View:
By Chapter
II. Actions for False Witness ( δίκαι ψευδομαρτυριῶν).
II. 1. On the Estate of Menekles [Or. II.]
At the death of Menekles, his estate was claimed by his brother
7
. But Menekles had left an adopted son; this son entered a protest that the estate, being his, could not be so claimed (
διεμαρτύρησε μὴ ἐπίδικον εἶναι τὸν κλῆρον, § 2); and produced, as witness, his father-in-law (§ 36) Philonides. The brother of Menekles then brought an indictment for perjury (
γραφὴ ψευδομαρτυρίας) against Philonides. In this speech, Philonides is defended by his son-in-law, the adopted son of Menekles.
The adoption had come about thus. Eponymos, a friend of Menekles, had four children:—the speaker of this speech; another son; and two daughters. The younger daughter was, for about two years (§ 6), the wife of Menekles; but, their marriage proving childless, they separated, and she took a second husband, Eleios. At some later time Menekles became anxious to adopt a son. His brother— the prosecutor in this case—had only one son. Menekles decided, therefore, to adopt one of the two sons of his friend Eponymos (§§ 3—12).
The date is probably about 354 B. C. (1) The
8
speaker says (§ 6):—‘Having given our sisters in marriage, and being of the full age, we betook ourselves to military service, and went with Iphikrates on an expedition to Thrace.’ This might refer to 389 B. C., when Iphikrates was sent to guard the Hellespont and the regions about it
9
. But the tone implies that Athens was not then waging a great war. The reference is more probably to 383 B.C., when Iphikrates began hostilities against Kotys, who had then just got the chief power in Thrace
10
. (2) The adoption of the speaker by Menekles must have taken place about six years later (cf. §§ 7—19), in 377. (3) Menekles died 23 years after the adoption, § 15— i.e. in 354: and this cause must have soon followed.
After a narrative of the facts (§§ 1—12), it is shown
11
(1) by the citation of a law, that a man without male issue can devise his property as he pleases: (2) by witnesses, that Menekles had adopted the speaker in due form, enrolling him among the members of his phratria, his gens, and his deme
12
(§§ 13—16). At the desire of Menekles the speaker took a wife, the daughter of Philonides; and was in all respects treated as the son of his adoptive father (§§ 17—18).
The adversaries suggest that Menekles, when he adopted the speaker, was not in his right mind, and was influenced by his wife, the speaker's sister. It is replied that his sister was the wife of Eleios when the adoption took place; that she had two children of her own, in whose favour her influence would rather have been used; and that the speaker was the natural person for Menekles to adopt (§§ 19—22). The prosecutor's real complaint is that Menekles exercised the right of adoption—a right allowed by Greeks and barbarians alike, and one which the prosecutor would have used in a like case (§§ 23—26).
The prosecutor has no reason to be jealous; the speaker has inherited from his adoptive father little but the name of son. Menekles owed about £268 (§ 29) to the son of a deceased creditor (
τῷ ὀρφανῷ, § 27). In order to pay this, he had resolved to sell a certain farm; but his brother, the prosecutor, maliciously laid claim to part of this farm, in order to delay the sale; hoping that thus it would be seized for debt (
κατόχιμον γένηται, § 28), and that Menekles would be forced to resign the whole. Menekles, however, at once sold that part of it to which his right was clear; discharged the debt; and then brought an action against his brother for having interdicted the sale of the whole farm (
δίκην ἀπορρήσεως, § 29). The matter was referred to arbiters; and these decided that Menekles should resign the piece of land claimed by his brother, who thus gained about £40; while property to the value of about £15 was all that remained for the speaker to inherit (§§ 27—37).
The validity of the act of adoption was acknowledged by the prosecutor and his brother themselves; for, on their reconciliation with Menekles, they exchanged the oaths of amity not with Menekles, but with the speaker as his son (§§ 38—40). The speaker would not have resisted the prosecutor's claim—there being, in fact, no property at stake— did he not deem it base to allow the name of his adoptive father's house to perish (§§ 41—43). Briefly recapitulating the points of his case, he implores the judges not to deprive the dead Menckles of the only kinsman who can do the sacrifice at his grave (§§ 44—47).
II. 2. On the Estate of Pyrrhos. [Or. III.]
Pyrrhos had bequeathed his estate to his adopted son Endios, the elder of his sister's two sons. Endios enjoyed the inheritance for more than twenty years. At his death it reverted, according to law, to his mother, as sister of Pyrrhos
19
. But her claim was disputed by Xenokles on behalf of his wife Phile. Phile, as this speech asserts, was the illegitimate daughter of Pyrrhos; but Xenokles made an affidavit (
διεμαρτύρησε) of her legitimacy. The brother of Endios, acting as legal representative (
κύριος) of his mother, then brought against Xenokles an action for perjury (
δίκη ψευδομαρτυριῶν, § 4); and gained it. He now brings a like action against Nikodemos— brother of Phile's mother—who had, in the former cause, been a witness for Xenokles. The date is
20
uncertain; but the speech cannot, at least, be one of the earliest. Diophantos of Sphêttos (§ 22) was a witness for Demosthenes against Aeschines in 343 B.C.
21
: and Dorotheos of Eleusis (
ib.) seems to have been living in 349 B. C.
22
The plaintiff states the facts; argues that the proved
23
perjury of Xenokles establishes the perjury of Nikodemos; and cites three documents:—(1)
διαμαρτυρία—the affidavit made by Xenokles in the former action: (2)
ἀντωμοσία— his own counter-affidavit in that action: (3)
μαρτυρία—the evidence then given by Nikodemos (§§ 1—7).
Nikodemos says that his sister was the lawful wife of Pyrrhos. I would ask him these questions:—1. What dowry did he give with his sister to Pyrrhos, the possessor of a property of three talents (
τριταλαντος οἶκος)? 2. Did she leave Pyrrhos before his death? 3. At the death of Pyrrhos, did Nikodemos recover her dowry; or, failing to recover it, bring an action for it, or for the maintenance of the widow (
δίκην σίτου, § 9), against Endios? 4. The sister of Nikodemos had other lovers. Was she ever lawfully betrothed—
ἐγγυητή —to any other of them (§§ 8—10)? Evidence to show that she was an
ἑταίρα (§§ 11—15).
Her antecedents do not, indeed, prove that Pyrrhos did not marry her. But the story of the betrothal is improbable. According to Nikodemos, it took place in presence of a single witness, Pyretides; whose deposition, taken out of court (
ἐκμαρτυρία, § 18), is adduced. But this deposition is disowned by Pyretides himself; and it is strange that Xenokles should have taken it before two persons only (§§ 16—26). The three maternal uncles of Pyrrhos—Lysimenes, Chaeron, and Pylades—are said to have been present at the betrothal: but this is improbable (§§ 26, 27); and, moreover,
they say that the daughter of Pyrrhos was named Kleitarete, not Phile (§§ 30—34)
24
. It is strange, too, if Nikodemos gave no dowry, since a dowry would have bound Pyrrhos more firmly to his sister (§§ 28, 29); or that, if he gave any, he did not record the amount; since no dowry given without specification of value (
ἀτίμητος) can afterwards be recovered
25
(§§ 35—39).
If Phile was legitimate, there were at least three earlier moments at which her legitimacy ought to have been asserted:—1. When, at the death of Pyrrhos, Endios claimed the estate (
ἐπεδικάζετο). 2. When Endios gave Phile in marriage to Xenokles. Nikodemos, by an information laid before the archon (
εἰσαγγελία), might then have vindicated the rights of the heiress. 3. When, in the first instance, Pyrrhos adopted Endios with a view to making him his heir
26
(§§ 40—56).
Xenokles and Nikodemos seem to ignore the adoption of Endios by Pyrrhos. Phile ought to have brought an action against Endios within five years of her father's death (§ 58); or, at the death of Endios, have claimed the property as her brother's. On any supposition, the course of procedure has been irregular. A legitimate child does not
claim (
ἐπιδικάζεται, § 59) a parent's property, but simply enters upon it (
βαδίζει εἰς τὰ πατρῷα, § 62). This is what Phile should have done. A rival claimant would have opposed her at his peril (§§ 57—62).
Pyrrhos, if he had had a true-born daughter, would have had no motive for adopting Endios. It can be shown that, at the time of his alleged marriage, he neither gave a wedding-feast to his clansmen (
γαμηλίαν εἰσήνεγκε, § 76), nor provided the women of his deme with the means of celebrating the Thesmophoria.—Witnesses: brief recapitulation (§§ 72—80).
If Phile had been legitimate, Endios, as merely the
adoptive son of Pyrrhos, must have married her before he could legally take the inheritance (§ 69). And, if Endios and his brother had declined to marry her, the maternal uncles of Pyrrhos at least could not have suffered Phile to marry Xenokles, a stranger in blood: one of them must have married her himself (§§ 63—71).
II. 3. On the Estate of Philoktemon. [Or. VI.]
Euktemon and his wife, the daughter of Mixiades, had three sons,—Philoktemon, Hegemon and Ergamenes; and two daughters, of whom one married Phanostratos, the other Chaereas. Euktemon, when an elderly man, formed an attachment to a freedwoman named Akte, who managed a lodging-house belonging to him in the Kerameikos. At last he left his home, divorced his wife, and lived altogether there. Akte had two sons,—the children, according to the speaker, of one Dion, a freedman. She persuaded Euktemon to enrol the eldest of these boys in his phratria, as his own son. Philoktemon protested; but was at length induced to consent, on the condition that Akte's son was to inherit only one of Euktemon's farms. Soon afterwards Philoktemon was killed in a battle at Chios, leaving a will by which his nephew, the son of Phanostratos, was declared his adopted son and heir. Several years later (§ 27), Euktemon drew up a will, embodying the terms on which Akte's son had been adopted, as agreed on between himself and Philoktemon, and deposited this with a friend Pythodoros.
About two years later (§ 29), Androkles and Antidoros, kinsmen of Euktemon, conspired with Akte. They persuaded Euktemon to cancel the will deposited with Pythodoros, and to sell his land and house-property. They even alleged that the sons of Akte had been adopted by Ergamenes and Philoktemon; and, as guardians of the youths, called upon the archon to administer their ward's property: but the relations exposed the fraud to the court, and the plot was defeated. Euktemon died at the age of 96. As he left no legitimate sons, nor grandsons by Ergamenes or Hegemon, Chaerestratos, as adopted son of Philoktemon, claimed Euktemon's estate. Chaerestratos was opposed by Androkles and Antidoros. Androkles had at different times put forward two different and inconsistent claims:— 1. That he should receive in marriage, as nearest kinsman, the widow of Chaereas, with 1/5th of Euktemon's estate: 2. That the two sons supposed to be Akte's were legitimate sons of Euktemon by Kallippe, daughter of Pistoxenos; that the will of Philoktemon, adopting Chaerestratos, was a fiction; and that, therefore, the whole estate both of Euktemon and of Philoktemon should go to these sons of Kallippe. On this second ground, Androkles put in a protest (
διαμαρτυρία) against the claim of Chaerestratos. Chaerestratos then indicted Androkles for perjury. The speaker here is supporting the indictment. But his speech contains the whole case. Chaerestratos appears to have been hindered by diffidence, or by a grandson's piety, from saying more than a few prefatory words.
It is now fifty-two years since the Athenian
30
armament sailed for Sicily in the archonship of Arimnestos (§ 14). Arimnestos was archon Ol. 91. 1—from July, 416 B. C., to July, 415. The expedition sailed in May, 415. The date is therefore Ol. 104. 1, 364—3.
The inner chronology requires attention.
31
Philoktemon, when trierarch, was killed in battle ‘near (
περί) Chios’ § 27. Dobree suggests the battle of Arginusae, 406 B. C.
32
Sir William Jones suggests one of the engagements which followed the revolt of Chios in 412 B.C.
33
Now, the elder of Akte's two sons is said (§ 14) to be, in 363, ‘not more than twenty.’ But this was the boy whose admission into Euktemon's phratria had been opposed by Philoktemon (§ 22). ‘Not more than twenty’—
οὔπω ὑπὲρ εἴκοσιν ἔτη—sounds suspicious. But, on the other hand, we can hardly suppose that the youth was fortythree or forty-nine. Neither 406 nor 412 B. C., therefore, is admissible. What, then, was this fight ‘near Chios’? In the latter part of 390 B. C. Thrasybulos the Steirian was sent out with forty ships against Teleutias. He went first to the Hellespont: then to Lesbos: then, descending the coast of Asia Minor, ‘he brought over some of the cities, and, plundering money for his soldiers from those which did not come over, he hastened to Rhodes
34
.’ May it not have been then—early in 389—in some skirmish near Chios, that Philoktemon was killed? Akte's eldest son was therefore, in 363, really about 27. The annals of the speech will stand thus:—
460 B. C.? Birth of Euktemon.
415. The speaker goes with Phanostratos
35
on the Sicilian expedition (§ 1).
389. Death of Philoktemon.
378. ‘Long after’ Philoktemon's death (
ὕστερον χρόνῳ) Phanostratos sails as trierarch with Timotheos (§ 27).
376. Two years later (§ 29), Euktemon is persuaded to cancel the will deposited with Pythodoros in 378.
364? Death of Euktemon, aged 96 (§ 18).
363. This trial.
After explaining that he appears as a friend of
36
Chaerestratos and his father Phanostratos, the speaker shortly states the case. He calls witnesses to prove that Philoktemon had made a will in favour of Chaerestratos, and cites a law to show that he was entitled to do so (§§ 1—9).
Androkles and Antidoros pretend that the two youths, their clients, are legitimate sons of Euktemon by his second wife, Kallippe. This story is refuted (§§ 10—16). These youths are the sons of a freedwoman named Akte—as she said, by one Dion. The eldest of them was, indeed, enrolled by Euktemon among his phratores; but after opposition
37
, and under conditions (§§ 17—26). The various intrigues by which Akte and her accomplices sought to obtain Euktemon's property are related in detail
38
(§§ 27—42).
Androkles has at different times made two assertions:— 1. That his clients were legitimate sons of Euktemon: 2. That they were adopted sons of Philoktemon and Ergamenes. Now this alleged adoption would exclude them from succession to Euktemon's estate. The law forbids an adopted son to
return (
ἐπανιέναι) into the family out of which he was adopted; though, if he leave a legitimate son, that son may so return (§ 44). Again:—Androkles has claimed in marriage the widow of Chaereas, with one-fifth of her father Euktemon's estate. But this claim is inconsistent with the heirship of his clients (§§ 43—61). Epilogue (§§ 62—65).
The Attic Orators from Antiphon to Isaeos. Sir Richard C. Jebb. London. 1876.
Sponsored by Perseus Project, Tufts University.
Funding provided by National Endowment for the Humanities.