On The Estate of Apollodorus

Argument

Eupolis, Thrasyllus (I.), and Mneson were brothers. Mneson died without issue; Thrasyllus (I.) died leaving a son, Apollodorus; Eupolis, the sole survivor of the three, acted with great injustice towards Apollodorus. Archedamus, therefore, the grandfather of the man who makes the speech, being married to Apollodorus's mother after her first husband's death, pitying Apollodorus because he was an orphan, claimed a large sum of money from Eupolis on account of the wrongs committed by the latter against Apollodorus. Mindful of this kindness Apollodorus introduced Thrasyllus, the son of his half-sister and grandson of Archedamus, to his fellow-wardsmen as his adopted son. Thrasyllus (II.) had already been inscribed among the members of the families and of the ward, but had not yet been placed on the official register of the deme, when Apollodorus died. After Apollodorus's death Thrasyllus (II.) was inscribed on the register; nevertheless the daughter of Eupolis, the uncle of Apollodorus contested the succession against Thrasyllus (II.), alleging that it was not by any means in accordance with the wishes of Apollodorus that Thrasyllus had been inscribed among the wardsmen and kindred, and that the adoption was fictitious. Such is the subject of the trial; the discussion turns on a question of fact, and so, with great skill and ingenuity, the speaker explains the enmity of Apollodorus towards Eupolis, which supplies a strong presumption that he did not wish that his property should be inherited by Eupolis's daughter.

I should have thought, gentlemen, that there was one class of adoptions which could not be disputed, namely, those which are made by the adopter personally in his lifetime and in full possession of his faculties, after he has led his adopted son to the domestic shrines and presented him to his kindred and inscribed him in the official registers, and himself carried out all the proper formalities.

On the other hand, a dispute might well arise when a man, feeling that his end is near, has disposed of his property in favor of another, if anything should happen to him, and putting his wishes in a written document has sealed it up and deposited it in the custody of others. By the former method the adopter sets forth his wishes with perfect clearness, making the whole transaction valid in the manner permitted by the laws; whereas the man who commits his wishes to a sealed-up will makes them secret, with the result that claimants often think fit to contest the succession against adopted sons, alleging that the will is a forgery. It appears, however, that this distinction is of little practical value; for though my adoption was quite openly carried out, yet representatives of Eupolis's daughter have come forward to contest my right to Apollodorus's estate.

If I observed that you prefer a protestation[*](See Isaeus 2, Introduction.) to a direct action, I should have brought forward witnesses to show that the estate is not liable to adjudication, seeing that Apollodorus adopted me in the proper legal form; but since I am sensible that by the former method the rights of the case cannot fully be made known to you, I have myself come forward to explain the facts so that they may bring no charge against us of being unwilling to submit to such a trial.