents refused to accede to any of their just demands. And to prove that I am speaking the truth, take and read these documents.

Depositions

Having removed all this furniture from the house, and sold so much property and kept the proceeds, and having further made away with the revenue which accrued during that period, they yet expect to obtain possession of what remains; and their impudence is such that, not daring to bring a direct action, they lodged a protestation—as though it were a question of legitimate children—which is at once false and in contradiction to their own previous action.

For, whereas they had inscribed the children before the archon, one as the son of Philoctemon and the other as the son of Ergamenes, they have now stated in their protestation that they are the sons of Euctemon. Yet if they were Euctemon's legitimate sons and had afterwards been adopted,[*](i.e., by Philoctemon and Ergamenes.) as our opponent states, even so they cannot be described as the sons of Euctemon: for the law does not allow the return of an adopted son to his original family, unless he leaves a legitimate son in the family which he quits. So that in the light of their own acts their evidence is necessarily untrue.

If our opponents had then so contrived that the houses were leased, my clients would no longer have been able to claim them; but, as it is, since the judges decided against them as having no right, they have not dared to put in a claim, but, to put the finishing touch to their impudence, they have submitted additional evidence to the effect that these young men, whom you excluded by your verdict, are heirs.

Further, mark the effrontery and impudence of the witness himself, who has claimed for himself Euctemon's daughter[*](Namely, the widow of Chaeres, cf. Isaeus 6.51.) as being an heiress and a fifth part[*](The words πέμπτου μέρους are certainly corrupt: there is no reason in law why a fifth part should have been claimed. No satisfactory emendation has been proposed.) of Euctemon's estate as being adjudicable, while he has given evidence that Euctemon has a legitimate son. In doing so does he not clearly convict himself of having given false evidence? For obviously, if Euctemon had a legitimate son, his daughter could not be heiress or the estate adjudicable. To prove, then, that he made these claims, the clerk shall read you the depositions.

Depositions

Thus the contrary has been done of that which the law has prescribed; for according to the law no male or female bastard has any right, based on kinship, to participate in the cults or property of a family since the archonship of Eucleides[*](403-402 B.C.); yet Androcles and Antidorus consider themselves entitled to rob the legitimate daughters of Euctemon and their issue, and to possess the property both of Euctemon and of Philoctemon.