Against Leochares

​In the beginning, gentlemen of the jury, Meidylides and Archiades gave their sister in marriage to Leostratus of Eleusis; and after this, from the daughter of this sister who was given in marriage was born Leocrates, the father of Leostratus here. Consider how remote a connection he is in relationship to Archiades, in whose name he has made the protestation. This being so, Archiades did not marry, but his brother Meidylides, the grandfather of this man here, did marry.

​And they had not yet divided the property, but each having sufficient means, Meidylides remained in the city, while Archiades lived in Salamis. Not long afterwards, when a journey abroad happened to be undertaken by Meidylides, my father’s grandfather, Archiades fell ill and died, while Meidylides was away, being unmarried. What is the proof of this? A water-carrier statue stands upon the tomb of Archiades.

​At this critical juncture, Leocrates, the father of Leostratus here, using the pretext of relationship on the female side, adopted himself as a son to Archiades, and thus took possession of the estate as if he had been adopted by him while he was still alive. But when Meidylides returned, he was indignant at what had happened and was ready to take legal action against Leocrates. Since, however, the relatives persuaded and entreated him to allow Leocrates to remain in the house as an adopted son to Archiades, Meidylides consented, not because he was defeated in court, but because, on the whole, he was deceived by them, and furthermore because he yielded to the persuasion of the relatives.

​And Meidylides, having acted thus, died, and Leocrates held the property of Archiades and inherited it for many years as his adopted son; and we kept quiet because Meidylides had consented to this. Not long afterwards—for to the arguments after this you must now pay very close attention, gentlemen of the jury—

​For Leocrates, who had become the adopted son of Archiades, left Leostratus here in the house as his legitimate son, and returned himself to the Eleusinians, whence he originally came. And even then, we did not yet stir any of the matters concerning the estate, but remained on the same terms.

​Furthermore, this Leostratus himself, who was an adopted son and had been left in the house of Archiades, returned in his turn, just like his father, to the Eleusinians, leaving a legitimate son behind, and thus, contrary to the laws, established the original adoption as valid through three generations.

​For how is it not contrary to the laws, when he, being himself an adopted son, returned leaving behind adopted sons? And they have continued doing this down to this day, and in this manner they expect to deprive us of the inheritance, while they farm and raise their children on the estate of Archiades, and from there always return to their paternal estate, keeping that one intact but consuming this one.

​Nevertheless, though these things were so, as I said, we submitted to it all. Until when? Until Leocrates, the son who had been left by Leostratus in the house of Archiades, died childless. Now that he has died childless, we, being the next of kin to Archiades, claim to inherit the estate, and we claim that they should not adopt a son to the deceased who was himself an adopted son, to the deprivation of our rights.

​For if he had himself adopted a son while alive, although the act would have been contrary to the law, we would not be gainsaying it; but since he had no son of his own body, nor did he adopt one while alive, and the law awards the inheritances to the next of kin, how is it not just that we should not be deprived of this on both grounds?