34
For my part, if they wished to attack the will and the deceased, I do not know what else they could have said to you, since they represent the will as incorrect and disapproved by the testator, and accuse him of being so insane that, according to them, he set more store by those who were at variance with him than by those with whom he was living on terms of the closest affection, and left all his property to those with whom in his lifetime he was not on speaking terms, while he did not consider those, whom he had treated as his closest friends, as worthy of the smallest share of his estate. Who of you, then, could vote for the validity of this will,
35
which the testator rejected as being incorrect, and which our opponents are actually ready to set aside, since they expressed their willingness to share the estate with us, and which, moreover, we can show to be contrary both to law and to justice and to the intention of the deceased?
36
You can best learn, I think, the justice of our plea from the statements of our opponents themselves. If they were asked on what grounds they claimed to inherit the property of Cleonymus, they might reply that they are somehow related to him, and that for some time he was on terms of friendship with them. Would not this statement tell in our favor rather than in theirs?
37
For if the right of succession is based on affinity, we are more closely related to him; if it is to be based on existing friendship, it is common knowledge that it was to us that he was more closely bound by affection. Thus it is from their lips rather than from ours that you must learn the justice of the case.
38
Now it would be very strange if in all other cases you were to vote in favor of those who prove themselves nearer either in kinship or in friendship to the deceased, but decide that we, who are admitted to possess both these qualifications, alone are to be deprived of all share in his property.
