---
title: "On the Estate of Nicostratus · Περὶ τοῦ Νικοστράτου κλήρου (ἐπίλογος)"
author: "Isaeus"
translator: "Edward Seymour Forster"
languages: [grc, en]
shelf: "Classical Greek"
url: https://scriptura.si/works/isaeus-on-the-estate-of-nicostratus/
cite: "Isaeus, tr. Edward Seymour Forster, On the Estate of Nicostratus · Περὶ τοῦ Νικοστράτου κλήρου (ἐπίλογος). Scriptura (scriptura.si), https://scriptura.si/works/isaeus-on-the-estate-of-nicostratus/"
---

# On the Estate of Nicostratus · Περὶ τοῦ Νικοστράτου κλήρου (ἐπίλογος)

*Isaeus, tr. Edward Seymour Forster*

Rival claimants to the estate of a soldier who died abroad.

> Greek: ed. Edward Seymour Forster, from the Perseus Digital Library (canonical-greekLit, tlg0017.tlg004, CC BY-SA 4.0).

> English: Edward Seymour Forster, from the Perseus Digital Library (tlg0017.tlg004.perseus-eng2). Notes are not included.

> Rows follow the references the two texts share (chapters and sections), cut where both reach the end of a sentence.

## Contents

1. [Sections 1–30](https://scriptura.si/works/isaeus-on-the-estate-of-nicostratus/1.md)

## 1. Sections 1–30

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/isaeus-on-the-estate-of-nicostratus/1/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/isaeus-on-the-estate-of-nicostratus/1/#p-N

[¶0] 0. Argument Nicostratus having died in a foreign land, Hagnon and Hagnotheus, as being his first cousins (their father having been brother to Nicostratus's father), contend for the succession to his estate against Chariades, who claims to be heir by bequest, that is to say, by will. Isaeus, the orator, being a kinsman of Hagnon and his brother, speaks as their advocate. The question at issue is one of fact.

> Greek: 0. Ὑπόθεσις Νικοστράτου ἐν ὑπερορίᾳ τελευτήσαντος, Ἅγνων καὶ Ἁγνόθεος ὡς ὄντες ἀνεψιοὶ ἐκ πατραδέλφου ἀμφισβητοῦσι τοῦ κλήρου πρὸς Χαριάδην, φάσκοντα κληρονόμον αὐτοῦ εἶναι κατὰ δόσιν, ὃ ἔστι κατὰ διαθήκας. Ἰσαῖος οὖν ὁ ῥήτωρ, ὡς συγγενὴς ὢν τῶν περὶ τὸν Ἅγνωνα, λέγει συνηγορῶν αὐτοῖς. ἡ στάσις στοχασμός.

[¶1] 1. Hagnon here and Hagnotheus, gentlemen, are intimate friends of mine, as was their father before them. It seems, therefore, only natural to me to support their case to the best of my ability. For the events which happened in a foreign land it is not possible to find witnesses or easy to convict our adversaries of any lies which they may tell, because neither of my clients has ever been to the country in question; but the events which have occurred here in Athens seem to me to provide you with sufficient proof that all those who lay claim to Nicostratus's estate on the ground of bequest are desirous of deceiving you.

> Greek: 1. ἐπιτήδειοί μοι τυγχάνουσιν, ὦ ἄνδρες, ὄντες Ἅγνων τε οὑτοσὶ καὶ Ἁγνόθεος, καὶ ὁ πατὴρ αὐτῶν ἔτι πρότερον. εἰκὸς οὖν μοι δοκεῖ εἶναι, ὡς ἂν οἷός τε ὦ, συνειπεῖν αὐτοῖς. περὶ μὲν οὖν τῶν ἐν τῇ ὑπερορίᾳ πραχθέντων [ὡς] οὔτε μάρτυρας ἐξευρεῖν οἷόν τε, οὔτε τοὺς ἀντιδίκους, ἐάν τι ψεύδωνται, ἐλέγχειν ῥᾴδιον, διὰ τὸ μηδέτερον τούτων ἐκεῖσε ἀφῖχθαι· τὰ δὲ ἐνθάδε [μοι] συμβεβηκότα δοκεῖ μοι ὑμῖν ἱκανὰ γενέσθαι ἂν τεκμήρια, ὅτι ἅπαντες οἱ κατὰ τὴν δόσιν τῶν Νικοστράτου ἀμφισβητοῦντες ἐξαπατῆσαι ὑμᾶς βούλονται.

[¶2] 2. In the first place, gentlemen, it is proper that you should consider the different names attributed to the deceased and determine which of the two parties has laid his claim in the more straightforward and natural manner. Hagnon here and Hagnotheus described Nicostratus in their claim as the son of Thrasymachus and declare that they are his first cousins and prove these statements by witnesses.

> Greek: 2. πρῶτον μὲν οὖν, ὦ ἄνδρες, περὶ τῆς τῶν ὀνομάτων ἐπιγραφῆς ἄξιόν ἐστιν ἐξετάσαι, καὶ σκέψασθαι ὁπότεροι ἁπλούστερον καὶ κατὰ φύσιν μᾶλλον τὰς λήξεις ἐποιήσαντο. Ἅγνων μὲν γὰρ οὑτοσὶ καὶ Ἁγνόθεος Θρασυμάχου ἐπεγράψαντο τὸν Νικόστρατον, καὶ ἑαυτοὺς ἐκείνῳ ἀνεψιοὺς ἀποφαίνουσι, καὶ τούτων μάρτυρας παρέχονται·

[¶3] 3. Chariades and his supporters, on the other hand, assert that Nicostratus was the son of Smicrus and yet claim the estate of the son of Thrasymachus. My clients make no pretence that they know anything of the name of Smicrus or that it has anything to do with them; they declare that Nicostratus was the son of Thrasymachus, and it is likewise his estate which they claim.

> Greek: 3. Χαριάδης δὲ καὶ οἱ συνδικοῦντες αὐτῷ Σμίκρου μὲν πατρὸς εἶναί φασι τὸν Νικόστρατον, ἀμφισβητοῦσι δὲ τοῦ Θρασυμάχου ὑοῦ κλήρου. καὶ οἵδε μὲν οὐδὲν προσποιοῦνται ἐκείνου τοῦ ὀνόματος οὔτε γιγνώσκειν οὔτε προσήκειν αὑτοῖς· φασὶ μὲν οὖν εἶναι Θρασυμάχου Νικόστρατον, τούτου δὲ ὁμοίως τῆς οὐσίας ἀμφισβητοῦσι.

[¶4] 4. If the parties were in agreement as to the name of Nicostratus's father and were disputing only about the estate, you would only have to consider whether Nicostratus, on whose identity both were agreed, did or did not leave a will. But as it is, how is it possible to assign two fathers to the man? Yet this is what Chariades has done; he himself claimed the estate of Nicostratus the son of Smicrus, and paid the deposit for a suit against my clients when they claimed the estate of the son of Thrasymachus, just as though it were a question of one and the same person.

> Greek: 4. καὶ εἰ μὲν τὸ ὄνομα πατρόθεν τὸ αὐτὸ ὡμολόγουν εἶναι τοῦ Νικοστράτου, περὶ δὲ τοῦ κλήρου μόνου διεφέροντο, οὐδὲν ἂν ἔδει ὑμᾶς σκέψασθαι ἀλλʼ 〈ἢ〉 εἴ τι διέθετο ἐκεῖνος ὁ Νικόστρατος, ὃν ἀμφότεροι ὡμολόγουν· νῦν δὲ πῶς οἷόν τε τῷ ἀνδρὶ δύο πατέρας ἐπιγράψασθαι; τοῦτο γὰρ Χαριάδης πεποίηκεν· αὐτός τε γὰρ ἔλαχε 〈τῶν〉 τοῦ Σμίκρου Νικοστράτου, τούτοις τε 〈τῶν〉 τοῦ Θρασυμάχου λαχοῦσι παρακατέβαλεν ὡς τὸν αὐτὸν ὄντα.

[¶5] 5. It is all an insolent plot and conspiracy. They think that my clients, if the matter is simple and nothing is introduced to confuse the issue, will have no difficulty in proving that Nicostratus made no will; whereas, if they allege that the father is not the same and likewise claim the estate, they know full well that my clients will have to employ a longer argument to prove that Nicostratus was the son of Thrasymachus than to convince you that he left no will.

> Greek: 5. ἔστι μὲν οὖν ἅπαντα ταῦτα ἐπήρεια καὶ παρασκευή. ἡγοῦνται γὰρ τούτους, ἁπλοῦ μὲν ὄντος τοῦ πράγματος καὶ μηδεμιᾶς αὐτοῖς ταραχῆς ἐγγιγνομένης, οὐ χαλεπῶς ἐπιδείξειν ὅτι οὐδὲν Νικόστρατος διέθετο· ἐὰν δὲ μὴ τὸν πατέρα τὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι φῶσι, τοῦ δὲ κλήρου μηδὲν ἧττον ἀμφισβητῶσιν, ἀκριβῶς ἴσασιν ὅτι πλείονι λόγῳ εἰπεῖν τουτουσὶ δεήσει ὡς Νικόστρατος Θρασυμάχου ἦν ἢ ὡς οὐδὲν διέθετο.

[¶6] 6. Further, if they admitted that Nicostratus was the son of Thrasymachus, they would be unable to prove that my clients are not his cousins; but, by inventing another father for the deceased, they have introduced a discussion about his parentage as well as about the will.

> Greek: 6. ἔτι δὲ καὶ ὁμολογοῦντες Θρασυμάχου μὲν εἶναι τὸν Νικόστρατον οὐκ ἂν εἶχον ἐξελέγξαι τούσδε ὡς οὐκ εἰσὶν ἐκείνῳ ἀνεψιοί· ἄλλον δὲ πατέρα τῷ τεθνεῶτι κατασκευάζοντες οὐ μόνον περὶ τῶν διαθηκῶν ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ τοῦ γένους λόγον ἐμβεβλήκασιν.

[¶7] 7. But it is not only from these proceedings but from all that has happened from the beginning that you can be sure that those who are thus plotting against my clients are strangers to the family. For who did not cut the hair when the two talents arrived from Ace? Who did not wear black, hoping by mourning to inherit the estate? What was the number of would-be kinsmen and adopted sons who claimed Nicostratus's property?

> Greek: 7. οὐκ ἐκ τούτων δὲ μόνον γνοίητʼ ἂν ὅτι ἀλλότριοί τινες εἰσιν οἱ ταῦτα ἐπὶ τουτουσὶ ἐπάγοντες, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐκ τῶν κατʼ ἀρχὰς γεγενημένων. τίς γὰρ οὐκ ἀπεκείρατο, ἐπειδὴ τὼ δύο ταλάντω ἐξ Ἀκῆς ἠλθέτην; ἢ τίς οὐ μέλαν ἱμάτιον ἐφόρησεν, ὡς διὰ τὸ πένθος κληρονομήσων τῆς οὐσίας; ἢ πόσοι συγγενεῖς καὶ ὑεῖς κατὰ δόσιν προσεποιήσαντο τῶν Νικοστράτου;

[¶8] 8. Demosthenes declared himself to be his nephew, but renounced his claim when he was unmasked by my clients. Telephus asserted that Nicostratus had made him a gift of all his property; he too soon desisted. Ameiniades appeared before the archon and produced as Nicostratus's son a child not yet three years old, although it was eleven years since Nicostratus had been in Athens.

> Greek: 8. Δημοσθένης μέν γε ἀδελφιδοῦς ἔφη αὐτῷ εἶναι, ἐπειδὴ δʼ ἐξηλέγχθη ὑπὸ τούτων, ἀπέστη· Τήλεφος δὲ δοῦναι αὑτῷ Νικόστρατον ἅπαντα τὰ ἑαυτοῦ. καὶ οὗτος οὐ πολλῷ ὕστερον ἐπαύσατο. Ἀμεινιάδης δὲ ὑὸν αὐτῷ πρὸς τὸν ἄρχοντα ἧκεν ἄγων οὐδὲ τριετῆ γεγονότα, καὶ ταῦτʼ οὐκ ἐπιδεδημηκότος τοῦ Νικοστράτου ἕνδεκα ἐτῶν Ἀθήνησι.

[¶9] 9. Pyrrhus of Lamptra declared that the property had been consecrated by Nicostratus to Athena but that it had been given him by Nicostratus himself. Ctesias of Besa and Cranaus at first asserted that Nicostratus had been condemned to pay them a talent; when they could not prove this, they pretended that he was their freedman; they were no better able to prove their statement.

> Greek: 9. Πύρρος δὲ ὁ Λαμπτρεὺς τῇ μὲν Ἀθηνᾷ ἔφη τὰ χρήματα ὑπὸ Νικοστράτου καθιερῶσθαι, αὐτῷ δʼ ὑπʼ αὐτοῦ ἐκείνου δεδόσθαι. Κτησίας δʼ ὁ Βησαιεὺς καὶ Κραναὸς τὸ μὲν πρῶτον δίκην ἔφασαν τοῦ Νικοστράτου ταλάντου καταδεδικάσθαι, ἐπειδὴ δʼ οὐκ εἶχον τοῦτο ἀποδεῖξαι, ἀπελεύθερον αὐτὸν ἑαυτῶν προσεποιήσαντο εἶναι· καὶ οὐδʼ οὗτοι ἃ ἔλεγον ἀπέδειξαν.

[¶10] 10. These were the men who at the very beginning swooped down upon the estate of Nicostratus. Chariades at that time made no claim, but came forward later, foisting in not only himself but also his child by his mistress. It was all the same to him whether he was going to inherit the estate or have his son recognized as a citizen. He, too, perceiving that he would be defeated on the question of the child's birth, jettisoned the child's claim and paid a deposit to bring an action asserting his own right under a will.

> Greek: 10. καὶ οἱ μὲν εὐθὺς κατὰ τὰ πρῶτα ἐπὶ τὰ Νικοστράτου ᾁξαντες οὗτοί εἰσι· Χαριάδης δὲ τότε μὲν οὐδαμοῦ ἠμφισβήτησεν, ὕστερον δὲ οὐ μόνον αὐτὸς 〈αὑτὸν〉 ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ ἐκ τῆς ἑταίρας παιδίον εἰσποιῶν ἦλθε. ταὐτὸ δʼ ἦν αὐτῷ ὡς ἢ τῶν χρημάτων κληρονομήσοντι ἢ τὸ παιδίον ἀστὸν ποιήσοντι. αἰσθόμενος δὲ καὶ οὗτος ὅτι περὶ τοῦ γένους ἐλεγχθήσοιτο, τὴν μὲν τοῦ παιδίου ἀμφισβήτησιν παρέλυσεν, ἑαυτῷ δὲ κατὰ δόσιν παρακατέβαλεν.

[¶11] 11. It would be a good thing, gentlemen, that any claimant to an inheritance under a will, if he fails, should not be fined at the usual rate but be made to pay into the treasury the full amount of the fortune which he set out to obtain; thus the laws would not be despised nor would the relatives be insulted, and above all, no fictions would be invented against the dead. But, since full liberty is given to anyone according to his fancy to claim anyone else's estate, it behoves you to sift their claims with every possible care and to omit no possible precaution.

> Greek: 11. ἐχρῆν μὲν οὖν, ὦ ἄνδρες, ὅστις κατὰ δόσιν χρημάτων ἀμφισβητῶν ἡττηθείη, μὴ κατὰ τὸ τέλος ζημιοῦσθαι, ἀλλʼ ἐφʼ ὅσα περ ληψόμενος ᾔει, τοσαῦτα τῇ πόλει ἀποτίνειν· οὕτω γὰρ 〈ἂν〉 οὔθʼ οἱ νόμοι κατεφρονοῦντο οὔτε τὰ γένη ὑβρίζετο, πρὸ δὲ τούτων οὐδʼ ἂν τῶν τεθνεώτων οὐδεὶς κατεψεύδετο. ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἅπασι καὶ τῶν ἀλλοτρίων ἁπάντων, καθʼ ὅ τι ἄν τις βούληται, ἀμφισβητεῖν ἔξεστιν, ὑμᾶς χρὴ περὶ αὐτῶν ὡς οἷόν τʼ ἀκριβέστατα ἐξετάζειν καὶ μηδὲν εἰς ὅσον δύνασθε παραλείπειν.

[¶12] 12. It seems to me that in suits concerning inheritances, and in these alone, more credit ought to be given to circumstantial proof than to the statements of witnesses. When other legal instruments are the subject of litigation, it is not very difficult to convict those who give false evidence, for they give their evidence to the prejudice of the supposed party to the deed alive and present; but when a will is in question, how can one recognize those who are not telling the truth, unless the divergences in the evidence are great, since the party against whom they bear witness is dead, the relatives know nothing of the facts, and the method of refuting the evidence is by no means clear?

> Greek: 12. ἐν μόναις δὲ ταῖς τῶν κλήρων εἰσαγωγαῖς δοκεῖ μοι προσήκειν τεκμηρίοις μᾶλλον ἢ μάρτυσι πιστεύειν. περὶ μὲν γὰρ τῶν ἄλλων συμβολαίων οὐ πάνυ χαλεπὸν τοὺς τὰ ψευδῆ μαρτυροῦντας ἐλέγχειν· ζῶντος γὰρ καὶ παρόντος τοῦ πράξαντος καταμαρτυροῦσι· περὶ δὲ τῶν διαθηκῶν πῶς ἄν τις γνοίη τοὺς μὴ τἀληθῆ λέγοντας, εἰ μὴ πάνυ μεγάλα τὰ διαφέροντα εἴη, αὐτοῦ μὲν καθʼ οὗ μαρτυροῦσι τεθνεῶτος, τῶν δὲ συγγενῶν μηδὲν τῶν πεπραγμένων εἰδότων, τοῦ δὲ ἐλέγχου μηδαμῶς ἀκριβοῦς γιγνομένου;

[¶13] 13. Further, gentlemen, most of those who make wills do not even mention to those who are present the purport of their will, but only invite them to attest the fact that they have made a will, and it is within the range of possibility that a will has been substituted or alterations made in a sense directly opposed to the wishes of the deceased; for the witnesses will have no more knowledge than anyone else whether the will produced is that which they were summoned to attest.

> Greek: 13. ἔτι δέ, ὦ ἄνδρες, καὶ τῶν διατιθεμένων οἱ πολλοὶ οὐδὲ λέγουσι τοῖς παραγιγνομένοις ὅ τι διατίθενται, ἀλλʼ αὐτοῦ μόνου, τοῦ καταλιπεῖν διαθήκας, μάρτυρας παρίστανται, τοῦ δὲ συμβαίνοντός ἐστι καὶ γραμματεῖον ἀλλαγῆναι καὶ τἀναντία ταῖς τοῦ τεθνεῶτος διαθήκαις μεταγραφῆναι· οὐδὲν γὰρ μᾶλλον οἱ μάρτυρες εἴσονται, εἰ ἐφʼ αἷς ἐκλήθησαν διαθήκαις, αὗται ἀποφαίνονται.

[¶14] 14. Since, then, it is possible to deceive those who were admittedly present when the will was made, how much more easily might an attempt be made to impose upon you who know nothing of the matter? Again, gentlemen, the law ordains that a will in order to be valid must not merely be executed but executed by a man in his right senses. You ought, therefore, to examine, first, whether the deceased made a will and, secondly, whether he was in his right mind at the time.

> Greek: 14. ὁπότε δὲ καὶ τοὺς ὁμολογουμένως παραγενομένους οἷόν τʼ ἐστὶν ἐξαπατῆσαι, πῶς οὐκ ἂν ὑμᾶς γε τοὺς μηδὲν τοῦ πράγματος εἰδότας πολὺ [μᾶλλον] ἑτοιμότερόν τις παρακρούσασθαι ἐγχειρήσειεν; ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ ὁ νόμος, ὦ ἄνδρες, οὐκ ἐάν τις διαθῆται μόνον, κυρίας εἶναι κελεύει τὰς διαθήκας, ἀλλὰ ἐὰν εὖ φρονῶν. σκεπτέον δὴ ὑμῖν πρῶτον μὲν εἰ ἐποιήσατο τὰς διαθήκας, ἔπειτα εἰ μὴ παρανοῶν διέθετο.

[¶15] 15. Since, however, we deny that a will was made at all, how can you decide whether that a man was insane when he made a will, until you are convinced that actually he made a will? Observe, then, how difficult it is to discover whether those who claim under a will are telling the truth; those, on the other hand, who claim by right of kinship, in the first place, need not produce witnesses to prove that the inheritance is theirs—for it is universally admitted that the property of a deceased person devolves on his next-of-kin— and, secondly, the laws, not only those which deal with consanguinity but also those which treat of testamentary disposition, are in favor of kinsmen.

> Greek: 15. ἀντιλεγόντων δʼ ἡμῶν μηδὲ τὸ παράπαν γενέσθαι τὰς διαθήκας, ἐκ τίνος ἂν τρόπου, εἴ τις παρανοῶν διέθετο, γνοίητε, πρὶν περὶ αὐτοῦ τοῦ διαθέσθαι πιστεῦσαι; τοὺς μὲν οὖν κατὰ τὴν δόσιν ἀμφισβητοῦντας ὁρᾶτε ὅσον ἔργον ἐστὶν αἰσθέσθαι εἰ ἀληθῆ λέγουσι, τοὺς δὲ κατὰ τὸ γένος πρῶτον μὲν οὐδὲν δεῖ μάρτυρας παρασχέσθαι ὡς αὑτῶν ἐστιν ὁ κλῆρος (παρὰ πάντων γὰρ ὡμολόγηται τοῖς ἐγγυτάτω γένους τὰ τοῦ τελευτήσαντος γίγνεσθαι), ἔπειτα οἱ νόμοι οὐ μόνον οἱ περὶ τῶν γενῶν ἀλλὰ καὶ οἱ περὶ τῶν δόσεων τοῖς συγγενέσι βοηθοῦσι.

[¶16] 16. For the law allows no one to dispose of his own property if his reason is impaired by old age or disease or the other causes with which you are familiar; but by right of relationship the next-of-kin has an undisputed title to the property of a deceased person, whatever was the state of the latter's faculties.

> Greek: 16. δοῦναι μὲν γὰρ ὁ νόμος οὐδενὶ ἐᾷ τὰ ἑαυτοῦ, ἐὰν ὑπὸ γήρως ἢ ὑπὸ νόσου ἢ ὑπὸ τῶν ἄλλων ἃ καὶ ὑμεῖς ἴστε παρανοήσῃ· κατὰ δὲ τὸ γένος καὶ τὰ τοῦ ὁπωσοῦν διακειμένου ὁ ἐγγύτατα γένους ἀναμφισβητήτως λαμβάνει.

[¶17] 17. Beside this, in order to believe in a will, you are obliged to rely on witnesses, by whom it is possible to be deceived—if this were not so, there would be no prosecutions for perjury—but when the claim is based on kinship, you act on your own authority, for the next-of-kin assert their right in accordance with the laws which you have laid down.

> Greek: 17. χωρὶς δὲ τούτων ταῖς μὲν διαθήκαις διὰ μαρτύρων ὑμᾶς δεῖ πιστεῦσαι, ὑφʼ ὧν ἔνι καὶ ἐξαπατηθῆναι (οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἦσαν ψευδομαρτυρίων ἐπισκήψεις), τῇ δʼ ἀγχιστείᾳ διʼ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν· κατὰ γὰρ τοὺς νόμους οἱ συγγενεῖς ἀμφισβητοῦσιν, οὓς ὑμεῖς ἔθεσθε.

[¶18] 18. In addition to this, gentlemen, if those who claim under the will were admittedly close friends of Nicostratus, even then the conclusive proof would be lacking, though there would be a greater probability that the will could be regarded as genuine; for before now testators, being ill-disposed towards their kinsmen, have preferred strangers who were their friends to their nearest relatives by blood. But in the present case Nicostratus and Chariades were neither members of the same mess nor friends nor members of the same company, and on all these points we have produced witnesses before you.

> Greek: 18. πρὸς δὲ τούτοις, ὦ ἄνδρες, εἰ μὲν οἱ κατὰ τὰς διαθήκας ἀμφισβητοῦντες ὁμολογουμένως Νικοστράτῳ ἐπιτήδειοι ὄντες ἐτύγχανον, τὸ μὲν ἀκριβὲς οὐδʼ ἂν οὕτως, ὅμως μέντοι μᾶλλον εἰκὸς ἦν ἀληθεῖς εἶναι δόξειν τὰς διαθήκας· ἤδη γάρ τινες οὐκ εὖ διακείμενοι τοῖς συγγενέσιν ὀθνείους φίλους τῶν πάνυ σφόδρα προσηκόντων περὶ πλείονος ἐποιήσαντο· νῦν δὲ οὔτε συσσίτους οὔτε φίλους οὔτʼ ἐν τάξει τῇ αὐτῇ … τούτων δʼ ὑμῖν μάρτυρας ἁπάντων παρεσχήμεθα.

[¶19] 19. And consider this further point, which is of great importance and is the clearest possible proof of Chariades' impudence. Whereas he neither took up the body of his adopted father nor committed it to the flames nor collected the bones, but left all these duties to be done by complete strangers, should he not be regarded as most impious in claiming to inherit the property of the deceased, though he never performed any of the customary rites over him?

> Greek: 19. ὃ δὲ μέγιστον, καὶ μάλιστα τῆς Χαριάδου ἀναιδείας καταμαρτυρεῖ, τοῦτο σκέψασθε. ὅπου γὰρ τὸν αὑτὸν ποιησάμενον οὔτʼ ἀποθανόντα ἀνείλετο οὔτʼ ἔκαυσεν οὔτε ὠστολόγησεν, ἀλλὰ πάντα τοῖς μηδὲν προσήκουσι παρῆκε ποιῆσαι, πῶς οὐκ 〈ἂν〉 ἀνοσιώτατος εἴη, ὃς τῷ τεθνεῶτι μηδὲν τῶν νομιζομένων ποιήσας τῶν χρημάτων αὐτοῦ κληρονομεῖν ἀξιοῖ;

[¶20] 20. Shall I be told that, after having performed none of these duties, he administered Nicostratus's property? Evidence of these facts, too, has been given you, and even he himself does not deny most of them. Makeshift excuses have, of course, been found to explain all his acts; for what other resource remains to one who expressly admits the facts?

> Greek: 20. ἀλλὰ νὴ Δία ἐπειδὴ τούτων οὐδὲν ἐποίησε, τὴν οὐσίαν τοῦ Νικοστράτου διεχείρισεν; ἀλλὰ καὶ ταῦτα μεμαρτύρηται ὑμῖν, καὶ τὰ πλεῖστα οὐδʼ αὐτὸς ἀρνεῖται. προφάσεις δὲ οἴομαι ἀναγκαίας ἐφʼ ἑκάστας τῶν πράξεων εὑρῆσθαι· τί γὰρ ὑπολείπεται τῷ διαρρήδην ὁμολογοῦντι;

[¶21] 21. You must now be well aware, gentlemen, that these persons have no legal right to the property of Nicostratus, but wish to deceive you and to deprive my clients, who are his kinsmen, of an inheritance which lawfully belongs to them. Chariades is not the only person who has acted thus; many other claimants to the property of men who have died abroad have arisen, sometimes even without having been acquainted with them.

> Greek: 21. σαφῶς μὲν οὖν ἴστε, ὦ ἄνδρες, ὅτι οὗτοι οὐ δικαίως τῶν Νικοστράτου ἐφίενται, ἀλλὰ βούλονται μὲν ὑμᾶς ἐξαπατῆσαι, τουτουσὶ δὲ συγγενεῖς ὄντας ἐκείνου, ἃ οἱ νόμοι ἔδοσαν αὐτοῖς, ἀποστερῆσαι. οὐ μόνος δὲ Χαριάδης τοῦτο πεποίηκεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἄλλοι πολλοὶ ἤδη τῶν ἐν τῇ ὑπερορίᾳ ἀποθνῃσκόντων οὐδὲ γιγνώσκοντες ἐνίους τῆς οὐσίας ἠμφισβήτησαν·

[¶22] 22. For they consider that, if they are successful, it will be possible for them to enjoy the property of others, while, if they fail, the risk is inconsiderable; there are always men who are willing to perjure themselves, and the attempted refutations of their evidence are dealing with the unknown. In a word, there is a vast difference between claiming by right of kinship and claiming under a will. But your duty, gentlemen, is first of all to examine the will and decide whether you think that it is genuine; for this is what the laws enjoin and is the justest course.

> Greek: 22. ἐνθυμοῦνται γὰρ ὅτι κατορθώσασι μὲν 〈ἔσται〉 τὰ ἀλλότρια ἔχειν, διαμαρτοῦσι δὲ μικρὸς ὁ κίνδυνος· μαρτυρεῖν δὲ καὶ τὰ ψευδῆ τινες ἐθέλουσιν, οἱ δʼ ἔλεγχοι περὶ ἀφανῶν. συνελόντι πολὺ τὸ διαφέρον κατὰ γένος ἢ κατὰ δόσιν ἀμφισβητεῖν. ἀλλʼ ὑμᾶς χρή, ὦ ἄνδρες, πρῶτον μὲν τὰς διαθήκας σκοπεῖν, εἰ δοκοῦσι γενέσθαι· τοῦτο γὰρ οἵ τε νόμοι 〈ὑφ〉ηγοῦνται καὶ δικαιότατόν ἐστι.

[¶23] 23. But since you have no certain personal knowledge of the truth, and since the witnesses to the will were friends not of the deceased but of Chariades, who wishes to seize property which does not belong to him, what could be juster than by your verdict to award the property of a kinsmen to his kinsmen? For, indeed, if anything had happened to my clients, their property would have passed to none other than Nicostratus; for he would have claimed it by the same right of kinship, being their first cousin, the son of their father's own brother.

> Greek: 23. μὴ σαφῶς δὲ μήτʼ αὐτοὺς τὴν ἀλήθειαν εἰδότας, μήτε τῶν μαρτύρων τοῦ τελευτήσαντος ἐπιτηδείων ὄντων, ἀλλὰ Χαριάδου τοῦ τἀλλότρια βουλομένου λαβεῖν, τί ἂν εἴη δικαιότερον ἢ τοῖς συγγενέσι τὰ τοῦ συγγενοῦς ψηφίζεσθαι; καὶ γὰρ εἴ τι οἵδε ἔπαθον, οὐδενὶ ἂν ἄλλῳ ἢ Νικοστράτῳ τὰ τούτων ἐγένετο· κατὰ γὰρ τὸ αὐτὸ γένος ἂν ἠμφισβήτει, ἀνεψιὸς ὢν αὐτοῖς ἐκ πατραδέλφων.

[¶24] 24. But, by Heaven, I am forgetting; Hagnon and Hagnotheus are not kinsmen of Nicostratus according to the allegation of our adversaries, but his kinsmen are quite different people. Are these kinsmen then bearing witness in favor of the claimant under the will rather than themselves contesting the property by right of kinship? Surely they are not so insane as to believe so easily in the will and renounce their claim to so much money! Nay, to judge from what these men themselves say, it is to the advantage of these supposed kinsmen themselves that my clients, rather than Chariades, should have the estate of Nicostratus adjudicated to them.

> Greek: 24. μὰ Δίʼ ἀλλʼ οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ Ἅγνων οὐδʼ ὁ Ἁγνόθεος τοῦ Νικοστράτου συγγενής, ὡς οἱ ἀντίδικοί φασιν, ἀλλʼ ἕτεροι. ἔπειτα τῷ μὲν κατὰ τὴν δόσιν τοῦ κλήρου λαχόντι μαρτυροῦσιν, αὐτοὶ δὲ κατὰ τὸ γένος οὐκ ἀμφισβητήσουσιν; οὐ γὰρ εἰς τοῦτό γε ἀνοίας ἥκουσιν ὥστε πιστεύσαντες ταῖς διαθήκαις οὕτω ῥᾳδίως τοσούτων χρημάτων ἀφίστανται. ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ ἐξ ὧν αὐτοὶ οὗτοι λέγουσι, τούσδε τοῖς συγγενέσιν αὐτοῖς ἐπιδικάσασθαι συμφέρει τῶν Νικοστράτου μᾶλλον ἢ Χαριάδην.

[¶25] 25. For, if my clients, who claim by right of kinship, receive the estate, it will be always open to the supposed kinsmen whenever they like at any future date to claim the estate on the grounds of relationship, and prove to you that they are themselves more nearly related to Nicostratus, and that he was the son of Smicrus and not of Thrasymachus. On the other hand, if Chariades inherits the estate, it will never be possible for any relative to bring an action for the property of Nicostratus; for when once the property is in possession of one to whom it has been adjudicated in virtue of a will, what will those who claim by right of kinship be able reasonably to allege?

> Greek: 25. εἰς γὰρ τὸν λοιπὸν χρόνον, εἰ μὲν οἵδε κατὰ τὸ γένος ἀμφισβητοῦντες λήψονται τὸν κλῆρον, ἐξέσται καὶ τούτοις, ὁπόταν βούλωνται, κατὰ τὸ γένος λαχοῦσιν ἐπιδεῖξαι ὑμῖν ὡς αὐτοὶ ἐγγυτέρω ἦσαν τοῦ Νικοστράτου, καὶ ὡς Σμίκρου ἦν καὶ οὐ Θρασυμάχου· ἐὰν δὲ Χαριάδης αὐτῶν κληρονομήσῃ, οὐκ ἔσται οὐδενὶ συγγενεῖ ἐπὶ τὰ Νικοστράτου ἐλθεῖν. κατὰ δόσιν γὰρ ἔχοντος τοῦ ἐπιδεδικασμένου, τί φανοῦνται λέγοντες οἱ κατὰ [τὸ] γένος λαγχάνοντες;

[¶26] 26. Whatever each of you would consider just on his own behalf, let that be your determination in favor of these young men. They have produced before you witnesses to prove, first, that they and Nicostratus are first cousins, the sons of own brothers; secondly, that they never had any quarrel with him; thirdly, that they carried out his burial; and further that Chariades was never a friend of Nicostratus either here in Athens or in the army, and, lastly, that the supposed business association between them, on which Chariades most relies, is a fiction.

> Greek: 26. ὅπερ ἂν οὖν καὶ ὑμῶν ἕκαστος ἀξιώσειε, τοῦτο καὶ τουτοισὶ τοῖς νεανίσκοις βεβαιώσατε. παρέσχοντο δʼ ὑμῖν μάρτυρας πρῶτον μὲν ὡς ἀνεψιοί εἰσιν ἐκ πατραδέλφων Νικοστράτου, ἔπειτα δὲ ὡς οὐδεπώποτε ἐκείνῳ διάφοροι ἦσαν, ἔτι δὲ καὶ ὡς ἔθαψαν Νικόστρατον, πρὸς δὲ τούτοις ὡς Χαριάδης οὑτοσὶ οὐδαμῶς οὔτʼ ἐνθάδε οὔτʼ ἐπὶ στρατεύματι ἐχρῆτο Νικοστράτῳ, ἔτι δὲ καὶ τὴν κοινωνίαν, ᾗ μάλισθʼ οὗτος ἰσχυρίζεται, ψευδῆ οὖσαν.

[¶27] 27. Apart from this, gentlemen, it is only right that you should examine the characters of the respective claimants. Thrasippus, the father of Hagnon and Hagnotheus, has before now supported public burdens and paid contributions and otherwise proved himself a worthy citizen. My clients themselves have never quitted this country unless they have been sent somewhere by your orders, and at home they are not unserviceable to the state; they serve in the army, they make contributions and in every other respect perform what is required of them, and, as everyone knows, they behave as law-abiding citizens;

> Greek: 27. καὶ ἄνευ τούτων, ὦ ἄνδρες, ἄξιον ὑμῖν ἐξετάσαι ἑκατέρους αὐτῶν οἷοί εἰσι. Θράσιππος μὲν γὰρ ὁ Ἅγνωνος καὶ Ἁγνοθέου πατὴρ ἤδη τι καὶ ἐλῃτούργησεν ὑμῖν καὶ εἰσήνεγκε, καὶ ἄλλως σπουδαῖος ἦν πολίτης· αὐτοὶ δὲ οὗτοι οὔτε ἀποδεδημήκασιν οὐδαμοῖ πώποτε, ὅποι ἂν μὴ ὑμεῖς προστάξητε, οὔτʼ ἐνθάδε μένοντες ἄχρηστοί εἰσι τῇ πόλει, ἀλλὰ καὶ στρατεύονται καὶ εἰσφέρουσι καὶ τἆλλα πάντα ποιοῦσι τὰ προσταττόμενα καὶ αὑτούς (ὡς πάντες ἴσασι) κοσμίους παρέχουσιν, ὥστε πολὺ μᾶλλον τούτους προσήκει κατὰ δόσιν τῶν χρημάτων τῶν Νικοστράτου ἢ Χαριάδην ἀμφισβητεῖν.

[¶28] 28. so that it is much more fitting that they should claim to receive the estate by gift than Chariades. The latter, when he resided here, was first caught in the act of theft and thrown into prison; he was subsequently released with certain other criminals by the Eleven, all of whom you publicly condemned to death, and, having been again denounced to the Council as a malefactor, he absconded and did not appear to answer the charge, and for seventeen years after this he never came near Athens, and only returned on the death of Nicostratus.

> Greek: 28. οὗτος γάρ, ὅτʼ ἐπεδήμει ἐνθάδε, πρῶτον μὲν εἰς τὸ δεσμωτήριον ὡς κλέπτης ὢν ἐπʼ αὐτοφώρῳ ἀπήχθη, τότε δὲ ἀφεθεὶς μεθʼ ἑτέρων τινῶν ὑπὸ τῶν ἕνδεκα, οὓς δημοσίᾳ ἅπαντας ὑμεῖς ἀπεκτείνατε, πάλιν ἀπογραφεὶς εἰς τὴν βουλὴν κακουργῶν, ὑποχωρῶν ᾤχετο καὶ οὐχ ὑπήκουσεν, ἀλλʼ ἀπʼ ἐκείνου ἑπτακαίδεκα ἐτῶν Ἀθήναζε οὐκ ἀφίκετο, πλὴν ἐπειδὴ Νικόστρατος ἀπέθανε.

[¶29] 29. He has never once served the state as a soldier nor made any contribution, except perhaps since he claimed Nicostratus's estate, nor has he performed any other public service. And now, though such is his character, so far from being content if he avoids punishment for his misdeeds, he actually claims the property of others!

> Greek: 29. καὶ ὑπὲρ μὲν ὑμῶν οὔτε στρατείαν οὐδεμίαν ἐστράτευται οὔτε εἰσφορὰν οὐδεμίαν εἰσενήνοχε, πλὴν εἴ τι ἄρα ἐξ ὅτου τῶν Νικοστράτου ἠμφισβήτησεν, οὔτʼ ἄλλʼ οὐδὲν ὑμῖν λελῃτούργηκεν. ἔπειτα τοιοῦτος ὢν οὐκ ἀγαπᾷ εἰ μὴ τῶν ἡμαρτημένων δίκην δώσει, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν ἀλλοτρίων ἀμφισβητεῖ.

[¶30] 30. If my clients were fond of quarrelling or resembled so many of their fellow-citizens, he would not perhaps be claiming Nicostratus's estate but would be on trial for his life. But, as it is, gentlemen, it shall be left to someone else, if he wishes, to punish him; your care let it be to assist my clients, and not to show favor to those who wish unjustly to possess the property of others rather than to the next-of-kin of the deceased, who have besides already rendered him service. Remember the laws and the oaths which you swore and also the evidence which we have placed before you, and give your verdict in conformity with justice.

> Greek: 30. εἰ μὲν οὖν οἵδε φιλοπράγμονες ἢ ἄλλοις ὅμοιοι πολίταις ἦσαν, ἴσως ἂν οὐ περὶ τῶν Νικοστράτου χρημάτων ἠμφισβήτει, ἀλλʼ ὑπὲρ τοῦ σώματος ἠγωνίζετο· νῦν δʼ, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, τοῦτον μὲν ἄλλος, ἐάν τις βούληται, τιμωρήσεται, τουτοισὶ δʼ ὑμεῖς βοηθήσατε, καὶ μὴ περὶ πλείονος ποιήσησθε τοὺς ἀδίκως τἀλλότρια ἔχειν βουλομένους ἢ τοὺς γένει τῷ τεθνεῶτι προσήκοντας καὶ χωρὶς τούτων ἤδη τι ἐκεῖνον εὐεργετηκότας, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν νόμων ἀναμνησθέντες καὶ τῶν ὅρκων οὓς ὠμόσατε, πρὸς δὲ τούτοις καὶ τῶν μαρτυριῶν ἃς ἡμεῖς παρεσχήμεθα, τὰ δίκαια ψηφίσασθε.