by Demosthenes
[39] ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ τὸν ἄρχοντά γε ἐξηπάτησεν παρακαταβάλλων καὶ ἡμᾶς, καὶ ἀντεγράψατο Ὀτρυνεὺς εἶναι ἐν Ἐλευσινίοις δημοτευόμενος. ἐπειδὴ τοίνυν τούτων πάντων ἀπετύγχανεν, ταῖς παρελθούσαις ἀρχαιρεσίαις ταύταις παρασκευασάμενός τινας τῶν δημοτῶν ἠξίου οὗτος ἐγγράφεσθαι ποιητὸς υἱὸς τῷ Ἀρχιάδῃ.
[39] Nay more, he even deceived the archon, when he made his deposit for costs to thwart us, and in his counter-statement declared that he was an Otrynian, when he was in fact a demesman among the Eleusinians. When, however, he failed in all these schemes, at the last election of officers the fellow got together some of the demesmen, and demanded that he be registered as the adopted son of Archiades.
[40] ἀντιλεγόντων δ᾽ ἡμῶν καὶ ἀξιούντων, ἐπειδὰν τοῦ κλήρου ἡ διαδικασία γένηται, τηνικαῦτα τοὺς δημότας τὴν ψῆφον φέρειν, πρότερον δὲ μή, τοῦτο μὲν ἐπείσθησαν οὐ δι᾽ αὑτούς, ἀλλὰ διὰ τοὺς νόμους: δεινὸν γὰρ ἐδόκει εἶναι τὸν παρακαταβεβληκότα τοῦ κλήρου εἰσποιεῖν αὑτὸν ἔτι τῶν πραγμάτων ἀκρίτων ὄντων: ὃ δὲ μετὰ ταῦτα διοικεῖται Λεώστρατος οὑτοσί, τοῦτο πάντων δεινότατόν ἐστιν.
[40] Again we protested that the demesmen should give their votes only when the inheritance suit should have been decided, and not before; and to this they agreed, not on their own responsibility, but out of respect for the laws; for it seemed to them an outrageous thing that a man who had made a deposit for costs in an inheritance suit, should get himself adopted as a son while the matter was still undecided; but the thing which this fellow Leostratus contrived after this is the most outrageous of all.
[41] ἐπειδὴ γὰρ αὐτὸς ἀπετύγχανεν τοῦ ἐγγραφῆναι, εἰσποιεῖ Λεωχάρην τὸν αὑτοῦ υἱὸν Ἀρχιάδῃ παρὰ πάντας τοὺς νόμους, πρὶν τοῦ δήμου τὴν δοκιμασίαν γενέσθαι: οὐκ εἰσηγμένου δ᾽ εἰς τοὺς φράτεράς πω τοὺς Ἀρχιάδου, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπειδὴ ἐνεγράφη, τηνικαῦτα πείσας ἕνα τινὰ τῶν φρατέρων ἐνέγραψεν εἰς τὸ φρατερικὸν γραμματεῖον.
[41] For when he failed to get his own name inscribed, he entered his own son Leochares as an adopted son of Archiades, in defiance of all the laws, before the scrutiny of the deme had taken place. But Leochares had not yet been introduced to the clansmen of Archiades; yet when his name had been entered on the list of the deme, only then did Leostratus, by bringing influence to bear upon a certain member of the clan, get the name inscribed upon the clan register.
[42] καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα τῇ διαμαρτυρίᾳ πρὸς τῷ ἄρχοντι τοῦτον ἐπιγράφεται ὡς υἱὸν ὄντα γνήσιον τοῦ τετελευτηκότος ἔτη πολλά, τὸν πρῴην καὶ χθὲς ἐγγραφέντα. καὶ συμβαίνει ἀμφοτέρους αὐτοὺς τῆς κληρονομίας ἀμφισβητεῖν: ὅ τε γὰρ Λεώστρατος οὑτοσὶ παρακατέβαλε τοῦ κλήρου ὡς υἱὸς γνήσιος Ἀρχιάδῃ, ὅ τε Λεωχάρης οὑτοσὶ διαμεμαρτύρηκεν ὡς υἱὸς ὢν γνήσιος τοῦ αὐτοῦ πατρός,
[42] And after that, in his affidavit before the archon he inscribed Leochares as being the lawfully born son of the man who had been dead many years past — Leochares, who had been registered with the clan only a day or two before! So it results that they both lay claim to the inheritance; for Leostratus here made the deposit for costs in the inheritance suit as being the lawfully born son of Archiades, and Leochares here has filed the affidavit, as being the lawfully born son of the same father!
[43] οὐδέτερος δ᾽ αὐτῶν ζῶντι, ἀλλὰ τετελευτηκότι εἰσποιεῖ αὑτόν. ἡμεῖς δὲ οἰόμεθα δεῖν, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, ἐπειδὰν περὶ τούτου τοῦ ἀγῶνος ὑμεῖς τὴν ψῆφον ἐνέγκητε, τηνικαῦτα ἐκ τῶν κατὰ γένος ἐγγυτάτω ἡμῶν εἰσποιεῖν υἱὸν τῷ τετελευτηκότι, ὅπως ἂν ὁ οἶκος μὴ ἐξερημωθῇ.
[43] And in neither case is it to a living man, but to one that is dead, that each of them makes himself an adopted son! But in our opinion, men of the jury, you ought, when you shall have cast your vote concerning the present case, then, and not till then, to find from among us, who are nearest of kin, an adopted son for the deceased, in order that the family may not become extinct.
[44] πρῶτον μὲν οὖν, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, ὡς ἐπανῆλθεν εἰς τοὺς Ἐλευσινίους ἐκ τῶν Ὀτρυνέων Λεώστρατος οὑτοσὶ καταλιπὼν υἱὸν τῷ Ἀρχιάδῃ γνήσιον, καὶ ὅτι ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ ἔτι πρότερον τὸ αὐτὸ τοῦτ᾽ ἐπεποιήκει, καὶ ὡς ὁ καταλειφθεὶς ἄπαις τετελεύτηκεν, καὶ ὡς ὁ νῦν διαμεμαρτυρηκὼς πρότερον εἰς τοὺς δημότας ἢ εἰς τοὺς φράτερας ἐνεγράφη, τούτων ὑμῖν τὰς τῶν φρατέρων καὶ τὰς τῶν δημοτῶν μαρτυρίας ἀναγνώσεται, καὶ τῶν ἄλλων δὲ τῶν εἰρημένων, ὧν οὗτοι πεποιήκασιν, ἁπάντων ὑμῖν τὰς μαρτυρίας καθ᾽ ἓν ἕκαστον παρέξομαι. καί μοι κάλει τοὺς μάρτυρας δευρί.”Μάρτυρες”
[44] First, men of the jury, to prove that Leostratus here has returned to the Eleusinians from the demesmen of Otrynê, leaving a lawfully born son in the family of Archiades; and that his father at an earlier date had done this same thing; and that the son so left has died without issue; and that the one who has now sworn the affidavit was enrolled among the demesmen before he had been enrolled among the members of the clan — to prove these facts the clerk shall read you the depositions of the members of the clan and of the deme; and in proof of all the other things I have mentioned which these men have done I shall produce testimony concerning each several fact.
Please call the witnesses to come forward.” Witnesses”
[45] τῶν μὲν τοίνυν πραγμάτων ἁπάντων ἀκηκόατε, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, καὶ τῶν ἐξ ἀρχῆς γεγενημένων περὶ τὸν κλῆρον τοῦτον καὶ τῶν ὕστερον συμβάντων, ἐπειδὴ τάχιστα τὴν λῆξιν ἡμεῖς ἐποιησάμεθα. λοιπὸν δ᾽ ἐστὶ περί τε τῆς διαμαρτυρίας αὐτῆς εἰπεῖν καὶ περὶ τῶν νόμων καθ᾽ οὓς ἀξιοῦμεν κληρονομεῖν: ἔτι δέ, ἂν ἐγχωρῇ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ μὴ μέλλωμεν ὑμῖν ἐνοχλεῖν, ἐξελέγξαι τὰ ὑπὸ τούτων ῥηθησόμενα, ὅτι οὔτε δίκαια οὔθ᾽ ὑγιῆ ἐστι. καὶ πρῶτον μὲν τὴν διαμαρτυρίαν ἀναγνώτω, καὶ σφόδρα τὸν νοῦν αὐτῇ προσέχετε: περὶ γὰρ ταύτης ἡ ψῆφος οἰσθήσεται νυνί.”Διαμαρτυρία”
[45] 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.” Affidavit”
[46] οὐκοῦν δήπου διαμεμαρτύρηκεν οὑτοσί, ὡς ἀκηκόατε, ‘μὴ ἐπίδικον εἶναι τὸν κλῆρον τὸν Ἀρχιάδου, ὄντων αὐτῷ παίδων γνησίων κυρίως κατὰ τὸν θεσμόν.’ ἐξετάσωμεν τοίνυν, εἰ εἰσὶν ἢ τὰ ψευδῆ διαμεμαρτύρηκεν οὑτοσί. ὁ γὰρ Ἀρχιάδης ἐκεῖνος, οὗ ἐστιν ὁ κλῆρος, ἐποιήσατο υἱὸν τὸν τοῦ διαμεμαρτυρηκότος νυνὶ πάππον: ἐκεῖνος δ᾽ ἐγκαταλιπὼν υἱὸν γνήσιον τὸν τούτου πατέρα Λεώστρατον ἐπανῆλθεν εἰς τοὺς Ἐλευσινίους.
[46] 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.
[47] μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα αὐτὸς οὑτοσὶ Λεώστρατος πάλιν ἐγκαταλιπὼν υἱὸν ᾤχετο ἀπιὼν εἰς τὸν πατρῷον οἶκον: ὁ δ᾽ ἐγκαταλειφθεὶς ὑπὸ τούτου τελευταῖος ἁπάντων τῶν εἰσποιηθέντων τετελεύτηκεν ἄπαις, ὥστε γίγνεται ἔρημος ὁ οἶκος, καὶ ἐπανελήλυθεν ἡ κληρονομία πάλιν εἰς τοὺς ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐγγύτατα γένους ὄντας.
[47] 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.
[48] πῶς ἂν οὖν εἴησαν κατὰ τὴν διαμαρτυρίαν υἱεῖς ἔτι τινὲς τῷ Ἀρχιάδῃ, ᾧ οἱ μὲν εἰσποιηθέντες ὁμολογοῦνται ἐπανεληλυθέναι, ὁ δ᾽ ἐγκαταλειφθεὶς τελευταῖος ἄπαις τετελεύτηκεν; οὐκοῦν ἀνάγκη τὸν οἶκον ἔρημον εἶναι. ὁπότε δὲ ἔρημος ὁ οἶκος, οὐκ ἂν εἴησαν υἱεῖς ἔτι ἐκείνῳ γνήσιοι. οὑτοσὶ τοίνυν διαμεμαρτύρηκεν τοὺς οὐκ ὄντας εἶναι, καὶ γέγραφεν ἐν τῇ διαμαρτυρίᾳ ‘ὄντων παίδων’, ἕνα φάσκων αὑτὸν εἶναι.
[48] 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.
[49] ἀλλὰ μὴν ‘γνησίων’ γ᾽ ὅταν λέγῃ καὶ ‘κυρίως κατὰ τὸν θεσμόν’, παρακρούεται παρὰ τοὺς νόμους. τὸ μὲν γὰρ γνήσιόν ἐστιν, ὅταν ᾖ γόνῳ γεγονός: καὶ ὁ νόμος ταῦτα μαρτυρεῖ λέγων, ‘ἣν ἂν ἐγγυήσῃ πατὴρ ἢ ἀδελφὸς ἢ πάππος, ἐκ ταύτης εἶναι παῖδας γνησίους.’ τὸ δὲ ‘κυρίως’ κατὰ τῶν ποιήσεων ὁ νομοθέτης ἔλαβεν, ὑπολαμβάνων δεῖν, ὅταν τις ὢν ἄπαις καὶ κύριος τῶν ἑαυτοῦ ποιήσηται υἱόν, ταῦτα κύρια εἶναι. οὗτος τοίνυν γόνῳ μὲν οὐδένα φησὶν Ἀρχιάδῃ γενέσθαι υἱόν, διαμεμαρτύρηται δὲ ‘γνησίων ὄντων’, ἐναντίαν τῷ πράγματι τὴν διαμαρτυρίαν ποιησάμενος.
[49] 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.
[50] ποιητὸς δὲ ὁμολογῶν εἶναι, φαίνεται οὐκ εἰσποιηθεὶς ὑπὸ τοῦ τετελευτηκότος αὐτοῦ, ὥστε πῶς ἔτι σοι κύρια ταῦτ᾽ ἂν εἴη κατὰ τὸν θεσμόν; ὅτι νὴ Δία ἐγγέγραπται Ἀρχιάδῃ υἱός. ὑπό γε τουτωνὶ πρῴην βιασαμένων, ἤδη τῆς τοῦ κλήρου διαδικασίας ἐνεστηκυίας: οὐ δὴ δίκαιον ἐν τεκμηρίῳ ποιεῖσθαι τἀδίκημα.
[50] 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 “ rightfilly 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.
[51] καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖνο πῶς οὐ δεινόν ἐστιν, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, ἐπὶ μὲν τοῦ λόγου αὐτίκα μάλα φήσειν ποιητὸν εἶναι, ἐν δὲ τῇ διαμαρτυρίᾳ τοῦτο μὴ τολμῆσαι γράψαι, ἀλλὰ τὰ μὲν ἐν ταύτῃ διαμεμαρτυρημένα εἶναι ὡς ὑπὲρ υἱοῦ γόνῳ γεγονότος, τὰ δ᾽ αὐτίκα μάλα ῥηθησόμενα ὡς εἰσποιητοῦ; εἰ δὲ τὴν ἀπολογίαν ἐναντίαν τῇ διαμαρτυρίᾳ ποιήσονται, πῶς οὐκ ἢ τὸν λόγον ἀνάγκη ἢ τὴν διαμαρτυρίαν ψευδῆ εἶναι; εἰκότως δ᾽ οὐ προσέγραψαν τὴν ποίησιν τῇ διαμαρτυρίᾳ. ἔδει γὰρ ἐγγράψαι αὐτοὺς ‘εἰσποιησαμένου τοῦ δεῖνος’: ὁ δ᾽ οὐκ εἰσεποιήσατο, ἀλλ᾽ ἑαυτοὺς εἰσποιοῦντες ἀποστεροῦσιν ἡμᾶς τῆς κληρονομίας.
[51] 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.
[52] τὸ μετὰ ταῦτα τοίνυν πῶς οὐκ ἄτοπ
ον καὶ δεινόν ἐστιν, ἅμα παρακαταβεβληκέναι τοῦ κλήρου πρὸς τῷ ἄρχοντι ὡς ὄντα αὐτὸν Ἀρχιάδου Λεώστρατον τουτονί, τὸν Ἐλευσίνιον τοῦ Ὀτρυνέως, διαμεμαρτυρηκέναι δ᾽ ἕτερον, ὡς αὐτοὶ ὁρᾶτε, φάσκοντα καὶ τοῦτον Ἀρχιάδου υἱὸν εἶναι; καὶ ποτέρῳ δεῖ προσέχειν ὑμῶν ὡς ἀληθῆ λέγοντι;
[52] 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?
[53] αὐτὸ γὰρ τοῦτο τεκμήριον οὐκ ἐλάχιστόν ἐστι τοῦ ψευδῆ τὴν διαμαρτυρίαν γεγενῆσθαι, τὸ περὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ πράγματος μὴ τὸν αὐτὸν ἀμφισβητεῖν. εἰκότως: ὅτε γὰρ οἶμαι Λεώστρατος οὑτοσὶ παρακατέβαλλε τοῦ κλήρου πρὸς ἡμᾶς, οὔπω ὁ διαμεμαρτυρηκὼς νῦν ἐνεγέγραπτο δημότης εἶναι. ὥστε πάντων ἂν δεινότατα πάθοιμεν, εἰ τῇ ὕστερον τῶν πραγμάτων γεγενημένῃ διαμαρτυρίᾳ πιστεύσετε ὑμεῖς.