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.