On The Estate of Aristarchus

This is the injury, this the manner, gentlemen, in which my mother was deprived of her fortune. Subsequently Aristomenes gave my mother in marriage to my father. On the death of Cyronides, they introduced Xenaenetus's brother[*](i.e., Aristarchus II.) as the adopted son of Aristarchus (I.), a proceeding which cannot be justified by any law, as I will demonstrate to you by many proofs.

I will produce witnesses to testify, in the first place, that Cyronides entered by adoption into the family of Xenaenetus (I.) and belonged to that family at the time of his death; secondly, that Aristarchus (I.), to whom this estate belonged, predeceased his son Demochares, and that Demochares died while yet a minor, as did also the other sister, with the result that the estate devolved on to my mother. Please summon the witnesses to these facts.

Witnesses

Thus, gentlemen, the estate now in question belonged to my mother from the beginning, since Cyronides was adopted out of the family into that of Xenaenetus (I.), and his father, Aristarchus (I.), left his property to his son Demochares, who left it to his own sister, my mother. But since they are so exceedingly impudent and claim this fortune against all right, you must see, gentlemen, that no law whatever authorized the introduction of Aristarchus (the younger) into the ward of Aristarchus (the elder); if you see this, you will clearly apprehend that the illegal detainer of the property had no right to dispose of it either.

I think that you are all aware, gentlemen, that the introduction of adopted children is always carried out by a will, the testator simultaneously devising his estate and adopting the son, and that this is the only legal method. If, therefore, anyone shall assert that Aristarchus (I.) himself made a will, he will be saying what is not true; for, while he possessed a legitimate son, Demochares, he could not have wished to do so and he was not permitted to devise his property to anyone else. Again, if they declare that Demochares adopted Aristarchus (II.) after the death of Aristarchus (I.), they will likewise be lying.

For a minor is not allowed to make a will; for the law expressly forbids any child—or woman—to contract for the disposal of more than a bushel of barley. Now evidence has been given you that Aristarchus (I.) predeceased his son Demochares and that the latter died after his father; and so, even supposing they had made wills, Aristarchus (II.) could never have inherited this property under their wills.[*](Which would be invalid because Aristarchus (I.) could not make a will in favor of anyone except Demochares, and predeceased Demochares, who, having died under age, was incapable of making a will.) Now read the laws which show that neither of them had the right to make a will.

Laws

Nor again, gentlemen, could Cyronides give Aristarchus (I.) a son by adoption; he could, it is true, have returned to his father's family, if he had left a son in the family of Xenaenetus (I.), but there is no law which permits him to introduce a son of his own to take his place. If they assert the existence of such a law they will be lying. So, not even if they assert that the adoption was carried out by Cyronides, will they be able to point to any law which authorized him to do so; but from their own assertions it will become still more evident to you that they are illegally and impudently detaining my mother's property.