Greek Texts & Translations

3.hypothesisPyrrhus had adopted one of his sister's two sons, Endius, who enjoyed the estate for more than twenty years and then died. Xenocles then sued for the property in the name of Phile, his wife, and declared upon oath that she was a legitimate daughter of Pyrrhus, the succession being claimed by Endius's mother. Xenocles was convicted of perjury. Nicodemus had also borne witness that he had given his daughter in legal marriage to Pyrrhus and that Phile was her child. The brother of Endius declares that while Phile is illegitimate, having been the child of Pyrrhus by a mistress, and that she was given as such in marriage to Xenocles. The question at issue is one of fact, and the action a charge of perjury against Nicodemus.

3.1Judges, my mother's brother, Pyrrhus, having no legitimate issue, adopted my brother Endius as his son. The latter inherited his estate and survived him by more than twenty years; and during all this long period of possession no one claimed the estate or questioned his right of inheritance. 3.2My brother having died last year, Phile, ignoring the existence of the last tenant, came forward, claiming to be the legitimate daughter of our uncle, and Xenocles of Coprus, ^note as her legal representative, demanded to be given possession of the estate of Pyrrhus, who had died more than twenty years before, having fixed the value of the estate at three talents. 3.3When our mother, the sister of Pyrrhus, claimed ^note the estate, the legal representative of the woman who was suing for the estate had the audacity to put in a protestation ^note that the estate was not adjudicable to our mother, because Pyrrhus, to whom it originally belonged, had a legitimate daughter. We denounced his protestation and brought before you the man who had the audacity to make it; 3.4and, having clearly convicted him of having given false evidence, we obtained from you a verdict for perjury against him. At the same time we convicted Nicodemus, the present defendant, before the same judges, of the most shameless lying in the evidence which he then gave, since he had the impudence to bear witness that he had given his sister in marriage to our uncle in the proper legal manner. 3.5That in the former trial Nicodemus's evidence was recognized as being false, the condemnation of the witness ^note on that occasion most clearly proves. For if the present defendant had not been recognized as having given false evidence, the other witness would have been acquitted in the suit about the protestation, and the woman whom the protestation affirmed to be my uncle's legitimate daughter would have been established as his heiress instead of our mother. 3.6But since the witness was convicted and the woman who claimed to be Pyrrhus's legitimate daughter abandoned her pretensions to the estate, it follows by absolute necessity that Nicodemus's evidence has been also condemned; for, having solemnly sworn to the truth of the same proposition, he was a party to the action for perjury which was to decide whether the woman who claimed my uncle's estate was the issue of a legitimate wife or of a mistress. You, too, will realize that this is so when you have heard our affidavit, ^note the evidence of Nicodemus, and the protestation which was overruled. 3.7Please take and read these documents to the court.Affidavits
Evidence
Protestation

It has now been shown that it was immediately apparent to all at the time that Nicodemus committed perjury; but it is proper that the falsity of his evidence should be proved before you also who are about to give your verdict on this very issue. 3.8But I desire first to ask some questions. He has deposed that he married his sister to a man who possessed a fortune of three talents; what dowry does he allege that he gave with her? Next, did this wedded wife leave her husband during his lifetime or quit his house after his death? ^note And from whom did the defendant recover his sister's dowry after the death of him to whom he has deposed that he gave her in marriage? 3.9Or, if he did not recover it, what action did he think fit to institute to obtain her maintenance or the restitution of her dowry against the man who was for twenty years the tenant of the estate? Or did he ever, during all that long period, go and make any claim upon the heir regarding his sister's dowry in the presence of any witness? I should be glad to learn what was the reason why none of these steps has been taken in favor of a woman, who, according to the defendant's evidence, was legally married. 3.10Furthermore, has anyone else taken this man's sister in legal marriage, either of those who had dealings with her before she knew our uncle, or of those who associated with her during his acquaintance with her, or of those who did so after his decease? For it is clear that her brother has given her in marriage on the same terms to all those associated with her. 3.11If it were necessary to enumerate all these persons one by one, it would amount to no small a task. If you bid me do so, I would mention some of them; but if it is as unpleasant to some of you to hear as it is to me to mention such matters, I will content myself with producing the actual depositions made at the previous trial, none of which they thought fit to contest. Yet when once they have themselves admitted that the woman was at the disposal of anyone who wished to take her, how can it be reasonably conceived that she was also a wedded wife? 3.12And indeed, since they have never impeached the evidence on this very point, they have in fact admitted all this. You, too, when you have heard the actual depositions, will understand that the defendant has obviously borne false witness, and that those who judged the case gave a proper and a legal sentence when they decided that the estate could not pass to a woman of irregular birth. Read the depositions; and you, please stop the water-clock.Depositions

3.13That the woman, whom the defendant has deposed that he gave in legal marriage to our uncle, was a courtesan who gave herself to anyone and not his wife, has been testified to you by the other acquaintances and by the neighbors of Pyrrhus, who have given evidence of quarrels, serenades, and frequent scenes of disorder which the defendant's sister occasioned whenever she was at Pyrrhus's house. 3.14Yet no one, I presume, would dare to serenade a married woman, nor do married women accompany their husbands to banquets or think of feasting in the company of strangers, especially mere chance comers. Yet, our adversaries did not think fit to make any protest against the evidence of any of those who testified to these things. And to prove that what I say is true, read the deposition to them again.Deposition

3.15Now read the depositions about those who associated with her, so that the judge may realize that she was a courtesan at anyone's disposal and that she certainly never bore a child to any other man. ^noteDepositions

3.16I beg you then to bear in mind the number of persons who have given evidence that this woman, whom the defendant has deposed that he gave in marriage to our uncle, was common to all who wished to associate with her, and that she obviously was never married to or lived permanently with anyone else. Let us next consider the circumstances in which it might be conceived that a marriage with such a woman might take place, supposing that such a thing really did happen to our uncle; 3.17for young men before now, having fallen in love with such women and, being unable to control their passion, have been induced by folly to ruin themselves in this way. How then can one obtain a clearer knowledge as to what happened than by a consideration of the evidence submitted in favor of our opponents in the former trial and the probabilities of the case itself? 3.18Now consider the impudence of their assertions. The man, who was, according to his own account, about to marry his sister to a man with a fortune of three talents, when he was arranging a matter of such importance, represents that only one witness was present on his behalf, namely, Pyretides, whose written deposition ^note was produced by the other side in the previous trial. This deposition Pyretides has disavowed and refuses to admit that he made any deposition or has any knowledge of the truth of any of the facts which it contains. 3.19We have here a striking indication that this deposition produced by our opponents is certainly forged. You all know that, when we are proceeding to a deliberate act which necessitates the presence of witnesses, we habitually take with us our closest acquaintances and most intimate friends as witnesses of such acts; but of unforeseen acts carried out on the spur of the moment, we always call in the testimony of any chance persons. 3.20When direct evidence has to be given in court, we are obliged to employ those who were actually present, whosoever they are, as witnesses; but when it is a question of obtaining a written deposition from a witness who is ill or about to go abroad, each of us summons by preference the most reputable among his fellow-citizens and those best known to us, 3.21and we always have written depositions made in the presence not of one or two only but of as many witnesses as possible, in order to preclude the deponent from denying his deposition at some future date, and to give his evidence more weight in your eyes by the unanimous testimony of many honest men. 3.22Thus, when Xenocles went to our factory at the mines at Besa, ^note he did not think it sufficient to rely on any chance person who happened to be there as witness regarding the eviction, but took with him from Athens Diophantus of Sphettus, who defended him in the former case, and Dorotheus of Eleusis, ^note and his brother Philochares, and many other witnesses, having invited them to make a journey of nearly three hundred stades from here to there; 3.23yet when, on the question of the marriage of the grandmother of his own children, he was obtaining, as he declares, a written deposition in Athens itself, he is shown to have summoned none of his own friends but Dionysius of Erchia and Aristolochus of Aethalidae. In the presence of these two men my opponents declare that they obtained the written deposition—a document of this nature in the presence of men whom no one else would trust in any matter whatsoever! 3.24Perhaps it will be urged that it was a trifling matter of secondary importance about which they say that they obtained the deposition from Pyretides, so that negligence in the affair was not surprising. How so, when the trial for perjury, in which Xenocles was defendant, turned upon this very point, as to whether his own wife was the child of a concubine or of a legitimate wife? To attest a deposition like this, if it were really true, would he not have thought fit to summon all his own friends? 3.25Most assuredly he would have done so, I should have thought, if the deposition had been genuine. We see then that he did not do so, but took this deposition before two chance witnesses; Nicodemus, however, the present defendant, says that, when he married his sister to a man with a fortune of three talents, he summoned only a single witness to accompany him! 3.26He pretends that the only person present with him was Pyretides, who denies his assertion; on the other hand, Lysimenes and his brothers, Chaeron and Pylades, declare that they were summoned by Pyrrhus when he was about to make this brilliant match and were present at the ceremony, in spite of the fact that they were uncles of the bridegroom. 3.27It is a matter for you to consider now whether their story seems to be credible. It appears to me, judging from probabilities, that Pyrrhus would have been much more likely to wish to keep the matter secret from all his friends, if he was meditating the making of a contract or the commission of an act discreditable to his family, rather than summon his own uncles as witnesses of so outrageous an act of folly.

3.28Another matter which surprises me is that there was no agreement about a dowry for the woman on the part either of him who gave her or of him who took her in marriage. ^note For, on the one hand, if Nicodemus gave a dowry, it would have been only natural that the amount of the dowry should be mentioned in the evidence of those who allege that they were present; on the other hand, if our uncle, under the influence of his passion, contracted a marriage with a woman of this character, clearly he who gave her in marriage would have been all the more careful to procure an agreement from the other party stating that he received money with her, so that it might not be in the latter's power easily to get rid of the woman whenever he wished. 3.29Also, it is probable that he who gave her in marriage would have summoned many more witnesses than the man who was marrying such a woman; for you all know that such unions are very seldom permanent. The man, then, who alleges that he gave his sister in marriage, declares that he married her to a man with a fortune of three talents without any agreement about a dowry, and the uncles have given evidence that they were present as witnesses on behalf of their nephew when he married a woman of this character without a dowry.

3.30These same uncles have deposed that they were present by invitation of their nephew at the tenth-day ceremony ^note in honor of the child who was declared to be his daughter. Here I note with the utmost indignation that the husband, in claiming her paternal inheritance on behalf of his wife, has put down her name as Phile, while Pyrrhus's uncles, alleging that they were present, deposed that her father called her Cleitarete, after her grandmother. 3.31I am amazed that the man who had lived with her for more than eight years did not know the name of his own wife. Could he not have found it out before from his own witnesses? Did his wife's mother never in all that long period tell him her daughter's name? Did his uncle, Nicodemus himself, never do so? 3.32No, her husband, instead of giving her her grandmother's name—if it was really known that this name was given her by her father—inscribed her name as Phile, and this when he was claiming the paternal inheritance for her! What was his object? Did the husband wish to deprive his wife of any title to the name of her grandmother bestowed upon her by her father? 3.33Is it not obvious, gentlemen, that the events which they deposed to have happened long ago were invented by them much later for the purpose of claiming the estate? ^note For otherwise it would have been impossible that the uncles, who were summoned, according to their own account, to the tenth-day ceremony in honor of Pyrrhus's daughter, the defendant's niece, could ever have come into court with so accurate a recollection from that distant date, whenever it was, that her father at that ceremony named her Cleitarete, 3.34but that the nearer relatives, the father and the uncle and the mother should not know the name of the child whom they declare to be Pyrrhus's daughter. They would most certainly have known it, if the fact had been true. But I shall have occasion to return to these uncles later. ^note

3.35As for Nicodemus's evidence it is not difficult to decide from the actual text of the laws that he has obviously committed perjury. For seeing that, if a man gives with a woman a sum not duly assessed in a contract, and if the wife leaves her husband or the hushand puts away his wife, the man who gave the money cannot, as far as the law is concerned, demand back what he gave but did not assess in a contract—the defendant when he states that he gave his sister in marriage without any contract regarding a dowry, is obviously proved to be making an impudent assertion. 3.36For what was likely to be the good to him of the marriage, if the husband could dismiss the wife whenever he wished? And this he certainly could do, if he had made no stipulation that he should receive a dowry with her. Would Nicodemus have married his sister to our uncle on these terms, and this, though he knew all the time that in the past she had produced no offspring, and though the dowry, if it had been assessed in a contract, was coming to him, if anything happened to her before she bore any children? 3.37Does any one of you really think that Nicodemus is so disinterested in money matters that he would neglect any of these considerations? For my part, I do not think it possible. Further, would our uncle have thought of marrying the sister of a man, who, when he was accused of usurping the rights of citizenship by a member of the ward to which he claimed to belong, obtained those rights by a majority of only four votes? And to prove the truth of what I say, read the deposition.Deposition
3.38The defendant then has given evidence that he gave his sister in marriage to our uncle without a dowry in spite of the fact that such a dowry was to come to him if anything happened to the woman before she had borne any children. Now take and read these laws to the judges.Laws

3.39Do you think that Nicodemus is so disinterested in money matters, that, if the fact which he alleges were true, he would not have provided for his own interests with scrupulous care? By heaven, I am sure he would have done so; for even those who give their womenkind to others as mistresses make stipulations in advance as to the benefits which such women are to enjoy. And was Nicodemus, when, according to his own account, he was going to give his sister in marriage, content with simply securing the requirements of a legal marriage ^note—a man who shows himself only too anxious to be dishonest for a paltry sum which he hopes to receive for speaking in court? ^note

3.40As for his dishonesty, most of you know all about it without any words from me, so that at any rate I have abundant witnesses when I say anything about him. But I should like in the first place to convict him in the following manner of the most impudent lying in this evidence of his. Come, tell me this, Nicodemus: If you had given your sister in marriage to Pyrrhus and if you knew that Pyrrhus was leaving a legitimate daughter by her, 3.41how is it that you allowed the inheritance to be adjudicated to our brother ^note without the disposal of the legitimate daughter whom you say our uncle left behind him? Did you not know that by the demand that the estate should be adjudicated an attempt was being made to bastardize your niece? For, when he claimed to have the estate adjudicated to him, he thereby sought to bastardize the daughter of him who left the estate. 3.42To go still further back, the adoption of my brother by Pyrrhus had a similar effect; for no one has the right to devise or dispose of any of his property without also disposing of any legitimate daughters whom he may have left at his decease. You will understand this when you hear the text of the laws read out. Read these laws to the judges.Laws
3.43Can you suppose that the man who has declared in evidence that he gave his sister in marriage would have allowed any of these things to be done, and, at the moment when Endius claimed to be given possession and applied to the court, would not have set up his niece's title and lodged a protestation that her paternal inheritance was not adjudicable to Endius? And yet that our brother claimed to have the estate adjudicated to him and that no one contested his claim, is proved by a deposition. Read it.Deposition

3.44When this claim then for the adjudication of the estate was made, Nicodemus did not dare to contest the succession or put in a protestation that his niece was a legitimate daughter left by Pyrrhus.

3.45Regarding this claim some lying explanation may be offered to you: the defendant may either pretend that they knew nothing about it or else may accuse us of lying. Let us ignore the latter suggestion. As regards the former, when Endius gave your niece in marriage to Xenocles, did you, Nicodemus, allow the daughter borne to Pyrrhus by his legitimate wife to be married in the quality of the child of a mistress? 3.46And did you fail to bring a denunciation in the archon's court for injury to the heiress thus maltreated by the adopted son and despoiled of her paternal inheritance, especially as this is the only class of public actions which involves no risk to the party who brings it, and anyone who wishes is allowed to defend the rights of heiresses? 3.47For no fine can be inflicted for denunciations made to the archon, even if the informants fail to receive a single vote, ^note and there are no deposits or court fees ^note paid in any impeachments; but while the prosecutors may bring an impeachment without running any risk, extreme penalties are inflicted on those who are convicted in such impeachments. 3.48If, then, the defendant's niece had been the child of our uncle by a legitimate wife, would Nicodemus have allowed her to be married in the quality of the child of a mistress? And, when this happened, would he not have lodged a denunciation before the archon that the heiress was being injured by him who thus gave her in marriage? If what you have now dared, Nicodemus, to depose, were true, you would have immediately have had punishment inflicted on him who was wronging her. Or will you pretend that you knew nothing of these circumstances either? 3.49Next, did not the dowry which was given with her awake your suspicion? This alone might well have aroused your indignation and induced you to denounce Endius, namely, that he himself was claiming as his right a fortune of three talents, but thought fit, when he was giving Pyrrhus's legitimate daughter in marriage to another man, to bestow with her a portion of only a thousand drachmas. ^note Would not this have aroused the defendant's indignation and would he not have denounced Endius? By heavens he would, if his story were true. 3.50I cannot imagine it possible that Endius, or any other adopted son, could be so foolish, or so regardless of the existing laws, as to give the legitimate daughter of the man who left the estate in marriage to another instead of marrying her himself; for he knew perfectly well that the children of a legitimate daughter have a right to succeed to the whole of their grandfather's estate. Knowing this, would anyone hand over his own property to another man, especially if it were of the value that our opponents claim? 3.51Can you imagine an adopted son being so shameless and brazen-faced as to give the legitimate daughter in marriage with a dowry of not even a tenth of her father's fortune? And if he had done so, can you imagine that her uncle, who has borne witness that he gave her mother in marriage, would have allowed it? For my part I cannot believe it; rather would he have contested the estate and put in a protestation and denounced him to the archon and taken any stronger action if it were possible. 3.52Endius then gave this woman, whom Nicodemus alleges to be his niece, in marriage in the quality of the daughter of a mistress; and the defendant did not think fit to claim the estate of Pyrrhus from Endius, or, when Endius gave his niece in marriage in the quality of the daughter of a mistress, denounce him to the archon, nor did he express any indignation at the dowry which was bestowed upon her; no, he took no action at all in these matters. Yet the laws are precise on all these points. 3.53The clerk shall read to you first of all, for the second time, the deposition about the claim for the adjudication of the estate and then that concerning the marriage of the woman. Read them to the court.Depositions

Now read the laws.Laws

Now take Nicodemus's deposition.Deposition

3.54How could an accuser establish a charge of perjury more clearly than by adducing proofs from the actual conduct of my adversaries themselves and from all the laws of our state?

I have now said most of what I have to say about the defendant. Consider now whether the conduct of the niece's husband does not provide a convincing argument that Nicodemus's evidence is false. 3.55That he married her and took her to be his wife as the daughter of a mistress, has been proved and attested and that this evidence is true, Xenocles himself has testified by his conduct over a long period. For it is evident that, if he had not received the woman in marriage from Endius as the daughter of a mistress, seeing that he had children by her who have already reached a certain age, ^note he would have claimed her patrimony on behalf of the legitimate daughter from Endius during his lifetime, 3.56especially as he was prepared to deny that the adoption of Endius by Pyrrhus ever took place; and it was because he denied it that he denounced those who have deposed that they were present when Pyrrhus made his will. And to prove that I am speaking the truth, the clerk shall read you the deposition then made. Read it to the court.Deposition

3.57Here is another proof that they do not admit that the adoption of Endius by Pyrrhus ever took place, namely, that they would never otherwise have thought of demanding the award of the inheritance to this woman, ignoring the long tenancy of the last heir. For Pyrrhus has been dead for more than twenty years, whereas Endius died in the month of Metageitnion ^note last year, in which month they promptly claimed the inheritance only two days after his death. 3.58Now the law ordains that a petition for the adjudication of an inheritance must be presented within five years of the death of the last heir. Two courses were, therefore, open to the woman, either to claim her paternal inheritance during Endius's lifetime, or else, when the adopted son had died to claim that her brother's estate should be adjudicated to her, especially if, as our opponents allege, he had given her in marriage to Xenocles as his legitimate sister. 3.59We all know perfectly well that every one of us has the right to claim the adjudication of a brother's estate, but that, if he has left legitimate children born of his body, no child need claim to have his patrimony adjudicated to him. ^note It is quite unnecessary to labor this point, for all of you, and all other citizens as well, possess your patrimonies without any adjudication by the courts. 3.60Our opponents, then, have pushed their effrontery so far that, while they denied that the adopted son need obtain the adjudication of an estate which has been bequeathed to him, they thought fit to claim the adjudication of her father's estate to Phile, whom they allege to have been a legitimate daughter left by Pyrrhus. Yet, as I have already said, when testators leave legitimate issue, their children need not demand the adjudication of their patrimony; but, on the contrary, when testators adopt children by will, such children must obtain an adjudication of what is bequeathed to them. 3.61Since the former are the issue of the deceased, no one, I suppose, could dispute their possession of their patrimony; but all blood-relations think they have the right to dispute a bequest to an adopted son. In order, therefore, that suits for such estates may not be brought by any chance claimant and that persons may not dare to demand the adjudication of them as vacant inheritances, adopted sons apply to the court for an adjudication. 3.62Let none of you, therefore, imagine that, if Xenocles had believed his wife to be a legitimate child, he would have brought a suit claiming her patrimony; no, the legitimate daughter would have entered into possession of her father's estate, and, if anyone had tried to seize it or deprive her of it by violence, he would have been ousting her from her patrimony and would have been liable not only to a civil prosecution but also to a public denunciation to the archon and would have risked his person and all his possessions.

3.63Even before any action on the part of Xenocles, Pyrrhus's uncles, if they had known that their nephew had left a legitimate daughter and that none of us was willing to take her in marriage, would never have allowed Xenocles, who was an entire stranger in blood to Pyrrhus, to take and marry one who belonged to them by right of kinship. 3.64Such a proceeding would have been extraordinary. The law ordains that daughters who have been given in marriage by their father and are living with their husbands—and who can judge better than a father what is to his daughter's interest?—in spite of the fact that they are thus married, shall, if their father dies without leaving them legitimate brothers, pass into the legal power of their next-of-kin; and indeed it has frequently happened that husbands have been thus deprived of their own wives. ^note 3.65While, then, the necessary consequence of this law is that women who have been given in marriage by their fathers are thus liable to be legally claimed, would any one of Pyrrhus's uncles, if Phile were a legitimate daughter left by him, have allowed Xenocles to take and marry a woman who belonged to them by right of kinship and thus make him heir ^note to so large a fortune instead of themselves? Do not believe it, gentlemen; 3.66no man so hates his own advantage and prefers the interest of strangers to his own. If, therefore, they pretend that the adoption of Endius annulled their rights over this woman and allege that it is for this reason that they laid no claim to her, the following questions must be put to them: First, why have they attacked those who have borne witness to the adoption of Endius by Pyrrhus if they admit that it took place? 3.67And, secondly, why did they think fit to claim the succession to Pyrrhus's estate illegally, ignoring him who was its last tenant? Furthermore, you should ask them whether any legitimate child ever thinks of requesting the court to adjudicate to him what is his own. These are the questions with which you should oppose their impudence. That the woman could be legally claimed by her next-of-kin, if she was really a legitimate daughter of the deceased, appears most evidently from the laws. 3.68The law states explicitly that, in the absence of legitimate male issue, a man can dispose of his property as he pleases, but that, if he has daughters, the legatees must take them as well. Thus a man may bequeath and dispose of his property with his daughters, but he may not either adopt a son or leave any of his possessions to anyone without also disposing of his legitimate daughters. 3.69If, therefore, Pyrrhus adopted Endius as his son without also disposing of his legitimate daughter, the adoption would have been void in the eyes of the law; if, on the other hand, he intended to give him his daughter and after adopting him on these terms left her to him, how could you, the uncles of Pyrrhus, have allowed Endius to have the estate of Pyrrhus adjudicated to him without his taking also his legitimate daughter, if he had one, especially as you testified that your nephew solemnly charged you to look after this girl? 3.70Can you say, my good friends, that this point escaped your notice? Yet when Endius betrothed the woman and gave her in marriage, did you, his uncles, allow your own nephew's daughter to be betrothed as his daughter by a mistress, though you declare that you were present when your nephew took her mother to be his wife in due legal form, and further, that you took part by invitation in the celebrations on the tenth day after her child's birth? 3.71Furthermore—and this is the worst part of your conduct—though you declare that your nephew solemnly charged you to look after this girl, your mode of looking after her was to allow her to be married as the daughter of a mistress, although, as you testified, she bore the name of your own sister.

3.72From all this, gentlemen, and from what actually happened, it is easy to see that these men attain the limit of human impudence. For why did our uncle, if he had a legitimate daughter who survived him, adopt and leave behind my brother as his son? Had he nearer relatives than us whom he wished, by adopting my brother, to exclude from the right of claiming his daughter? In the absence of legitimate sons of his own, he neither has nor ever had a single relative nearer than us; for he had no brother or brother's sons, and we were the children of his sister. 3.73But, it may be urged, he might have adopted some other kinsman and given him the possession of his estate and his daughter. Yet what need had he openly to incur the enmity of any one of his relatives, when it was in his power, if he had really married the sister of Nicodemus, to introduce the child, who has been declared to be her offspring, to the members of his ward as his own legitimate child, and leave her sole heiress to all his estate and direct that one of her sons should be introduced as his adopted son? 3.74For it is clear that, if he left her sole heiress, he would have been fully aware that one of two things was likely to happen to her: either one of us, the nearest relatives, would obtain an adjudication and take her as wife; or, if none of us wished to take her, one of these uncles who just now gave evidence, or, failing them, one of the other relatives, would, on the same principle, obtain an adjudication of her together with the whole estate and take her as his wife. 3.75By presenting, then, his daughter to the members of his ward without adopting my brother as his son, he might have obtained this result; whereas, by adopting my brother without introducing his daughter to the members of his ward, he made her illegitimate, as it was right that he should, and therefore incapable of succession, and left my brother heir to his estate. 3.76Further, to prove to you that our uncle never gave a marriage-feast and never thought fit to introduce his daughter, whom our opponents declare to be his legitimate child, to the members of his ward, though their statutes demand that this should be done, the clerk shall read you the deposition of the members of Pyrrhus's ward. Read this; and you, stop the water-clock.Deposition

Now take the deposition which shows that Pyrrhus adopted my brother.Deposition

3.77After this will you regard the testimony of Nicodemus as more worthy of credence than the evidence provided by our uncle's own acts? ^note And will anyone attempt to persuade you that our uncle made a legal marriage with this woman who was a common courtezan? No, you will never, I am sure, believe it unless Nicodemus can explain the following points, which I mentioned at the beginning of my speech; 3.78First, with what dowry does he say that he married his sister to Pyrrhus? Secondly, before what archon did this married woman give notice of having quitted her husband or his domicile? Next, from whom did Nicodemus recover her dowry, when the man had died to whom he says that he gave her in marriage? Or if, though he demanded it back, he was unable to recover in the course of twenty years, what action did he bring for alimony or for her dowry on behalf of this married woman against the tenant of Pyrrhus's estate? 3.79Furthermore, in addition to all this, let him explain to whom he married his sister at an earlier or later date and whether she had children by another man. These, then, are the questions which you must make him answer, and do not forget to interrogate him also about the marriage-feast to the members of his ward. This is among the proofs which are most damaging to his evidence; for it is obvious that if Pyrrhus was induced to marry this woman, he would also have been induced to give a marriage-feast for her to the members of his ward and to introduce to them the child, who has been declared to be this woman's daughter, as his legitimate offspring. 3.80Again in his deme, since he possessed the fortune of three talents, he would have been obliged on behalf of this wedded wife of his to entertain the wives of his fellow-demesmen at the Thesmophoria, ^note and to perform for her the other offices which the possession of such a fortune entails. It shall therefore be made clear to you that nothing of the kind has ever been done. The members of his ward have already given you their evidence; take now and read the deposition of Pyrrhus's fellow-demesmen.Deposition