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.
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.
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?
36. αἰσθόμενοι δʼ ἡμεῖς μαρτύρων ἐναντίον ἐκωλύσαμεν τὸ γιγνόμενον, καὶ ᾠόμεθα δεῖν κριθῆναι πρῶτον τὴν κληρονομίαν παρʼ 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.
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.
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 οὔτʼ ἐγγραφεὶς οὔτε τὸ θεωρικὸν λαβών.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
40. ἀντιλεγόντων δʼ ἡμῶν καὶ ἀξιούντων, ἐπειδὰν τοῦ κλήρου ἡ διαδικασία γένηται, τηνικαῦτα τοὺς δημότας τὴν ψῆφον φέρειν, πρότερον δὲ μή, τοῦτο μὲν ἐπείσθησαν οὐ διʼ 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.
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.
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 δʼ εἰς τοὺς φράτεράς πω τοὺς Ἀρχιάδου, ἀλλʼ ἐπειδὴ ἐνεγράφη, τηνικαῦτα πείσας ἕνα τινὰ τῶν φρατέρων ἐνέγραψεν εἰς τὸ φρατερικὸν γραμματεῖον.
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!
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, οὐδέτερος δʼ αὐτῶν ζῶντι, ἀλλὰ τετελευτηκότι εἰσποιεῖ αὑτόν.
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.
43. 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.
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. (To the clerk.) Please call the witnesses to come forward. The Witnesses 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.
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 τοῦτʼ 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 καθʼ ἓν ἕκαστον παρέξομαι. καί μοι κάλει τοὺς μάρτυρας δευρί. ΜΑΡΤΥΡΕΣ.
45. 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. The Affidavit 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.”
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 δʼ ἐστὶ περί τε τῆς διαμαρτυρίας αὐτῆς εἰπεῖν καὶ περὶ τῶν νόμων καθʼ οὓς ἀξιοῦμεν κληρονομεῖν· ἔτι δέ, ἂν ἐγχωρῇ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ μὴ μέλλωμεν ὑμῖν ἐνοχλεῖν, ἐξελέγξαι τὰ ὑπὸ τούτων ῥηθησόμενα, ὅτι οὔτε δίκαια οὔθʼ ὑγιῆ ἐστι. καὶ πρῶτον μὲν τὴν διαμαρτυρίαν ἀναγνώτω, καὶ σφόδρα τὸν νοῦν αὐτῇ προσέχετε· περὶ γὰρ ταύτης ἡ ψῆφος οἰσθήσεται νυνί. ΔΙΑΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΑ.
46. 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.
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 δʼ ἐγκαταλιπὼν υἱὸν γνήσιον τὸν τούτου πατέρα Λεώστρατον ἐπανῆλθεν εἰς τοὺς Ἐλευσινίους.
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.
47. μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα αὐτὸς οὑτοσὶ Λεώστρατος πάλιν ἐγκαταλιπὼν υἱὸν ᾤχετο ἀπιὼν εἰς τὸν πατρῷον οἶκον· ὁ δʼ 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.
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.
48. πῶς ἂν οὖν εἴησαν κατὰ τὴν διαμαρτυρίαν υἱεῖς ἔτι τινὲς τῷ Ἀρχιάδῃ, ᾧ οἱ μὲν εἰσποιηθέντες ὁμολογοῦνται ἐπανεληλυθέναι, ὁ δʼ 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.
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.
49. ἀλλὰ μὴν γνησίων γʼ 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.
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 “rightfully 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.
50. ποιητὸς δὲ ὁμολογῶν εἶναι, φαίνεται οὐκ εἰσποιηθεὶς ὑπὸ τοῦ τετελευτηκότος αὐτοῦ, ὥστε πῶς ἔτι σοι κύρια ταῦτʼ 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.
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.
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 δʼ 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 δʼ οὐ προσέγραψαν τὴν ποίησιν τῇ διαμαρτυρίᾳ. ἔδει γὰρ ἐγγράψαι αὐτοὺς εἰσποιησαμένου τοῦ δεῖνος· ὁ δʼ οὐκ εἰσεποιήσατο, ἀλλʼ ἑαυτοὺς εἰσποιοῦντες ἀποστεροῦσιν ἡμᾶς τῆς κληρονομίας.
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?
52. τὸ μετὰ ταῦτα τοίνυν πῶς οὐκ ἄτοπον καὶ δεινόν ἐστιν, ἅμα παρακαταβεβληκέναι τοῦ κλήρου πρὸς τῷ ἄρχοντι ὡς ὄντα αὐτὸν Ἀρχιάδου Λεώστρατον τουτονί, τὸν Ἐλευσίνιον τοῦ Ὀτρυνέως, διαμεμαρτυρηκέναι δʼ ἕτερον, ὡς αὐτοὶ ὁρᾶτε, φάσκοντα καὶ τοῦτον Ἀρχιάδου υἱὸν εἶναι; καὶ ποτέρῳ δεῖ προσέχειν ὑμῶν ὡς ἀληθῆ λέγοντι;
53. This very thing is the strongest proof of the falsehood of the affidavit—that it is not the same person who makes the claim about the same matter. And this is not strange for, I fancy, when Leostratus here made his deposit in the inheritance suit against us, the one who has now sworn the affidavit had not yet registered himself as a member of the deme. We should therefore be most cruelly treated if you should believe an affidavit made after the suit was begun.
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.
54. Nay more, Leochares has in the affidavit sworn to facts actually older than himself. For how could a person who was not yet a member of the house of Archiades when this suit for the inheritance was instituted, know anything about these matters? Moreover, if he had sworn it of himself alone, there would have been some sense in his action; he would have written what was false, but nevertheless his statement would have concerned one of an age to know. But as it is, he has written that the aforesaid Archiades had lawfully born sons, meaning, of course, his own father and the one made such by the original adoption, not taking cognizance of the fact that they had returned to their original family. It follows, then, of necessity that he has sworn to events older than himself, and not to things which have happened in his own day. Are you, then, to credit one who has dared a thing like that, as though he were speaking the truth?
54. ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ πρεσβύτερά γε αὑτοῦ διαμεμαρτύρηκεν. ὁ γὰρ μήπω ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ τῷ Ἀρχιάδου ὤν, ὅθʼ ἡ λῆξις αὕτη τοῦ κλήρου ἐγένετο, πῶς ἂν εἰδείη τι τούτων; ἔπειτʼ εἰ μὲν αὑτὸν διεμεμαρτυρήκει, εἶχεν ἂν λόγον αὐτῷ τὸ πρᾶγμα· ἀδίκως μὲν ἂν ἔγραφεν, οὐδὲν δʼ ἧττον ὑπὲρ τοῦ κατὰ τὴν ἡλικίαν γʼ ὄντος. νῦν δὲ γνησίους υἱοὺς γέγραφεν τῷ Ἀρχιάδῃ ἐκείνῳ εἶναι, τόν τε αὑτοῦ πατέρα δῆλον ὅτι καὶ τὸν κατὰ τὴν ἐξ ἀρχῆς ποίησιν, οὐκ ἐπιλογισάμενος ὅτι ἐπανεληλυθότες ἦσαν. οὐκοῦν ἀνάγκη πρεσβυτέρας πράξεις αὐτὸν καὶ μὴ τὰς ἐφʼ ἑαυτοῦ γεγενημένας διαμεμαρτυρηκέναι. εἶθʼ ὑμεῖς τῷ τοῦτο τετολμηκότι πιστεύσετε ὡς ἀληθῆ λέγοντι;
55. Ah, but he will say that he has heard from his father the facts to which he has sworn. But the law does not admit hearsay evidence, save in the case of deceased persons; whereas this fellow has dared to swear to acts done by his father, while that father is still alive. Then again, why did Leostratus here inscribe on the affidavit the name, not of himself, but of the defendant? For the older facts should have been sworn to by the older man. It was, he might say, because I have had this youth adopted as son to Archiades.
55. νὴ Δίʼ, ἀλλʼ ἀκηκοὼς τοῦ αὑτοῦ πατρὸς διαμεμαρτύρηκεν. ὁ δέ γε νόμος ἀκοὴν τῶν τετελευτηκότων κελεύει διαμαρτυρεῖν, ⟨οὐ⟩ ζῶντος τοῦ πατρὸς τὰ ὑπʼ ἐκείνου πραχθέντα. ἐπεὶ κἀκεῖνο· διὰ τί ποτε Λεώστρατος οὑτοσὶ οὐχ αὑτόν, ἀλλὰ τοῦτον ἐπεγράψατο τῇ διαμαρτυρίᾳ; τὰ γὰρ πρεσβύτερα τῶν πραγμάτων τὸν πρεσβύτερον ἔδει διαμαρτυρεῖν. ὅτι νὴ Δίʼ, ἂν εἴποι, τοῦτον [γὰρ] εἰσπεποίηκα υἱὸν τῷ Ἀρχιάδῃ.
56. Well then, you who had him adopted and concocted the whole affair ought to have rendered an account of it, and made yourself responsible for what you have done. You ought absolutely to have done so. But you evaded this, and wrote over the affidavit the name of your son here, who knew nothing of the matter. You see, then, men of the jury, that the statements in the affidavit are false, and they are admitted by these men themselves to be so. Why, it would even be right for you to refuse to listen to this man Leostratus, when he presently undertakes to make statements to which he did not venture to swear in the affidavit.
56. οὐκοῦν σὲ τὸν εἰσποιοῦντα καὶ κατασκευάζοντα τὰ πράγματα καὶ λόγον ἔδει διδόναι, γενόμενον ὑπεύθυνον ὧν πεποίηκας· πολλή γε ἀνάγκη. ἀλλὰ τοῦτο μὲν ἔφυγες, τῇ διαμαρτυρίᾳ δὲ τοῦτον οὐδὲν εἰδότʼ ἐπεγράψω. ὥστε φανερὸν ὑμῖν ἐστιν, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, τὰ διαμαρτυρούμενα μὴ εἶναι ἀληθῆ, καὶ παρʼ αὐτοῖς γε τούτοις ὁμολογεῖται. καὶ μὴν κἀκεῖνο δίκαιόν ἐστιν, μὴ λέγοντος αὐτίκα μάλʼ ἀκούειν Λεωστράτου τουτουί, ὑπὲρ ὧν γε διαμαρτυρῆσαι οὐκ ἐτόλμησεν.
57. Furthermore, that affidavits of objection are of all forms of trial the most unjust, and that those having recourse to them are most deserving of your resentment, one can see very clearly from the following facts. In the first place, they are not necessary as the other forms of procedure are, but they are instituted by the will and desire of the one swearing to them. If in the matter of disputed claims there is no other way of getting a judgement than by such an affidavit, it is perhaps necessary to make one.
57. ὡς δὲ καὶ τῶν ἀγώνων ἀδικώτατοι καὶ πλείστης ὀργῆς ἄξιοι τοῖς ἀγωνιζομένοις αἱ διαμαρτυρίαι εἰσίν, μάλιστʼ ἄν τις ἐκεῖθεν καταμάθοι. πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ οὐκ ἀναγκαίως ἔχουσιν, ὥσπερ οἱ ἄλλοι, ἀλλʼ ἐκ προαιρέσεως καὶ βουλήσεως τῆς τοῦ διαμαρτυροῦντος γίγνονται. εἰ μὲν γὰρ ὑπὲρ τῶν διαμφισβητουμένων μὴ ἔστιν ἄλλον τρόπον δίκην λαβεῖν ἢ διαμαρτυρήσαντα, ἴσως ἀναγκαῖον τὸ διαμαρτυρεῖν·
58. But, if it is possible without an affidavit of objections to obtain a hearing before all tribunals, is not the use of one a mark of recklessness and utter desperation? For the lawgiver did not make it obligatory on the contending parties, but granted them the privilege of putting in such an affidavit, if they chose, as though he were testing the character of each one of us, to see how we stand with reference to a reckless procedure.
58. εἰ δὲ καὶ ἄνευ διαμαρτυρίας πρὸς ἅπασι τοῖς συνεδρίοις ἔνεστι λόγου μὴ ἀποστερηθῆναι, πῶς οὐ προπετείας καὶ τῆς μεγίστης ἀπονοίας σημεῖον τὸ διαμαρτυρεῖν ἐστιν; οὐδὲ γὰρ ὁ νομοθέτης ἀναγκαῖον αὐτὸ ἐποίησεν τοῖς ἀντιδίκοις, ἀλλʼ ἂν βούλωνται διαμαρτυρεῖν, ἔδωκεν, ὥσπερ διάπειραν ποιούμενος τῶν τρόπων ἑνὸς ἑκάστου ἡμῶν, πῶς ποτʼ ἔχοιμεν πρὸς τὸ προπετῶς τι πράττειν.
59. Further, if it rested with those who file these affidavits, there would be neither courts of justice nor trials; for the nature of affidavits of objections is to bIock all these things and to prevent all cases from being brought into the court-room—at least so far as the will of the one swearing the affidavit goes. Therefore I think we should regard such people as the common enemies of all men, and that they should never receive any indulgence when they are on trial before you; for each one of them comes into court, not under compulsion, but having chosen to incur the risk of the oath.
59. ἔτι τοίνυν ἐπὶ τὸ τῶν διαμαρτυρούντων μέρος οὔτε δικαστήρια ἦν ἂν οὔτε ἀγῶνες ἐγίγνοντο· κωλύει γὰρ πάντα ταῦτα τὸ τῶν διαμαρτυριῶν γένος καὶ ἀποκλείει εἰσαγωγῆς ἕκαστα τῆς εἰς τὸ δικαστήριον, κατά γε τὴν τοῦ διαμαρτυροῦντος βούλησιν. διόπερ οἶμαι δεῖν κοινοὺς ἐχθροὺς τοὺς τοιούτους ἀνθρώπους ὑπολαμβάνειν πᾶσιν εἶναι, καὶ μηδέποτε τυγχάνειν αὐτοὺς συγγνώμης ἀγωνιζομένους παρʼ ὑμῖν· προελόμενος γὰρ ἕκαστος αὐτῶν τὸν ἐκ τοῦ διαμαρτυρῆσαι κίνδυνον, οὐκ ἀναγκασθεὶς εἰσέρχεται.
60. Well then, that the affidavit is false, you have learned pretty definitely from the statements contained in it and from the arguments which you have heard. But that the laws also give us this inheritance as our right, men of the jury, I wish to prove in a few words—not as though this had not been made clear to you in what I said at the outset, but that you may the better bear in mind the justice of our case, and so meet the false statements of our opponents.
60. ὅτι μὲν οὖν ἡ διαμαρτυρία ψευδής ἐστιν, καὶ ἐκ τῶν γεγραμμένων καὶ ἐκ τῶν εἰρημένων λόγων σχεδὸν ἀκριβῶς μεμαθήκατε. ὅτι δὲ καὶ οἱ νόμοι, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, ἡμῖν τὴν κληρονομίαν ἀποδιδόασι, τοῦθʼ ὑμᾶς διὰ βραχέων βούλομαι διδάξαι, οὐχ ὡς οὐ μεμαθηκότας καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἐν ἀρχῇ εἰρημένοις, ἀλλʼ ἵνα μᾶλλον πρὸς τὴν τούτων ψευδολογίαν τὰ δίκαια μνημονεύητε.
61. To sum up the matter briefly, we, since we are the nearest of kin in the male line to Archiades, to whom this estate belonged, and since of the persons whom he adopted some have gone back to the family of their fathers, and the one last left had died without issue,—in these circumstances, we, I say, claim to inherit.
61. τὸ μὲν γὰρ σύνολον, ὄντες Ἀρχιάδῃ, οὗ ἐστιν ὁ κλῆρος οὑτοσί, πρὸς ἀνδρῶν κατὰ γένος ἐγγυτάτω, καὶ τῆς ποιήσεως, ἣν ἐκεῖνος ἐποιήσατο, τῶν μὲν ἐπανεληλυθότων εἰς τὸν πατρῷον οἶκον, τοῦ δʼ ἐγκαταλειφθέντος ἄπαιδος τετελευτηκότος, τούτων δʼ οὕτως ἐχόντων ἀξιοῦμεν κληρονομεῖν, οὐδεμίαν οὐσίαν Λεωστράτου ἀφελόμενοι (οὗτοι μὲν γὰρ τὰς ἑαυτῶν ἔχουσιν), τῆς ὑπʼ Ἀρχιάδου δὲ καταλειφθείσης [καὶ] οὔσης ἐκ τῶν νόμων ἡμετέρας.
62. We are not depriving Leostratus of any property (for these men hold what is their own), but we claim the estate left by Archiades, which is ours according to the laws. For the law, men of the jury, ordains that males and the sons of males should have precedence; and such we are. Archiades had no children, and we are the ones nearest of kin to him.
62. ὁ γὰρ νόμος, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, κελεύει κρατεῖν τοὺς ἄρρενας καὶ τοὺς ἐκ τῶν ἀρρένων· οὗτοι δʼ ἡμεῖς ἐσμεν. οὐκ ἦσαν τοίνυν παῖδες ἐκείνῳ· οἱ δʼ … ὄντες ἡμεῖς ἐσμεν.
63. Further, it is surely not just that an adopted son should bring other sons into a family by adoption; he may leave in it children born to him, but in default of these he must restore the inheritance to those related by blood. That is what the laws ordain. For is it not plain that each one of you is excluded from the right of inheritance by direct descent, if this licence be granted to children by adoption? For you see that most people who adopt children do so through being cajoled by flattery and often in a spirit of contentiousness caused by family quarrels. But if an adopted son is to be permitted in defiance of the law to adopt whomsoever he pleases, inheritances will never be given to blood-relations.
63. ἔπειτα οὐ δίκαιον δήπου τὸν ποιητὸν υἱὸν ποιητοὺς ἑτέρους εἰσάγειν, ἀλλʼ ἐγκαταλείπειν μὲν γιγνομένους, ὅταν δὲ τοῦτʼ ἐπιλίπῃ, τοῖς γένεσιν ἀποδιδόναι τὰς κληρονομίας· ταῦτα γὰρ οἱ νόμοι κελεύουσιν. ἐπεὶ πῶς οὐκ ἐκκλείεται εἷς ἕκαστος ὑμῶν τῆς κατὰ γένος ἀγχιστείας, ὅταν τοῖς ποιητοῖς ἡ ἄδεια αὕτη δοθῇ; ὁρᾶτε γὰρ ὅτι ταῖς κολακείαις οἱ πλεῖστοι ψυχαγωγούμενοι καὶ ταῖς πρὸς τοὺς οἰκείους διαφοραῖς πολλάκις φιλονικοῦντες ποιητοὺς υἱεῖς ποιοῦνται· εἰ δʼ ἔσται τῷ εἰσποιηθέντι παρὰ τὸν νόμον εἰσποιεῖν ὃν ἂν βούληται, οὐδέποτε τοῖς γένεσιν αἱ κληρονομίαι δοθήσονται.
64. It was to guard against this that the lawgiver forbade a person who was himself adopted to create a son by adoption. In what manner did he declare his view regarding this? When he says “a man may return to his own family, leaving behind him a lawfully born son” he makes it plain, I take it, that it is not lawful for him to adopt; for it is impossible for a man to leave behind him a lawfully born son, unless he have a son born of his body. But you, Leostratus, claim the right to bring an adopted son into the inheritance of the dead man, who had himself been adopted into our family, just as though you were taking possession of your own property, and not that which the law declares shall be given to the nearest of kin.
64. ἃ καὶ προνοηθεὶς ὁ νομοθέτης ἀπεῖπεν τῷ ποιητῷ αὐτῷ ὄντι ποιητὸν υἱὸν μὴ ποιεῖσθαι, τίνα τρόπον διορίσας περὶ τούτων; ὅταν εἴπῃ υἱὸν γνήσιον ἐγκαταλιπόντα ἐπανιέναι, δηλοῖ δήπου φανερῶς ὅτι οὐ δεῖ ποιεῖσθαι· ἀδύνατον γάρ ἐστιν υἱὸν γνήσιον ἐγκαταλιπεῖν, ἐὰν μὴ γόνῳ γεγονὼς ᾖ τινι. σὺ τοίνυν, ὦ Λεώστρατε, ἀξιοῖς τῷ τετελευτηκότι εἰσποιητῷ εἰς τὸ ἡμέτερον γένος ὄντι ποιητὸν ἐπὶ τὸν κλῆρον εἰσαγαγεῖν, ὥσπερ ἐπὶ τὰ σαυτοῦ κτήματα καὶ οὐκ εἰς τὰ κατὰ νόμον τῷ προσήκοντι δοθησόμενα βαδίζων.
65. For ourselves, men of the jury, if the deceased had adopted anyone, even though the law does not allow it, we should have submitted; or, if he had left a will, we should also have been ready to abide by that; for from the beginning this has been our position; we made no objection to their holding the property and returning to their original family in whatever manner they pleased.
65. ἡμεῖς δέ, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, εἰ μὲν ὁ τετελευτηκὼς ἐποιήσατό τινα, καίπερ οὐ διδόντος τοῦ νόμου συνεχωροῦμεν ἂν αὐτῷ, ἢ εἰ διαθήκας κατελελοίπει, καὶ ταύταις ἂν ἐνεμείναμεν, ἐπεὶ καὶ τὸ ἐξ ἀρχῆς τοιοῦτοι ὄντες διετελοῦμεν, οὐκ ἐναντιούμενοι τούτοις ἔχουσι τὴν οὐσίαν καὶ ἐπανιοῦσιν ἄνω, καθʼ ὃν δήποτε τρόπον ἐβούλοντο.
66. Now, however, that the affair has at length been exposed both by these men themselves and by the laws, we hold that it is right for us to inherit the estate of Archiades, and that the son to be adopted should come from us who have not been adopted before, and not from them. For it was just, in my opinion, that the lawgiver, as he laid upon the nearest of kin the duty of relieving the misfortunes of their relatives, and of giving in marriage their women-folk, so also has given to these same people as their due the right of inheriting and of sharing in the good things.
66. ἐπεὶ δὲ νυνί ποτε ὑπὸ τούτων αὐτῶν καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν νόμων τὸ πρᾶγμʼ ἐξελήλεγκται, οἰόμεθα δεῖν κληρονομεῖν τῶν Ἀρχιάδου, καὶ παρʼ ἡμῶν εἶναι τὸν υἱὸν τὸν εἰσποιούμενον τῶν μὴ πεποιημένων πρότερον, μὴ παρὰ τούτων. δικαίως γὰρ ὁ νομοθέτης, οἶμαι, ὥσπερ καὶ τὰς ἀτυχίας τῶν οἰκείων καὶ τὰς ἐκδόσεις τῶν γυναικῶν τοῖς ἐγγύτατα γένους προσέταττε [ποιεῖσθαι], οὕτως καὶ τὰς κληρονομίας καὶ τὴν τῶν ἀγαθῶν μετουσίαν τοῖς αὐτοῖς ἀποδέδωκεν.
67. But that which is the most significant thing, and the thing best known to you, is this: the law of Solon does not allow an adopted son even to dispose by will of the property in the family into which he comes by adoption. And there is good reason for this, in my view; for a person who comes by legal adoption into possession of the property of another, ought not to deal with it as if it were his own private estate. No, he should act consistently with the laws, and do in each particular what the laws prescribe.
67. τὸ δὲ πάντων μέγιστον καὶ γνωριμώτατον ὑμῖν· ὁ γὰρ τοῦ Σόλωνος νόμος οὐδὲ διαθέσθαι τὸν ποιητὸν ἐᾷ τὰ ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ, οἷ ἂν ποιηθῇ. εἰκότως, οἶμαι· τῷ γὰρ κατὰ νόμον εἰσποιηθέντι ἐπὶ τὰ ἑτέρου οὐχ οὕτως ὡς περὶ τῶν ἰδίων κτημάτων βουλευτέον ἐστίν, ἀλλὰ τοῖς νόμοις ἀκολούθως, περὶ ἑκάστου τῶν γεγραμμένων ὡς ὁ νόμος λέγει.
68. “All those who had not been adopted,” says the lawgiver, “at the time when Solon entered upon office, may bequeath their property by will, as they see fit,” thus indicating that those who were adopted might not so dispose of theirs, but that they might return to their families in their lifetime, leaving a lawfully born son in their place; otherwise, in case of death, they must give back the property to those who from the first were relatives of the adoptive father.
68. ὅσοι μὴ ἐπεποίηντο φησίν ὅτε Σόλων εἰσῄει εἰς τὴν ἀρχήν, ἐξεῖναι αὐτοῖς διαθέσθαι ὅπως ἂν ἐθέλωσιν, ὡς τοῖς γε ποιηθεῖσιν οὐκ ἐξὸν διαθέσθαι, ἀλλὰ ζῶντας ἐγκαταλιπόντας υἱὸν γνήσιον ἐπανιέναι, ἢ τελευτήσαντας ἀποδιδόναι τὴν κληρονομίαν τοῖς ἐξ ἀρχῆς οἰκείοις οὖσι τοῦ ποιησαμένου.