Against Leochares

All the facts of the case, then, you have heard, men of the jury, all that took place at the first in connection with this inheritance, and all that occurred subsequently, as soon as we commenced our suit. It remains to speak of the affidavit itself and the laws in accordance with which we claim to inherit; and furthermore, if the water holds out and we shall not be troubling you too much, to refute the arguments which our opponents are going to advance, proving to you that they are neither just nor sound. And first let the clerk read the affidavit; and I beg you to give it close attention; for it is regarding this that your votes are presently to be cast.

The Affidavit

Well, then, the defendant has sworn, as you have heard, that the inheritance of Archiades is not open to litigation, since he has children lawfully born and rightfully established according to the statute. Let us, then, inquire if there are any, or if the defendant has sworn to what is false. The aforesaid Archiades, whose estate is in question, adopted as his son the grandfather of the one who has now sworn this affidavit; he, leaving a lawfully born son, Leostratus, the father of the defendant, returned to the Eleusinians.

After this, Leostratus here himself returned to the house of his fathers, leaving a son in the adoptive house; and the son whom he left, and who was the last of all the adopted children, has died without issue, so that the house thereby becomes extinct and the inheritance has reverted again to those originally nearest of kin.

How, then, could Archiades still have any sons, as the affidavit claims, when it is admitted that his adopted children returned to their original family and the last one left has died without issue? It follows, then, of necessity that the family is extinct. But when the family is extinct, there cannot be lawfully born sons still living. The fellow, then, has sworn that non-existent persons exist, and has written in the affidavit since he has children, alleging that he himself is one of them.

But surely, when he says lawfully born and rightfully established according to the statute, he is quibbling and defying the laws. For the lawfully born exists, when it is born of the body; and the law bears testimony to this, when it says, Lawfully born are children of a woman whom her father or brother or grandfather has given in marriage. But rightfully established the lawgiver understood of adoptions, considering that when a man, being childless and master of his property, adopts a son, this action ought to be rightful. Well, our opponent says that Archiades had no son of the body, but in the affidavit he has sworn to the words since there are lawfully born children, thus making a sworn statement that is contrary to the truth.

He admits that he is an adopted son, yet it is manifest that he was not adopted by the dead man himself; so how can you claim that this status is rightfully established according to the statute? Because, he will say, he was registered as the son of Archiades. Yes, by the arbitrary act of these men, and that only the other day, when the suit for the estate had already been instituted. Surely it is not right for a man to regard as evidence his own illegal act.

For is it not an outrageous thing, men of tlie jury, that he should state—as he will presently in his speech—that he is an adopted son, while in his affidavit he did not dare to write this? Or that, while in the affidavit the protest is made as though for a son of the body, the speech that will presently be made will be on behalf of an adopted son? If they are going to make their defence conflict with the affidavit, surely either what they say, or what they swore, is false. It was with good reason that they did not add to the affidavit mention of the adoption, for in that case they would have had to add the words adopted by so-and-so. But Archiades never did adopt them; they adopted themselves, in order to rob us of the inheritance.

Now is not their next proceeding absurd as well as outrageous?—that Leostratus here should have made his deposit for costs in the inheritance suit before the archon, as being the son of Archiades (while he was an Eleusinian, and Archiades of the deme Otrynê), but that someone else should have sworn the affidavit, as you see for yourselves, alleging that he, too, was a son of Archiades? To which of the two should you pay attention, as telling the truth?