On The Estate of Aristarchus

Argument

A certain Aristarchus was the father of four children, Cyronides, Demochares, the mother of the speaker of this oration, and another daughter. During his lifetime he gave Cyronides in adoption to be heir of the estate of his maternal grandfather Xenaenetus, and left his other children as his own heirs. Subsequently Demochares died without issue, as also did one of the daughters, and the whole estate passed by law to the mother of the speaker. Such was the position of affairs; but, after the death of Aristarchus, Aristomenes, his brother and now the legal representative of his brother's children, gave his own daughter in marriage to Cyronides, the son of Aristarchus, who had been adopted out of the family, having promised to obtain for him the estate of Aristarchus. This he succeeded in doing; for, when a son was born to Cyronides, they first gave him his grandfather's name, calling him Aristarchus (II.), and then had him adopted into his grandfather's family, on the ground that the latter had given instructions to this effect, and Aristomenes handed over to him all his grandfather's estate. Aristarchus (II.), dying without issue, constituted his own brother Xenaenetus (II.) by will as his heir. This being so and Xenaenetus being in possession of the property of Aristarchus the elder, the son of the latter's daughter claims the estate from him, asserting that he is himself by law the sole heir to the fortune of Aristarchus the elder. For, he declares, Cyronides passed out of the family by adoption, and his father, having a legitimate son, namely, Demochares, could not adopt a child; nor were Demochares, being under age, and the other sister who predeceased him in a position to adopt a son into their father's family. Therefore, he argues, since the adoption of Aristarchus the younger was not good in law, his will could not stand either; for how could he pass on to another property which he acquired without right? The will being thus annulled, the estate ought naturally to pass to the speaker as son of the legitimate daughter of Aristarchus the elder. Such is the subject; the discussion is concerned with validity, namely, that of a written document; for the questions are whether such a will ought to stand and which party has the better claim.

I could wish, gentlemen, that, as Xenaenetus here finds it easy to lie with boldness, so I with like confidence could speak the truth to you in presenting my claim; for then, I think, it would immediately become clear to you whether we have unjustly come forward to claim the inheritance and whether our opponents have been for a long time in wrongful possession of this fortune. But, as it is, we are not on equal terms; for they are both able speakers and clever plotters, so that they have often pleaded before you on behalf of others, whereas I, so far from speaking on behalf of another, have never before pleaded on my own behalf in a private suit, and therefore deserve great indulgence at your hands.

I was obliged, it is true, owing to the impossibility of obtaining justice against my opponents, to add to my petition at the preliminary inquiry that my mother was sister of Aristarchus (II.).[*](See Introduction.) This will not, however, make your decision any the less easy, if you ask yourselves the question in the light of the laws whether the estate which Aristarchus (II.) has bequeathed to my opponent was his own or whether it was property to which he had no right. This question is a perfectly legal one; for the law ordains that a man can dispose of what is his own to anyone he likes, but it has never given anyone power over the possessions of another.

This, then, is the first point which I shall try to make clear to you, if you will give me your kind attention; for you will recognize that this estate belonged from the first, not to my opponents but to my mother, who inherited it from her father, and, secondly, that Aristarchus (II.) seized it without the sanction of any law, and that he and the members of his family are wronging my mother in violation of every law. I will try to put the matter before you, going back to a point which will enable you to form the clearest conception of the facts.

Aristarchus (I.), gentlemen, belonged to the deme of Sypalettus. He married the daughter of Xenaenetus (I.) of Acharnae, by whom he had two sons, Cyronides and Demochares, and two daughters, one of whom was my mother. Cyronides, the father of my opponent and of the other party[*](i.e., Aristarchus II.) who illegally kept possession of this estate, was adopted into another family, so that he had no further claim to the property. On the death of Aristarchus (I.), the father of these two sons, Demochares his son became his heir; but, when he died in his minority and the other sister also died, my mother became heiress to the whole of the family estate.

Thus from the beginning all this fortune really belonged to my mother; but, although she ought to have passed by marriage, together with her fortune, into the hands of her nearest relative, she is being abominably treated. For Aristomenes, the brother of Aristarchus the elder, having a son and a daughter of his own, neglected to make her his own wife or to have her married to his own son by an adjudication of the court; refusing both these alternatives, he gave his own daughter in marriage to Cyronides, endowing her with the fortune which belonged to my mother. Xenaenetus here and Aristarchus (II.), now deceased, were the issue of this marriage.