<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xmlns:py="http://codespeak.net/lxml/objectify/pytype" py:pytype="TREE"><text xml:lang="eng"><body><div type="translation" n="urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0017.tlg004.perseus-eng2" xml:lang="eng"><div type="textpart" subtype="section" xml:base="urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0017.tlg004.perseus-eng2" n="18"><p>In addition to this, gentlemen, if those who claim under the will were admittedly close friends of Nicostratus, even then the conclusive proof would be lacking, though there would be a greater probability that the will could be regarded as genuine; for before now testators, being ill-disposed towards their kinsmen, have preferred strangers who were their friends to their nearest relatives by blood. But in the present case Nicostratus and Chariades were neither members of the same mess nor friends nor members of the same company,<note resp="Loeb" anchored="true">There is a lacuna in the text at this point and the sense is incomplete as it stands.</note> and on all these points we have produced witnesses before you. </p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="section" xml:base="urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0017.tlg004.perseus-eng2" n="19"><p>And consider this further point, which is of great importance and is the clearest possible proof of Chariades' impudence. Whereas he neither took up the body of his adopted father nor committed it to the flames nor collected the bones, but left all these duties to be done by complete strangers, should he not be regarded as most impious in claiming to inherit the property of the deceased, though he never performed any of the customary rites over him? </p></div></div></body></text></TEI>