VIII. ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΚΙΡΩΝΟΣ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
Κίρωνος ἄπαιδος γνησίων τελευτήσαντος παίδων ἀδελφιδοῦς τις αὐτοῦ κατὰ πατέρα ἀντιποιηθεὶς τοῦ κλήρου παρέλαβε τὴν οὐσίαν αὐτοῦ παρὰ τῆς γυναικός· καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα ὁ λέγων τὸν λόγον γράφεται τὸν ἀδελφιδοῦν, φάσκων θυγατριδοῦς εἶναι Κίρωνος, καὶ ὅτι ἡ γυνὴ τοῦ τετελευτηκότος ἑκοῦσα προέδωκε τὸν κλῆρον τῷ ἀδελφιδῷ, ἵνα μέρος δοῦσα αὐτῷ τὰ λοιπὰ κερδάνῃ. καὶ ἡ μὲν ὑπόθεσις αὕτη, ἡ στάσις δὲ στοχασμός· ζητεῖται γὰρ εἴτε θυγατριδοῦς ἐστιν οὗτος τοῦ Κίρωνος γνήσιος εἴτε οὔ. ἐπιπλέκεται δ᾿ αὐτῷ καὶ ἡ κατὰ ποιότητα ζήτησις. ὁ γὰρ ἀδελφιδοῦς ἠγωνίζετο, λέγων ὅτι εἰ καὶ δῶμεν ἐκείνην γνησίαν εἶναι θυγατέρα Κίρωνος, ἐπειδὴ ἐτελεύτησεν ἐκείνη, ὁ δ᾿ υἱὸς αὐτῆς ἀμφισβητεῖ νῦν, προτιμητέος ἐστὶν ὁ κατὰ πατέρα ἀδελφιδοῦς τοῦ ἀπὸ θυγατρὸς ἐκγόνου, κατὰ τὸν νόμον ἐκεῖνον, τὸν κελεύοντα προτιμᾶσθαι τοὺς ἀπὸ τῶν ἀρρένων τῶν ἀπὸ τῶν θηλειῶν. οὗτος γὰρ τεχνικώτατα πάνυ σιωπήσας τοῦτον τὸν νόμον, ἐκ τῆς τῶν τεκόντων διαφορᾶς ἀγωνίζεται, δεικνὺς ὅτι ὅσον θυγάτηρ ἀδελφοῦ οἰκειοτέρα τοῖς τελευτῶσι, τοσοῦτον ἔκγονος ἀδελφιδοῦ διαφέρει. ἔρρωται οὖν ἐνταῦθα τῷ δικαίῳ καὶ ἀσθενεῖ τῷ νομίμῳ· τὴν δὲ ἐργασίαν τῶν κεφαλαίων κατὰ τὴν οἰκείαν πάλιν ἐργάζεται δύναμιν.1
Ἐπὶ τοῖς τοιούτοις, ὦ ἄνδρες, ἀνάγκη ἐστὶ χαλεπῶς
VIII. On the Estate of Ciron
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