Scaife ATLAS

CTS Library / On the Estate of Nicostratus

On the Estate of Nicostratus (0-4)

urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0017.tlg004.perseus-eng2:0-4
Refs {'start': {'reference': '0', 'human_reference': 'Section 0'}, 'end': {'reference': '4', 'human_reference': 'Section 4'}}
Ancestors []
Children []
prev
plain textXML
next

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Argument 1 w 8
Nicostratus 1 w 19
having 1 w 25
died 1 w 29
in 2 w 31
a 3 w 32
foreign 1 w 39
land 1 w 43
Hagnon 1 w 50
and 2 w 53
Hagnotheus 1 w 63
as 1 w 66
being 1 w 71
his 1 w 74
first 1 w 79
cousins 1 w 86
their 1 w 92
father 1 w 98
having 2 w 104
been 1 w 108
brother 1 w 115
to 1 w 117
Nicostratus 2 w 128
s 11 w 130
father 2 w 136
contend 1 w 145
for 2 w 148
the 6 w 151
succession 1 w 161
to 2 w 163
his 2 w 166
estate 1 w 172
against 1 w 179
Chariades 1 w 188
who 1 w 192
claims 1 w 198
to 3 w 200
be 3 w 202
heir 2 w 206
by 1 w 208
bequest 1 w 215
that 1 w 220
is 3 w 222
to 4 w 224
say 1 w 227
by 2 w 230
will 1 w 234
Isaeus 1 w 241
the 7 w 245
orator 1 w 251
being 2 w 257
a 23 w 258
kinsman 1 w 265
of 1 w 267
Hagnon 2 w 273
and 3 w 276
his 3 w 279
brother 2 w 286
speaks 1 w 293
as 2 w 295
their 2 w 300
advocate 1 w 308
This 1 w 313
statement 1 w 322
is 6 w 324
improbable 1 w 334
see 1 w 338
Introduction 1 w 350
The 1 w 354
question 1 w 362
at 10 w 364
issue 1 w 369
is 8 w 371
one 1 w 374
of 2 w 376
fact 1 w 380
Hagnon 3 w 387
here 1 w 391
and 4 w 394
Hagnotheus 2 w 404
gentlemen 1 w 414
are 1 w 418
intimate 1 w 426
friends 1 w 433
of 3 w 435
mine 1 w 439
as 3 w 442
was 1 w 445
their 3 w 450
father 3 w 456
before 1 w 462
them 1 w 466
It 1 w 469
seems 1 w 474
therefore 1 w 484
only 1 w 489
natural 1 w 496
to 6 w 498
me 4 w 500
to 7 w 502
support 1 w 509
their 4 w 514
case 1 w 518
to 8 w 520
the 16 w 523
best 1 w 527
of 4 w 529
my 1 w 531
ability 1 w 538
For 1 w 542
the 17 w 545
events 1 w 551
which 1 w 556
happened 1 w 564
in 11 w 566
a 48 w 567
foreign 2 w 574
land 2 w 578
it 2 w 580
is 9 w 582
not 3 w 585
possible 1 w 593
to 9 w 595
find 1 w 599
witnesses 1 w 608
or 10 w 610
easy 1 w 614
to 10 w 616
convict 1 w 623
our 1 w 626
adversaries 1 w 637
of 5 w 639
any 1 w 642
lies 1 w 646
which 2 w 651
they 1 w 655
may 1 w 658
tell 1 w 662
because 1 w 670
neither 1 w 677
of 6 w 679
my 2 w 681
clients 1 w 688
has 1 w 691
ever 1 w 695
been 2 w 699
to 11 w 701
the 20 w 704
country 1 w 711
in 13 w 713
question 2 w 721
but 1 w 725
the 21 w 728
events 2 w 734
which 3 w 739
have 1 w 743
occurred 1 w 751
here 3 w 755
in 14 w 757
Athens 1 w 763
seem 2 w 767
to 12 w 769
me 5 w 771
to 13 w 773
provide 1 w 780
you 1 w 783
with 1 w 787
sufficient 1 w 797
proof 1 w 802
that 2 w 806
all 1 w 809
those 1 w 814
who 2 w 817
lay 1 w 820
claim 2 w 825
to 14 w 827
Nicostratus 3 w 838
s 69 w 840
estate 2 w 846
on 12 w 848
the 23 w 851
ground 1 w 857
of 8 w 859
bequest 2 w 866
are 2 w 869
desirous 1 w 877
of 9 w 879
deceiving 1 w 888
you 2 w 891
In 2 w 894
the 24 w 897
first 2 w 902
place 1 w 907
gentlemen 2 w 917
it 6 w 920
is 10 w 922
proper 1 w 928
that 3 w 932
you 3 w 935
should 1 w 941
consider 1 w 949
the 25 w 952
different 1 w 961
names 1 w 966
attributed 1 w 976
to 15 w 978
the 26 w 981
deceased 1 w 989
and 6 w 992
determine 1 w 1001
which 4 w 1006
of 10 w 1008
the 27 w 1011
two 1 w 1014
parties 1 w 1021
has 2 w 1024
laid 1 w 1028
his 5 w 1031
claim 3 w 1036
in 17 w 1038
the 28 w 1041
more 1 w 1045
straightforward 1 w 1060
and 7 w 1063
natural 2 w 1070
manner 1 w 1076
Hagnon 4 w 1083
here 4 w 1087
and 8 w 1090
Hagnotheus 3 w 1100
described 1 w 1109
Nicostratus 4 w 1120
in 18 w 1122
their 5 w 1127
claim 4 w 1132
as 10 w 1134
the 31 w 1137
son 1 w 1140
of 11 w 1142
Thrasymachus 1 w 1154
and 9 w 1157
declare 1 w 1164
that 4 w 1168
they 2 w 1172
are 4 w 1175
his 6 w 1178
first 3 w 1183
cousins 2 w 1190
and 10 w 1193
prove 1 w 1198
these 1 w 1203
statements 1 w 1213
by 3 w 1215
witnesses 2 w 1224
Chariades 2 w 1234
and 11 w 1237
his 7 w 1240
supporters 1 w 1250
on 16 w 1253
the 34 w 1256
other 3 w 1261
hand 1 w 1265
assert 1 w 1272
that 5 w 1276
Nicostratus 5 w 1287
was 2 w 1290
the 36 w 1293
son 2 w 1296
of 12 w 1298
Smicrus 1 w 1305
and 13 w 1308
yet 1 w 1311
claim 5 w 1316
the 37 w 1319
estate 3 w 1325
of 13 w 1327
the 38 w 1330
son 3 w 1333
of 14 w 1335
Thrasymachus 2 w 1347
My 1 w 1350
clients 2 w 1357
make 1 w 1361
no 9 w 1363
pretence 1 w 1371
that 6 w 1375
they 3 w 1379
know 1 w 1383
anything 1 w 1391
of 15 w 1393
the 40 w 1396
name 2 w 1400
of 16 w 1402
Smicrus 2 w 1409
or 14 w 1411
that 7 w 1415
it 8 w 1417
has 3 w 1420
anything 2 w 1428
to 16 w 1430
do 1 w 1432
with 2 w 1436
them 2 w 1440
they 4 w 1445
declare 2 w 1452
that 8 w 1456
Nicostratus 6 w 1467
was 3 w 1470
the 43 w 1473
son 4 w 1476
of 17 w 1478
Thrasymachus 3 w 1490
and 14 w 1494
it 10 w 1496
is 14 w 1498
likewise 1 w 1506
his 8 w 1509
estate 4 w 1515
which 5 w 1520
they 5 w 1524
claim 6 w 1529
If 1 w 1532
the 45 w 1535
parties 2 w 1542
were 1 w 1546
in 22 w 1548
agreement 1 w 1557
as 18 w 1559
to 17 w 1561
the 46 w 1564
name 3 w 1568
of 18 w 1570
Nicostratus 7 w 1581
s 134 w 1583
father 4 w 1589
and 15 w 1592
were 2 w 1596
disputing 1 w 1605
only 2 w 1609
about 1 w 1614
the 48 w 1617
estate 5 w 1623
you 4 w 1627
would 1 w 1632
only 3 w 1636
have 2 w 1640
to 18 w 1642
consider 2 w 1650
whether 1 w 1657
Nicostratus 8 w 1668
on 23 w 1671
whose 1 w 1676
identity 1 w 1684
both 1 w 1688
were 3 w 1692
agreed 1 w 1698
did 1 w 1702
or 15 w 1704
did 2 w 1707
not 5 w 1710
leave 1 w 1715
a 137 w 1716
will 2 w 1720
But 1 w 1724
as 19 w 1726
it 12 w 1728
is 18 w 1730
how 1 w 1734
is 19 w 1736
it 13 w 1738
possible 2 w 1746
to 19 w 1748
assign 1 w 1754
two 2 w 1757
fathers 1 w 1764
to 20 w 1766
the 51 w 1769
man 3 w 1772
Yet 1 w 1776
this 1 w 1780
is 21 w 1782
what 1 w 1786
Chariades 3 w 1795
has 4 w 1798
done 1 w 1802
he 58 w 1805
himself 1 w 1812
claimed 1 w 1819
the 52 w 1822
estate 6 w 1828
of 19 w 1830
Nicostratus 9 w 1841
the 53 w 1844
son 5 w 1847
of 20 w 1849
Smicrus 3 w 1856
and 16 w 1860
paid 1 w 1864
the 54 w 1867
deposit 1 w 1874
for 7 w 1877
a 151 w 1878
suit 1 w 1882
against 2 w 1889
my 3 w 1891
clients 3 w 1898
when 1 w 1902
they 6 w 1906
claimed 2 w 1913
the 56 w 1916
estate 7 w 1922
of 21 w 1924
the 57 w 1927
son 6 w 1930
of 22 w 1932
Thrasymachus 4 w 1944
just 1 w 1949
as 23 w 1951
though 1 w 1957
it 16 w 1959
were 4 w 1963
a 159 w 1964
question 3 w 1972
of 23 w 1974
one 3 w 1977
and 17 w 1980
the 58 w 1983
same 1 w 1987
person 1 w 1993