Against Leochares

Leocrates, who had become son by adoption to Archiades, himself returned to the Eleusinians, to whom he originally belonged, leaving Leostratus here in the family as a lawfully born son. Even then we did not as yet disturb any of the arrangements regarding the estate, but continued as before.

Well now, Leostratus here, although he was an adopted son and had been left in the family of Archiades, himself returned, as his father had done, to the Eleusinians, leaving in his place a lawfully born son, and, in defiance of the laws, setting up the original adoption as valid through the lives of three persons.

For how could it be other than contrary to the laws, when one, being himself an adopted son, returned to his original family leaving adopted sons in his place? That is what Leostratus has done up to this day, and by this means they think to rob us of our inheritance, making profit from the estate of Archiades, and supporting their children by it, and always returning from it to the estate of their fathers, keeping that intact, while spending the other.

Nevertheless, although matters were in this condition, as I have told you, we submitted to everything. Until when? Until Leocrates, who had been left by Leostratus in the house as a son, died without issue. But since he died without issue, we, who are nearest of kin to Archiades, claim to inherit the property; and we claim that the defendant cannot, in order to rob us of what is ours, give an adopted son to the dead man who was himself adopted.

For if Leocrates had himself adopted a son during his lifetime, even though the action was contrary to law, we should have made no protest; but since he had no son born to him, nor had adopted one during his lifetime, and as the law gives inheritances to the nearest of kin, how can it be other than right that we should not be robbed of this inheritance, to which we have a double title?

For we are nearest of kin to Archiades, to whom the property originally belonged, and also to the adopted Leocrates; for his father, seeing that he has returned to the Eleusinians,[*](This does not indicate a mere change of residence. He renounced his membership in the deme Otrynê, and resumed membership in the Eleusinian deme. By so doing, he relinquished the former legal relationship.) no longer retained his legal relationship, whereas we, to whose family he had come to belong, had the closest relationship, being children of that father’s first cousin. So, if you like, we claim the inheritance as kinsmen of Archiades, or, if you like it better, as kinsmen of Leocrates; for since he died without issue, no one is nearer of kin than we.

So far as you are concerned, Leostratus, the family has become extinct; for you sought to maintain a relationship with the property, not with those who adopted you. After the death of Leocrates, so long as no one laid claim to the estate, you sought to get no one adopted as a son to Archiades; but now that we have come forward as kinsmen, then you get one adopted, that you may get possession of the property. And you declare that Archiades, into whose house you were adopted, had no property, yet you file an affidavit of objections against us, seeking to exclude his acknowledged kindred. If there is nothing in the estate, wherein do you suffer loss, if we inherit this nothing?

But the fact is, men of the jury, that his impudence and greed are such that he thinks it is legitimate for him to return to the Eleusinians and retain the estate of his fathers, and at the same time to be master of that into which he was introduced by adoption, there being no son in the family. And all this he easily managed, for over us, who are poor men and men without influence, he has a great advantage, since he is able to spend what belongs to others. I consider, therefore, that it is your duty, men of the jury, to give aid to us who are not seeking to gain an advantage over others, but who are content if we are allowed to win our legal rights.