by Demosthenes
[24] 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.
[25] εἰ μὲν γὰρ αὐτὸς ζῶν ἐποιήσατο, καίπερ ὄντος παρὰ τὸν νόμον τοῦ ἔργου, οὐκ ἀντιλέγομεν: ἐπειδὴ δὲ οὔτε γόνῳ ἦν αὐτῷ υἱὸς οὐδεὶς οὔτ᾽ ἐποιήσατο ζῶν, ὁ δὲ νόμος τοῖς ἐγγύτατα γένους τὰς κληρονομίας ἀποδίδωσι, πῶς οὐ δίκαιοί ἐσμεν ἡμεῖς τούτων μὴ ἀποστερηθῆναι κατ᾽ ἀμφότερα;
[25] 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?
[26] καὶ γὰρ τῷ Ἀρχιάδῃ, οὗ ἦν ἡ οὐσία τὸ ἐξ ἀρχῆς, ἐγγυτάτω γένει ἐσμὲν καὶ τῷ εἰσποιητῷ Λεωκράτει: τοῦ μὲν γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ ἐπανεληλυθὼς εἰς τοὺς Ἐλευσινίους οὐκέτι τὴν κατὰ τὸν νόμον οἰκειότητα ἔλιπεν αὑτῷ, ἡμεῖς δέ, παρ᾽ οἷς ἦν ἐν τῷ γένει, τὴν ἀναγκαιοτάτην συγγένειαν εἴχομεν, ὄντες ἀνεψιαδοῖ ἐκείνῳ. ὥστ᾽ εἰ μὲν βούλει, τοῦ Ἀρχιάδου συγγενεῖς ὄντες ἀξιοῦμεν κληρονομεῖν, εἰ δὲ βούλει, τοῦ Λεωκράτους: τετελευτηκότος γὰρ ἄπαιδος αὐτοῦ, οὐδεὶς ἡμῶν γένει ἐγγυτέρω ἐστί.
[26] 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, 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.
[27] καὶ διὰ μὲν σέ, ὦ Λεώστρατε, ὁ οἶκος ἐξηρήμωται: τῆς γὰρ οὐσίας τὴν οἰκειότητα, οὐ τῶν ἀνδρῶν τῶν ποιησαμένων διετήρεις. ἕως μέν γε τελευτήσαντος τούτου οὐδεὶς ἠμφεσβήτει τοῦ κλήρου, οὐδένα εἰσεποίεις τῷ Ἀρχιάδῃ υἱόν: ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἡμεῖς συγγενεῖς ὄντες ἥκομεν εἰς τὸ μέσον, τηνικαῦτα εἰσποιεῖς, ἵνα τὴν οὐσίαν κατάσχῃς. καὶ φὴς μὲν οὐδὲν εἶναι τῷ Ἀρχιάδῃ, πρὸς ὃν εἰσεποιήθης, διαμαρτυρεῖς δὲ πρὸς ἡμᾶς, τὸ ὁμολογούμενον γένος ἐξελαύνων: εἰ γὰρ μηδέν ἐστιν ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ, τί σὺ ἐλαττοῖ τοῦ μηδενὸς ἡμῶν κληρονομησάντων;
[27] 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?
[28] ἀλλὰ γὰρ ἡ ἀναίδεια καὶ ἡ πλεονεξία τοιαύτη ἐστὶν αὐτοῦ, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, ὥσθ᾽ ἡγεῖσθαι δεῖν ἐν Ἐλευσινίοις τε τὴν πατρῴαν οὐσίαν ἐπανελθὼν ἔχειν, ἐφ᾽ ἅ τ᾽ εἰσεποιήθη μὴ ὄντος ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ υἱοῦ, καὶ τούτων κύριος γενέσθαι. καὶ ταῦτα πάντα ῥᾳδίως διοικεῖται: πρὸς γὰρ ἀνθρώπους ἡμᾶς πένητας καὶ ἀδυνάτους ἔχων ἀναλίσκειν ἐκ τῶν ἀλλοτρίων πολὺ περίεστιν. διόπερ οἶμαι ὑμᾶς δεῖν βοηθεῖν τοῖς μὴ πλεονεκτῆσαί τι βουλομένοις, ἀλλ᾽ ἀγαπῶσιν ἐάν τις ἡμᾶς τῶν νόμων ἐᾷ τυγχάνειν.
[28] 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.
[29] τί γὰρ δεῖ ποιεῖν ἡμᾶς, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί; διὰ τριῶν τῆς ποιήσεως ἐμμενούσης, καὶ τοῦ τελευταίου ἐγκαταλειφθέντος, τούτου ἄπαιδος τετελευτηκότος, μὴ κομίσασθαι τὰ ἡμέτερ᾽ αὐτῶν χρόνῳ ποτέ; τοῦτο τοίνυν ἔχοντες τὸ δίκαιον ἐλάχομεν τοῦ κλήρου πρὸς τὸν ἄρχοντα. οὑτοσὶ δὲ Λεωχάρης προπετῶς διαμαρτυρήσας τὰ ψευδῆ, οἴεται δεῖν παρὰ πάντας τοὺς νόμους ἀποστερῆσαι ἡμᾶς τῆς κληρονομίας.
[29] 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.
[30] πρῶτον μὲν οὖν, ὅτι τά τε περὶ τὰς ποιήσεις καὶ τὸ γένος τὸ τούτων ἀληθῆ εἰρήκαμεν, καὶ ἡ λουτροφόρος ἐφέστηκεν ἐπὶ τῷ τοῦ Ἀρχιάδου μνήματι, ταύτας ὑμῖν τὰς μαρτυρίας βουλόμεθ᾽ ἀναγνῶναι: ἔπειτ᾽ ἤδη καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ σαφῶς διδάξομεν ὑμᾶς, ὥστ᾽ ἐξελέγξαι τούτους τὰ ψευδῆ διαμεμαρτυρηκότας. καί μοι λαβὲ τὰς μαρτυρίας ἃς λέγω.”Μαρτυρίαι”
[30] 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.
Take, please, the depositions of which I speak.” Depositions”
[31] ὁ μὲν τοίνυν τοῦ πράγματος λόγος καὶ τὸ ἁπλοῦν δίκαιον περὶ τῆς κληρονομίας οὕτως ἔχει, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, τῶν τε πεπραγμένων
ἐξ ἀρχῆς αὐτὰ τὰ κεφάλαια σχεδόν τι ἀκηκόατε. ἃ δὲ μετὰ τὴν τοῦ κλήρου λῆξιν πεποιήκασι καὶ ὃν τρόπον ἡμῖν κεχρημένοι εἰσίν, ἀναγκαῖον νομίζω εἰπεῖν: οἴομαι γὰρ περὶ κλήρου ἀγῶνα μηδένας ἄλλους παρανενομῆσθαι τοιαῦτα οἷα ἡμᾶς.
[31] 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.
[32] ἐπειδὴ γὰρ ἐτελεύτησεν ὁ Λεωκράτης καὶ ἡ ταφὴ ἐγένετο αὐτῷ, πορευομένων ἡμῶν εἰς τὰ κτήματα διὰ τὸ ἄπαιδά τε τὸν ἄνδρα καὶ ἄγαμον τετελευτηκέναι, ἐξήγαγε Λεώστρατος οὑτοσὶ φάσκων αὑτοῦ εἶναι. καὶ ὅτι μὲν ποιεῖν τι τῶν νομιζομένων ἐκώλυσεν ἡμᾶς τῷ τετελευτηκότι, πατὴρ ὢν αὐτὸς ἐκείνου, ἴσως ἔχει λόγον, καίπερ ὄντος παρανόμου τοῦ ἔργου: τῷ γὰρ φύσει ὄντι πατρὶ τῆς ταφῆς τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν παραδίδοσθαι εἰκός ἐστιν, ἔπειτα μέντοι καὶ τοῖς οἰκείοις ἡμῖν, ὧν ἦν συγγενὴς κατὰ τὴν ποίησιν ὁ τετελευτηκώς.
[32] 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.
[33] ἐπεὶ δὲ τὰ νομιζόμενα ἐγένετο, κατὰ ποῖον νόμον φανεῖται ἐρήμου ὄντος τοῦ οἴκου τοὺς ἐγγυτάτω γένους ἡμᾶς ἐξαγαγὼν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας; ὅτι νὴ Δία πατὴρ ἦν τοῦ τετελευτηκότος. ἀπεληλυθώς γ᾽ εἰς τὸν πατρῷον οἶκον καὶ οὐκέτι τῆς οὐσίας ἐφ᾽ ᾗ ἐγκατέλιπεν τὸ υἱόν, κύριος ὤν: εἰ δὲ μή, τί τῶν νόμων ὄφελος;
[33] 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?
[34] γενομένης οὖν τῆς ἐξαγωγῆς, ἵνα τὰ πλεῖστα παραλίπω, ἐλάχομεν πρὸς τὸν ἄρχοντα τοῦ κλήρου, οὔτε γόνῳ, ὥσπερ εἶπον, υἱέος οὐδενὸς ὄντος τῷ τετελευτηκότι, οὔτ᾽ εἰσποιητοῦ γεγενημένου κατὰ τοὺς νόμους. μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα Λεώστρατος οὑτοσὶ παρακαταβάλλει ὡς υἱὸς Ἀρχιάδου ἐκείνου, οὐκ ἐπιλογισάμενος οὔθ᾽ ὅτι ἐπανεληλύθει εἰς τοὺς Ἐλευσινίους, οὔθ᾽ ὅτι οἱ εἰσποιητοὶ οὐκ αὐτοὶ ὑφ᾽ αὑτῶν, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὸ τῶν εἰσποιουμένων καθίστανται:
[34] 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.
[35] ἀλλὰ γὰρ οἶμαι ἁπλοῦν τι διελογίσατο, δεῖν αὑτὸν καὶ δικαίως καὶ ἀδίκως ἀμφισβητεῖν τῶν ἀλλοτρίων. καὶ πρῶτον μὲν ἐλθὼν οἷος ἦν εἰς τὸν Ὀτρυνέων πίνακα τὸν ἐκκλησιαστικὸν ἐγγράφειν αὑτὸν Ἐλευσίνιος ὤν, καὶ τοῦτο διῳκεῖτο, ἔπειτα, πρὶν ἐγγραφῆναι καὶ ἐν τῷ ληξιαρχικῷ γραμματείῳ τῷ τῶν Ὀτρυνέων, μετέχειν τῶν κοινῶν, τηλικαύτην παρανομίαν προαιρούμενος παρανομεῖν ἕνεκα πλεονεξίας.
[35] 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 of the Otrynians, although he was an Eleusinian, and managed to put this through; then, before his name was entered on the adult register of the Otrynians, he sought to claim a share in the public benefits in flagrant defiance of law, because of his greed for gain.
[36] αἰσθόμενοι δ᾽ ἡμεῖς μαρτύρων ἐναντίον ἐκωλύσαμεν τὸ γιγνόμενον, καὶ ᾠόμεθα δεῖν κριθῆναι πρῶτον τὴν κληρονομίαν παρ᾽ ὑμῖν, πρὶν ἐπὶ τὸ ὄνομά τινα τὸ τοῦ Ἀρχιάδου εἰσποιηθῆναι. κωλυθεὶς δὲ καὶ ἐξελεγχθεὶς πρὸς τῷ πίνακι καὶ ἐν τῇ τῶν ἀρχόντων ἀγορᾷ ὅτι ἠδίκει πολλῶν ἐναντίον, ᾤετο δεῖν μηδὲν ἧττον βιάζεσθαι καὶ κρείττων ταῖς παρασκευαῖς τῶν ὑμετέρων νόμων γενέσθαι.
[36] 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?
[37] τί τούτου τεκμήριον; συναγαγών τινας τῶν Ὀτρυνέων ὀλίγους καὶ τὸν δήμαρχον πείθει, ἐπειδὰν ἀνοιχθῇ τὸ γραμματεῖον, ἐγγράψαι αὑτόν. καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα ἧκε Παναθηναίων ὄντων τῶν μεγάλων τῇ διαδόσει πρὸς τὸ θεωρικόν, καὶ ἐπειδὴ οἱ ἄλλοι δημόται ἐλάμβανον, ἠξίου καὶ αὑτῷ δίδοσθαι καὶ ἐγγραφῆναι εἰς τὸ γραμματεῖον ἐπὶ τὸ τοῦ Ἀρχιάδου ὄνομα. διαμαρτυρομένων δὲ ἡμῶν, καὶ τῶν ἄλλων δεινὸν φασκόντων εἶναι τὸ γιγνόμενον, ἀπῆλθεν οὔτ᾽ ἐγγραφεὶς οὔτε τὸ θεωρικὸν λαβών.
[37] 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 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.
[38] τὸν δὲ παρὰ τὸ ψήφισμα τὸ ὑμέτερον ἀξιοῦντα τὸ θεωρικὸν λαμβάνειν πρὶν ἐγγραφῆναι εἰς τοὺς Ὀτρυνέας, ὄντα ἐξ ἑτέρου δήμου, τοῦτον οὐκ οἴεσθε τοῦ κλήρου παρὰ τοὺς νόμους ἀμφισβητεῖν; ἢ τὸν πρὸ τῆς τοῦ δικαστηρίου γνώσεως οὕτως ἀδίκους πλεονεξίας διοικούμενον, τοῦτον πῶς εἰκὸς τῷ πράγματι πιστεύειν; ὁ γὰρ τὸ θεωρικὸν ἀδίκως ἀξιώσας λαμβάνειν καὶ περὶ τοῦ κλήρου τῇ αὐτῇ διανοίᾳ δῆλον ὅτι κέχρηται νυνί.
[38] 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.