On The Estate of Aristarchus

It would indeed be an extraordinary state of affairs. Again, her own father, in default of male heirs, could not have disposed of his estate without disposing of her with it; for the law ordains that he may dispose of his property to whomsoever he wishes, if he disposes of his daughters with it. But when one who has refused to take the heiress in marriage and is not her father but her cousin, introduces an heir to her fortune in violation of every law, is this to be recognized as a valid act? Who of you can possibly believe it to be so?

For myself, gentlemen, I am perfectly certain that neither Xenaenetus nor anyone else can prove that this estate does not belong to my mother, having come to her through her brother Demochares. But, if, after all, they venture to deal with the question, order them to indicate the law under which the adoption has been carried out in favor of Aristarchus (II.) and to declare who carried it out. This is a perfectly just demand. But I know that they will not be able to indicate any such law.

That the estate, then, belonged to my mother from the beginning and that she has been unjustly deprived of it by my opponents, has, I think, been sufficiently demonstrated by my arguments, by the evidence which has been produced, and by the citation of the actual laws. Indeed, these men are so perfectly well aware that they are wrongfully in possession of this fortune that they do not rest their argument solely upon the legality of the introduction of Aristarchus (II.) to the members of the ward, but also allege that Xenaenetus's father has paid a judgement-debt on behalf of the estate[*](Wyse suggests that Aristarchus I. died in debt to the state and therefore without civic rights, and that Cyronides settled his liabilities to save the estate from confiscation and the heir from the disabilities which he would inherit.) in order that, if their claim on the former ground should not seem just, it may appear that they have a good claim to the estate on the second ground.

I shall show you, gentlemen, by convincing proofs that there is no truth in what they say. For if, as they allege, this estate had been insolvent, they would never have expended any money upon it—for it was not their business to do so, but those who had the right to claim my mother's hand ought to have concerned themselves with the matter—nor would they have introduced a son as the adopted child of Aristarchus (I.) to inherit his estate, if they were not going to get any advantage but only suffer considerable loss.

Other people indeed, when they have had monetary losses, introduce their children into other families in order that they may not share in their parents' loss of civic rights; and did my opponents adopt themselves into a succession and family which was insolvent, in order that they might lose in addition what they already possessed? Nay, it is impossible the estate was unencumbered and descended to my mother, and these men, in their greed for money and their anxiety to rob her, devised all this story.

Some among you, gentlemen, may be surprised at the delay, and ask how it is that we allowed so long an interval to elapse, and, being defrauded, took no steps in the matter, and are only now putting in our claim. Now, although I think it unjust that anyone should have less than his due rights through inability or neglect to assert them—for such a consideration should not be taken into account, but only the justice or injustice of his plea—yet even for this delay, gentlemen, we can furnish an explanation.

My father received a dowry when he engaged himself to my mother and married her, but, while these men were enjoying the estate, he had no means of obtaining its restitution; for when, at my mother's instance, he raised the question, they threatened that they themselves would obtain the adjudication of her hand and marry her, if he were not satisfied to keep her with only a dowry. Now my father would have allowed them to enjoy an estate of even double the value so as not to be deprived of her.