Scaife ATLAS

CTS Library / On The Estate Of Pyrrhus

On The Estate Of Pyrrhus (60-64)

urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0017.tlg003.perseus-eng2:60-64
Refs {'start': {'reference': '60', 'human_reference': 'Section 60'}, 'end': {'reference': '64', 'human_reference': 'Section 64'}}
Ancestors []
Children []
prev
plain textXML
next

Our 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.

Since 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.

Let 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.

Even 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.

Such 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 husbandsand 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.[*]

Tokens

Our 1 w 3
opponents 1 w 12
then 1 w 17
have 1 w 22
pushed 1 w 28
their 1 w 33
effrontery 1 w 43
so 1 w 45
far 1 w 48
that 1 w 52
while 1 w 58
they 1 w 62
denied 1 w 68
that 2 w 72
the 4 w 75
adopted 1 w 82
son 1 w 85
need 1 w 89
obtain 1 w 95
the 5 w 98
adjudication 1 w 110
of 1 w 112
an 1 w 114
estate 1 w 120
which 1 w 125
has 1 w 128
been 1 w 132
bequeathed 1 w 142
to 1 w 144
him 1 w 147
they 2 w 152
thought 1 w 159
fit 1 w 162
to 2 w 164
claim 1 w 169
the 8 w 172
adjudication 2 w 184
of 2 w 186
her 1 w 189
father 1 w 195
s 7 w 197
estate 2 w 203
to 3 w 205
Phile 1 w 210
whom 1 w 215
they 3 w 219
allege 1 w 225
to 4 w 227
have 2 w 231
been 2 w 235
a 20 w 236
legitimate 1 w 246
daughter 1 w 254
left 1 w 258
by 1 w 260
Pyrrhus 1 w 267
Yet 1 w 271
as 2 w 274
I 1 w 275
have 3 w 279
already 1 w 286
said 1 w 290
when 1 w 295
testators 1 w 304
leave 1 w 309
legitimate 2 w 319
issue 1 w 324
their 2 w 330
children 1 w 338
need 2 w 342
not 1 w 345
demand 1 w 351
the 12 w 354
adjudication 3 w 366
of 3 w 368
their 3 w 373
patrimony 1 w 382
but 1 w 386
on 8 w 389
the 14 w 392
contrary 1 w 400
when 2 w 405
testators 2 w 414
adopt 2 w 419
children 2 w 427
by 2 w 429
will 1 w 433
such 1 w 438
children 3 w 446
must 1 w 450
obtain 2 w 456
an 3 w 458
adjudication 4 w 470
of 4 w 472
what 1 w 476
is 2 w 478
bequeathed 2 w 488
to 7 w 490
them 1 w 494
Since 1 w 500
the 17 w 503
former 1 w 509
are 1 w 512
the 18 w 515
issue 2 w 520
of 5 w 522
the 19 w 525
deceased 1 w 533
no 2 w 536
one 2 w 539
I 2 w 541
suppose 1 w 548
could 1 w 554
dispute 1 w 561
their 4 w 566
possession 1 w 576
of 6 w 578
their 5 w 583
patrimony 2 w 592
but 2 w 596
all 2 w 599
blood-relations 1 w 614
think 1 w 619
they 4 w 623
have 4 w 627
the 23 w 630
right 1 w 635
to 8 w 637
dispute 2 w 644
a 50 w 645
bequest 1 w 652
to 9 w 654
an 4 w 656
adopted 2 w 663
son 2 w 666
In 1 w 669
order 1 w 674
therefore 1 w 684
that 3 w 689
suits 1 w 694
for 3 w 697
such 2 w 701
estates 1 w 708
may 1 w 711
not 2 w 714
be 6 w 716
brought 1 w 723
by 3 w 725
any 1 w 728
chance 1 w 734
claimant 1 w 742
and 2 w 745
that 4 w 749
persons 1 w 756
may 2 w 759
not 3 w 762
dare 1 w 766
to 10 w 768
demand 2 w 774
the 25 w 777
adjudication 5 w 789
of 7 w 791
them 2 w 795
as 4 w 797
vacant 1 w 803
inheritances 1 w 815
adopted 3 w 823
sons 2 w 827
apply 1 w 832
to 11 w 834
the 27 w 837
court 1 w 842
for 4 w 845
an 12 w 847
adjudication 6 w 859
Let 1 w 863
none 1 w 867
of 8 w 869
you 1 w 872
therefore 2 w 882
imagine 1 w 890
that 5 w 894
if 1 w 897
Xenocles 1 w 905
had 1 w 908
believed 1 w 916
his 1 w 919
wife 1 w 923
to 12 w 925
be 8 w 927
a 79 w 928
legitimate 3 w 938
child 4 w 943
he 34 w 946
would 1 w 951
have 5 w 955
brought 2 w 962
a 82 w 963
suit 2 w 967
claiming 1 w 975
her 6 w 978
patrimony 3 w 987
no 7 w 990
the 29 w 994
legitimate 4 w 1004
daughter 2 w 1012
would 2 w 1017
have 6 w 1021
entered 1 w 1028
into 1 w 1032
possession 2 w 1042
of 9 w 1044
her 7 w 1047
father 2 w 1053
s 53 w 1055
estate 4 w 1061
and 4 w 1065
if 3 w 1068
anyone 1 w 1074
had 2 w 1077
tried 1 w 1082
to 14 w 1084
seize 1 w 1089
it 9 w 1091
or 9 w 1093
deprive 1 w 1100
her 9 w 1103
of 10 w 1105
it 10 w 1107
by 4 w 1109
violence 1 w 1117
he 40 w 1120
would 3 w 1125
have 7 w 1129
been 3 w 1133
ousting 1 w 1140
her 10 w 1143
from 1 w 1147
her 11 w 1150
patrimony 4 w 1159
and 5 w 1162
would 4 w 1167
have 8 w 1171
been 4 w 1175
liable 1 w 1181
not 4 w 1184
only 1 w 1188
to 15 w 1190
a 98 w 1191
civil 1 w 1196
prosecution 1 w 1207
but 3 w 1210
also 1 w 1214
to 16 w 1216
a 100 w 1217
public 1 w 1223
denunciation 1 w 1235
to 17 w 1237
the 31 w 1240
archon 1 w 1246
and 6 w 1249
would 5 w 1254
have 9 w 1258
risked 1 w 1264
his 2 w 1267
person 2 w 1273
and 7 w 1276
all 3 w 1279
his 3 w 1282
possessions 1 w 1293
Even 1 w 1298
before 1 w 1304
any 3 w 1307
action 1 w 1313
on 32 w 1315
the 32 w 1318
part 1 w 1322
of 11 w 1324
Xenocles 2 w 1332
Pyrrhus 2 w 1340
s 70 w 1342
uncles 1 w 1348
if 4 w 1351
they 5 w 1355
had 3 w 1358
known 1 w 1363
that 6 w 1367
their 6 w 1372
nephew 1 w 1378
had 4 w 1381
left 2 w 1385
a 113 w 1386
legitimate 5 w 1396
daughter 3 w 1404
and 8 w 1407
that 7 w 1411
none 2 w 1415
of 12 w 1417
us 6 w 1419
was 1 w 1422
willing 1 w 1429
to 18 w 1431
take 1 w 1435
her 12 w 1438
in 11 w 1440
marriage 1 w 1448
would 6 w 1454
never 1 w 1459
have 10 w 1463
allowed 1 w 1470
Xenocles 3 w 1478
who 2 w 1482
was 2 w 1485
an 20 w 1487
entire 1 w 1493
stranger 1 w 1501
in 12 w 1503
blood 2 w 1508
to 19 w 1510
Pyrrhus 3 w 1517
to 20 w 1520
take 2 w 1524
and 9 w 1527
marry 1 w 1532
one 6 w 1535
who 3 w 1538
belonged 1 w 1546
to 21 w 1548
them 3 w 1552
by 5 w 1554
right 2 w 1559
of 13 w 1561
kinship 1 w 1568
Such 1 w 1573
a 130 w 1574
proceeding 1 w 1584
would 7 w 1589
have 11 w 1593
been 5 w 1597
extraordinary 1 w 1610
The 1 w 1614
law 1 w 1617
ordains 1 w 1624
that 8 w 1628
daughters 1 w 1637
who 4 w 1640
have 12 w 1644
been 6 w 1648
given 1 w 1653
in 17 w 1655
marriage 2 w 1663
by 6 w 1665
their 7 w 1670
father 3 w 1676
and 10 w 1679
are 3 w 1682
living 1 w 1688
with 1 w 1692
their 8 w 1697
husbands 1 w 1705
and 12 w 1709
who 5 w 1712
can 2 w 1715
judge 1 w 1720
better 1 w 1726
than 1 w 1730
a 148 w 1731
father 4 w 1737
what 2 w 1741
is 10 w 1743
to 22 w 1745
his 4 w 1748
daughter 5 w 1756
s 85 w 1758
interest 1 w 1766
in 20 w 1770
spite 1 w 1775
of 14 w 1777
the 40 w 1780
fact 1 w 1784
that 9 w 1788
they 6 w 1792
are 4 w 1795
thus 1 w 1799
married 1 w 1806
shall 1 w 1812
if 5 w 1815
their 9 w 1820
father 5 w 1826
dies 1 w 1830
without 1 w 1837
leaving 1 w 1844
them 4 w 1848
legitimate 6 w 1858
brothers 1 w 1866
pass 1 w 1871
into 2 w 1875
the 46 w 1878
legal 1 w 1883
power 1 w 1888
of 15 w 1890
their 10 w 1895
next-of-kin 1 w 1906
and 13 w 1910
indeed 1 w 1916
it 16 w 1918
has 2 w 1921
frequently 1 w 1931
happened 1 w 1939
that 10 w 1943
husbands 2 w 1951
have 13 w 1955
been 7 w 1959
thus 2 w 1963
deprived 1 w 1971
of 17 w 1973
their 11 w 1978
own 2 w 1981
wives 1 w 1986
Though 1 w 1993
the 49 w 1996
legal 2 w 2001
principle 1 w 2010
here 3 w 2014
stated 1 w 2020
is 12 w 2022
correct 1 w 2029
it 17 w 2032
does 1 w 2036
not 5 w 2039
apply 2 w 2044
to 24 w 2046
all 6 w 2049
cases 1 w 2054
indiscriminately 1 w 2070
For 1 w 2074
example 1 w 2081
if 6 w 2084
a 175 w 2085
daughter 6 w 2093
who 6 w 2097
was 3 w 2100
an 30 w 2102
heiress 1 w 2109
married 2 w 2117
and 15 w 2120
had 5 w 2123
children 4 w 2131
her 18 w 2135
rights 1 w 2141
accrued 1 w 2148
to 25 w 2150
the 50 w 2153
children 5 w 2161
when 3 w 2165
thy 1 w 2168
came 1 w 2172
of 18 w 2174
age 3 w 2177
no 14 w 2180
doubt 1 w 2185
also 2 w 2189
if 7 w 2192
she 2 w 2195
had 6 w 2198
no 15 w 2200
children 6 w 2208
she 3 w 2212
could 2 w 2217
renounce 1 w 2225
her 19 w 2228
rights 2 w 2234
and 16 w 2237
remain 1 w 2243
with 3 w 2247
her 20 w 2250
husband 3 w 2257