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.

For what are we to do, men of the jury? When the adoption has been continued through three persons, and the one last left in the family has died without issue, are we not at the last to recover what is our own? Well then, having this just claim, we brought suit for the inheritance before the archon. But this fellow Leochares here, having lightly sworn a false affidavit, thinks that he has the right to rob us of the inheritance in defiance of all the laws.

First, then, to prove that what we have stated about the adoptions and the pedigree of these men is true, and that the water-bearer does stand upon the tomb of Archiades, we wish to read to you these depositions. After that we will instruct you plainly regarding the remaining matters as well, and so convict our opponents of having sworn a false affidavit.

(To the clerk.) Take, please, the depositions of which I speak.

The Depositions

Such is the real meaning of this affair, men of the jury, and such the legal rights of inheritance, plainly stated; and you have also heard what amounts to a summary of all that has been done from the start. But I consider it necessary to tell you also of what they have done since the suit for the inheritance was instituted, and the manner in which they have treated us; for in my opinion no other people have ever in an inheritance suit been dealt with in a manner so contrary to law as we have been.

For when Leocrates died, and his funeral had taken place, and we went to take possession of his property, since he had died without issue and unmarried, Leostratus here ejected us, declaring that it belonged to him. Now his preventing us from performing any of the proper rites for the deceased is perhaps to be excused, seeing that he was his father, although the act was contrary to law; for it is proper that the care of the funeral should be committed to the natural father, but, next after him, also to us the members of the family to whom the deceased was related by virtue of the adoption.

But after the funeral rites were finished, what law will be found to justify him, when the family was extinct, in driving us, the nearest of kin, from the estate of the deceased? Because, they will say, he was father to the dead man. Yes, but he had returned to the family of his fathers, and was no longer master of the estate over which he had left his son in charge. Otherwise what is the use of the laws?

Well, after our ejectment had taken place (to omit most of the details) we brought suit for the inheritance before the archon, inasmuch as the deceased had no son, as I stated, and had not adopted any according to the laws. After this, Leostratus here made a deposit for costs, as being the son of the aforesaid Archiades, not taking into account that he had returned to the Eleusinians, or that adopted children are made such, not by themselves but by those who adopt them.

But the truth is, I presume his one simple idea was that he must by fair means or foul lay claim to the property of others. And first he had the audacity to go and enroll himself on the assembly list[*](This was a list of all those who had the right to vote in the popular assembly (ἐκκλησία).) of the Otrynians, although he was an Eleusinian, and managed to put this through; then, before his name was entered on the adult register[*](This was the official list of the members of the deme, in which every young man who passed the scrutiny was registered when he reached the age of eighteen. Each deme had its own assembly, presided over by the demarch, or borough-president.) of the Otrynians, he sought to claim a share in the public benefits in flagrant defiance of law, because of his greed for gain.

We, seeing what was going on, called witnesses and put a stop to it, holding the view that it was necessary that the right of inheritance should first be decided in your court before anyone should be named as the adopted son of Archiades. He was thwarted then, and convicted in the presence of many witnesses of fraudulent action, both in the matter of the list, and in the assembly for the election of the deme’s officers, yet nevertheless he persisted in trying to force his way in, and by his intrigues to prove himself stronger than your laws. What is the proof of this?

He got together some of the Otrynians with the demarch, and persuaded them at the opening of the adult register to inscribe his name. And after that on the occasion of the great Panathenaea[*](The great Panathenea, the most important of all Athenian festivals, was held every four years in the month of Hecatombaeon (July).) at the time of the distribution, he came to get his admission fee, and when the other demesmen were receiving it, he demanded that it be given him also, and that he should be entered on the register under the name of Archiades. But when we entered a solemn protest, and all the others declared that what he was doing was an outrage, he went away without either having his name inscribed or receiving the admission fee.

Now do you not think that a man, who in defiance of your decree claimed the right to receive the admission fee before his name had been inscribed on the list of the Otrynians, belonging as he did to another deme, would lay claim to an inheritance in defiance of the laws? Or when a man, before the court has rendered its decision, schemes to get advantages so unjust, can you think it reasonable to assume that he relies upon the justice of his case? For he, who fraudulently claimed the right to receive the admission fee, has now obviously practised the same design regarding the inheritance.

Nay more, he even deceived the archon, when he made his deposit for costs to thwart us, and in his counter-statement declared that he was an Otrynian, when he was in fact a demesman among the Eleusinians. When, however, he failed in all these schemes, at the last election of officers the fellow got together some of the demesmen, and demanded that he be registered as the adopted son of Archiades.

Again we protested that the demesmen should give their votes only when the inheritance suit should have been decided, and not before; and to this they agreed, not on their own responsibility, but out of respect for the laws; for it seemed to them an outrageous thing that a man who had made a deposit for costs in an inheritance suit, should get himself adopted as a son while the matter was still undecided; but the thing which this fellow Leostratus contrived after this is the most outrageous of all.