On The Estate of Cleonymus (45-49)

If Pherenicus or one of his brothers had died, their children, and not Cleonymus, had the prospect of becoming entitled to the property which they left behind. If, on the other hand, such a fate had befallen us, Cleonymus had the prospect of becoming heir to everything; for we had no children or other relatives, but he was a next-of-kin and most closely bound to us by ties of affection;

for which reasons the laws have given him the right of succession, and we should never have thought of making this bequest to anyone else. For we should never, I imagine, have in our lifetime placed our property in his hands in such a way that his wishes prevailed over our own in the matter of what belonged to us, and yet, at our death, have wished others to inherit it rather than our closest friend.

Thus, gentlemen, you will find us bound to Cleonymus by the double tie of mutual bequest and inheritance, while you will find my opponents acting impudently and talking of close connection and affinity, because they expect to profit thereby. If it were a question of giving anything away, there are many kinsmen and friends whom they would have preferred as nearer and dearer than him.

I will now sum up what I have said, and I beg the close attention of you all. As long as my opponents try by these arguments to prove and attempt to persuade you that this will represents Cleonymus's intentions, and that he never subsequently regretted having made it, but still wished us to receive none of his estate and to confirm the bequest to them—

yet, while stating and insisting on all these points, they never really prove either that they are nearer of kin to Cleonymus or that they were on terms of closer intimacy with him than we were—remember that they are merely accusing him and are not demonstrating to you the justice of their cause.