On The Estate of Ciron

Argument

Ciron having died without legitimate offspring, his nephew, the son of his brother, claimed his estate and took over the property from the widow. After this the speaker of the present oration indicts the nephew, alleging that he himself is a son of Ciron's daughter and that the wife of the deceased designedly handed over the estate to the nephew with the intention of giving him a part and appropriating the remainder. Such is the subject; the discussion turns on a question of fact, the point at issue being whether the claimant is a legitimate grandson of Ciron or not. A further question is also involved, namely, one of qualification: for the nephew argued that, even if we grant that his opponent's mother is a legitimate daughter of Ciron, since she is dead and it is her son who now claims, the nephew, the son of a brother, ought to have preference over a daughter's issue under the law which ordains that the descendants of males have precedence over those of females. The speaker with great skill completely ignores this law and bases his case upon the different qualifications of the parents, showing that, in as much as a daughter is nearer in kin to the deceased than a brother, so her son has a stronger claim than a brother's son. It is a strong case in equity but a weak case in law. The working out of the various topics is carried out with Isaeus's usual skill.

It is impossible, gentlemen, not to feel indignation against men who not only have the impudence to claim the property of others but also hope by their arguments to abolish the rights which the laws confer; and this is what our opponents are now trying to do. For, though our grandfather Ciron did not die childless but has left us behind him, the sons of his legitimate daughter, yet our opponents claim the estate as next-of-kin and insult us by alleging that we are not the issue of his daughter, and indeed that he never had a daughter at all.

The reason of their acting thus is their avarice, and the high value of the estate which he has left behind him and which they have taken by force and still hold; and they have the impudence both to assert that he has left nothing and at the same time to lay claim to the estate.

Now you must not imagine that my real opponent in this case is the man who has brought the suit claiming the estate; no, it is Diocles of Phlya, surnamed Orestes.[*](An Orestes, son of Timocrates, is said to have been a notorious footpad; hence the name is applied to any violent character. Cf. Aristoph. Ach. 1166.) He it is who has suborned our opponent to cause us trouble by trying to deprive us of the fortune which our grandfather left us at his death and exposing us to these dangers, in order that he may not have to give back any of it, if you listen to him and are misled by his words.

Such being their machinations, you must be informed of all the facts, in order that, being well aware of all that has happened, you may give your verdict with perfect knowledge of them. If, therefore, you have ever listened with scrupulous attention to any other case, I beg you to give like attention to this case, as indeed justice demands. Though lawsuits abound in our city, yet it will be shown that no parties have ever claimed the property of others with greater impudence and effrontery than my opponents.

It is a difficult task therefore, gentlemen, for one who is wholly without experience of litigation, when such important interests are at stake, to contend against fabricated stories and witnesses whose evidence is false; yet I have great hopes that I shall obtain my rights from you, and that I shall myself speak sufficiently well at least to state what those rights are, unless some such chance should befall me as it is now my lot to anticipate.[*](The allusion is obscure.) I beg you, therefore, gentlemen, to listen to me with goodwill, and, if I seem to have been wronged, to aid me to obtain my rights.

First, then, I shall prove to you that my mother was Ciron's legitimate daughter; for events which have happened long ago I shall rely on report and statements which have been heard by witnesses, while for events within living memory I shall employ witnesses who know the facts, and proofs which are better than any evidence. When I have established this, I shall then show that we have a better claim to Ciron's estate than our opponents. Starting, therefore, from the point at which they began their narrative of the events, I, too, shall try and put my version before you.

My grandfather Ciron, gentlemen, married my grandmother, his first cousin, herself the daughter of his own mother's sister. She did not live long with him; she bore my mother, and died after four years. My grandfather, being left with an only daughter, married the sister of DiocIes as his second wife, who bore him two sons. He brought up his daughter in the house with his wife and her children,

and while the latter were still alive, he gave her in marriage, when she reached the proper age, to Nausimenes of Cholargus, giving her a dowry of twenty-five minae including raiment and jewelry. Three or four years later Nausimenes fell ill and died without leaving any issue by our mother. My grandfather received her back again—without, however, recovering the dowry which he had given, owing to the embarrassed condition of Nausimenes' affairs—and gave her in a second marriage to my father with a dowry of one thousand drachmae.

How is one to prove clearly that all these events occurred in face of the imputations which our opponents are now uttering? I sought and discovered a way. Whether my mother was or was not the daughter of Ciron, whether she lived in his house or not, whether he did or did not on two occasions give a feast in honor of her marriage, and what dowry each of her husbands received with her—all these things must necessarily be known to the male and female slaves who belonged to Ciron.

Wishing, therefore, in addition to the witnesses which I already had, to obtain proof of these facts by evidence given under torture[*](Slaves could give evidence only under torture.)—in order that the veracity of my witnesses might be tested before, and not after, they gave their evidence, and so your belief in them might be confirmed[*](If the slaves confirmed the evidence of his witnesses, the latter would come forward to give evidence in court with a presumption already established that the evidence which they were going to give was true.)—I demanded that our opponents should surrender the male and female slaves to be put to the question on these points and any others of which they had cognizance.

My adversary, however, who will presently demand that you shall believe his witnesses, refused the examination under torture. Yet, if he shall be shown to have refused my request, what remains to be thought of his witnesses except that they are giving false evidence, since he has refused so decisive a method of testing them? In my opinion no other conclusion is possible. But to prove that what am saying is true, please first take and read this deposition.

Deposition

You Athenians hold the opinion that both in public and in private matters examination under torture is the most searching test; and so, when you have slaves and free men before you and it is necessary that some contested point should be cleared up, you do not employ the evidence of free men but seek to establish the truth about the facts by putting the slaves to torture. This is a perfectly reasonable course; for you are well aware that before now witnesses have appeared not to be giving true evidence, whereas no one who has been examined under torture has ever been convicted of giving false evidence as the result of being tortured.

And will my opponent, the most impudent of men, demand that you shall believe his fictitious stories and lying witnesses, while he thus declines so sure a method of proof? Our conduct has been quite different. Seeing that we first demanded that recourse should be had to examination under torture on the points about which evidence was to be given, and my opponent refuses to allow this, under these conditions we shall consider that you ought to believe our witnesses. Take, therefore, these depositions and read them to the court.

Depositions

Who are likely to be best acquainted with the events of the distant past? Obviously those who were intimate with my grandfather; they, then, have given evidence of what was told them. Who must necessarily know the facts about the giving of my mother in marriage? Those who betrothed her and those who were present when they betrothed her; the relatives, then, of Nausimenes and of my father have given their evidence. Who know best that my mother was brought up in Ciron's house and was his legitimate daughter? The present claimants clearly give evidence of the truth of these facts by their action in declining to put the slaves to torture. Thus, I think, you have much better reason for disbelieving their witnesses than mine.

Now there are other proofs which we can bring forward to show that we are the children of Ciron's daughter. For, as was natural, seeing that we were the sons of his own daughter, Ciron never offered a sacrifice without our presence; whether he was performing a great or small sacrifice, we were always there and took part in the ceremony. And not only were we invited to such rites but he also always took us into the country for the Dionysia,

and we always went with him to public spectacles and sat at his side, and we went to his house to keep all the festivals; and when he sacrificed to Zeus Ctesius[*](Zeus as the guardian of family possessions.)—a festival to which he attached a special importance, to which he admitted neither slaves nor free men outside his own family, at which he personally performed all the rites—we participated in this celebration and laid our hands with his upon the victims and placed our offerings side by side with his, and took part in all the other rites, and he prayed for our health and wealth, as he naturally would, being our grandfather.

Yet if he had not regarded us as his daughter's children and seen in us his only surviving lineal descendants, he would have done none of these things but would have placed at his side my opponent, who now claims to be his nephew. And that I am telling the truth on all these points is well known to my grandfather's attendants, whom my opponent refused to give up to be questioned; the same facts are perfectly well known to some of his intimate friends also, whose evidence I will produce. Please take and read the depositions.

Depositions

But it is not only from these proofs that our mother is clearly shown to be the legitimate daughter of Ciron; but there is also the evidence of our father's conduct and the attitude adopted by the wives of his fellow-demesmen towards her. When our father took her in marriage, he gave a wedding-feast and invited three of his friends as well as his relatives, and he gave a marriage-banquet to the members of his ward according to their statutes.

Also the wives of the demesmen afterwards chose our mother, together with the wife of Diocles of Pithus, to preside at the Thesmophoria[*](Cf. Isaeus 3.80; Isaeus 6.49.) and to carry out the ceremonies jointly with her. Again, our father at our birth introduced us to the members of his ward, having declared on oath, in accordance with the established laws, that he was introducing the children of an Athenian mother duly married; and none of the wardsmen made any objection or disputed the truth of his statements, though they were present in large numbers and always look carefully into such matters.