by Demosthenes
The deponents testify that they are relatives of Polemon, the father of Hagnias, and of Philagrus, the father of Eubulides, and of Euctemon, who was king, and that they know that Euctemon was brother by the same father to Philagrus, the father of Eubulides, and that when suit for the adjudication of the estate of Hagnias was instituted by Eubulides against Glaucon, Euctemon was still living, being first cousin to Polemon, the father of Hagnias, their fathers having been brothers, and that Euctemon did not dispute with Eubulides his title to the estate of Hagnias, nor did anyone else on the score of kinship on that occasion.” [44] “Another
The deponents testify that their father Strato was a relative of Polemon, the father of Hagnias, and of Charidemus, the father of Theopompus, and of Philagrus, the father of Eubulides, and that they heard from their father that Philagrus took for his first wife Phylomachê, the sister of Polemon, the father of Hagnias, born of the same father and the same mother, and that Philagrus had by Phylomachê a son Eubulides, and that after the death of Phylomachê Philagrus took a second wife Telesippê, and there was born a brother to Eubulides, namely Menestheus, of the same father but not of the same mother; and that when Eubulides made claim to the estate of Hagnias on the score of kinship, Menestheus did not dispute his title to the estate of Hagnias, nor did Euctemon, the brother of Philagrus, nor did anyone else on the score of kinship dispute the title of Eubulides on that occasion.” [45] “Another
The deponent testifies that his father Archimachus was a relative of Polemon, the father of Hagnias, and of Charidemus, the father of Theopompus, and of Philagrus, the father of Eubulides, and that he heard from their father that Philagrus took for his first wife Phylomachê, the sister of Polemon, the father of Hagnias, born of the same father and the same mother, and that by Phylomachê he had a son Eubulides, and that after the death of Phylomachê Philagrus took a second wife Telesippê, and that Philagrus had by Telesippê a son Menestheus, a brother to Eubulides, of the same father but not of the same mother; and that when Eubulides. made claim to the estate of Hagnias on the score of kinship, Menestheus did not dispute his claim to the estate, nor did Euctemon, the brother of Philagrus, nor did anyone else on the score of kinship dispute the title of Eubulides on that occasion.” [46] “Another
The deponent testifies that his mother’s father Callistratus was brother to Euctemon, who was king, and to Philagrus, the father of Eubulides, and that these men were first cousins to Polemon the father of Hagnias, and to Charidemus, the father of Theopompus, and that he heard from his mother that Polemon, the father of Hagnias, had no brother, but had a sister Phylomachê, born of the same father and the same mother, and that Philagrus married this Phylomachê, and they had a son Eubulides, the father of Phylomachê, the wife of Sositheus.” [47]
It was necessary to read these depositions, men of the jury, in order that we might not suffer the same experience as before, by being caught by these men unprepared. But far more convincing even than these shall be the testimony that Macartatus will give against himself, proving that neither his father Theopompus nor himself has any claim whatever to inherit anything from Hagnias, Theopompus being less near of kin, and belonging to quite a different branch of the family. [48] For suppose one should ask, men of the jury, Who is the person who disputes this boy’s title to the estate of Hagnias? I know well that he would say, Macartatus. Born of what father? Theopompus. And of what mother? Apolexis, daughter of a Prospaltian, and sister of Macartatus, also a Prospaltian. And who was the father of Theopompus? Charidemus. And of whom was Charidemus the son? Of Stratius. And of whom Stratius? Of Buselus. This, men of the jury, is the branch of Stratius, one of the sons of Buselus; and these whose names you have heard are descendants of Stratius; and among them there is not one single name of those belonging to the branch of Hagnias, or even one that is similar. [49] Now again I shall question this boy, asking who he is who contests the claim of Macartatus to the estate of Hagnias. The boy can make no other possible answer, men of the jury, than that he is Eubulides. The son of what father? Of Eubulides, the cousin of Hagnias. And of what mother? Of Phylomachê, who was the daughter of a first cousin to Hagnias on the father’s side. But of whom was Eubulides the son? Of Philagrus, the cousin of Hagnias. And of what mother? Of Phylomachê, the aunt of Hagnias. [50] And of whom was Hagnias the son? Of Polemon. And of whom Polemon? Of Hagnias. And of whom Hagnias? Of Buselus. This is another branch, that of Hagnias, one of the sons of Buselus, and here there occurs not a single name identical with those of the descendants in the branch of Stratius, or even one that is similar; but they proceed in the branch of Hagnias with their own series of names, receiving them from one another. In every respect, then, and in every way it is proved that these men belong to another branch of the family and are more remote of kin, and that they are not entitled to inherit anything of the estate of Hagnias. For to show you to whom the law-giver grants the right of succession and inheritance, the clerk will read you these laws. [51] “Law
Whenever a man dies without making a will, if he leaves female children his estate shall go with them, but if not, the persons herein mentioned shall be entitled to his property: if there be brothers by the same father, and if there be lawfully born sons of brothers, they shall take the share of the father. But if there are no brothers or sons of brothers, their descendants shall inherit it in like manner; but males and the sons of males shall take precedence, if they are of the same ancestors, even though they be more remote of kin. If there are no relatives on the father’s side within the degree of children of cousins, those on the mother’s side shall inherit in like manner. But if there shall be no relatives on either side within the degree mentioned, the nearest of kin on the father’s side shall inherit. But no illegitimate child of either sex shall have the right of succession either to religious rites or civic privileges, from the time of the archonship of Eucleides.” [52]
The law, men of the jury, expressly declares to whom the inheritance shall go. Not, by Heaven, to Theopompus nor to Macartatus, the son of Theopompus, who are in no sense whatever of the family of Hagnias. But to whom does it give the inheritance? To the descendants of Hagnias, to those who are in his branch of the family. This is what the law says, and this is what justice demands. [53]
Now, then, men of the jury, the law-giver has not given these rights to the relatives without imposing upon them in the law a large number of duties, which the relatives must of necessity perform. No; there are full many obligations laid upon the relatives to perform for which the law admits of no excuse; they must absolutely be performed.
But, preferably, read the law itself — the first one. [54] “Law
In regard to all heiresses who are classified as Thetes, if the nearest of kin does not wish to marry one, let him give her in marriage with a portion of five hundred drachmae, if he be of the class of Pentacosiomedimni, if of the class of Knights, with a portion of three hundred, and if of the class of Zeugitae, with one hundred and fifty, in addition to what is her own. If there are several kinsmen in the same degree of relationship, each one of them shall contribute to the portion of the heiress according to his due share. And if there be several heiresses, it shall not be necessary for a single kinsman to give in marriage more than one, but the next of kin shall in each case give her in marriage or marry her himself. And if the nearest of kin does not marry her or give her in marriage, the archon shall compel him either to marry her himself or give her in marriage. And if the archon shall not compel him, let him be fined a thousand drachmae, which are to be consecrate to Hera. And let any person who chooses denounce to the archon any person who disobeys this law.” [55]
You hear what the law says, men of the jury. But when it became necessary to sue for the hand of the heiress Phylomachê, the mother of this boy and the daughter of the first cousin of Hagnias on his father’s side, I came forward out of respect for the law and preferred my suit as being next of kin; but Theopompus, the father of Macartatus, neither came forward nor in any way disputed my c
laim, because he had no semblance of right, although he was of the same age as she. [56] And yet, men of the jury, how can you fail to think it strange that Theopompus never made any claim for the hand of the heiress, who was the daughter of the first cousin of Hagnias on his father’s side, and yet demands to have the estate of Hagnias contrary to the laws? Could there be persons more shameless or more abominable than these?
Read the other laws also. [57] “Laws
Proclamation shall be made in the market-place to the shedder of blood by a kinsman within the degree of cousin and cousinship, and cousins and sons of cousins and sons-in-law and fathers-in-law and clansmen shall join in the pursuit. To secure condonation, if there be father or brother or sons, all must concur, or whoever opposes shall prevail. And if there be none of these and the slaying was involuntary, and the Fifty-one, the Ephetae, shall agree that the slaying was involuntary, let the clansmen, ten in number, grant the right of entrance to the shedder of blood, if they see fit; and let these be chosen by the Fifty-one according to rank. And those who had shed blood before the enactment of this statute shall be bound by its provisions. — And when persons die in the demes and no one takes them up for burial, let the Demarch give notice to the relatives to take them up and bury them, and to purify the deme on the day on which each of them dies.” [58] “In the case of slaves he shall give notice to their masters, and in the case of freemen to those possessing their property; and if the deceased had no property, the Demarch shall give notice to the relatives of the deceased. And if, after the Demarch shall have given notice, the relatives do not take up the body, the Demarch shall contract for the taking up and burial of the body, and for the purification of the deme on the same day at the lowest possible cost. And if he shall not so contract, he shall be bound to pay a thousand drachmae into the public treasury. And whatsoever he shall expend, he shall exact double the amount from those liable; and if he does not exact it he shall himself be under obligation to repay it to the demesmen. And those who do not pay the rents due for the lands of the goddess or of the gods and the eponymous heroes shall be disenfranchised, themselves and their family and their heirs, until they shall make payment.” [59]
All these duties which the laws lay upon relatives to perform, they lay upon us, and compel us to perform them, men of the jury. But to Macartatus here they say not a word, nor to Theopompus, his father; for they belong in no sense to the family of Hagnias. Why, then, should the laws lay any duties upon them? [60]
But the defendant, men of the jury, while he has no just argument whatever to make against the laws and the depositions which we produce, makes a show of indignation, and says he is being cruelly treated because, his father being dead, it falls to him to be defendant in this suit. But he does not bear in mind, men of the jury, that his father was a mortal man, and has met his end along with many others both younger and older than himself. Yet if Theopompus, the father of the defendant, is dead, the laws are not dead, nor is justice, nor are the jurymen with whom the verdict rests. [61] The present contest and the present trial are not to decide whether one man has died before or after another, but whether or not it is right that the kinsmen of Hagnias, cousins and children of cousins to Hagnias on his father’s side, should be driven out from the family of Hagnias by persons belonging to the family of Stratius, who have no shadow of right to inherit the estate of Hagnias, but are more remote of kin. This is the question at issue in the present trial. [62]
You will see even more clearly, men of the jury, from the following law, that the lawgiver Solon is very much in earnest in regard to those who are relatives, and not only gives them the property left by the deceased, but also lays upon them all the burdensome obligations.
Read the law.”Law
The deceased shall be laid out in the house in any way one chooses, and they shall carry out the deceased on the day after that on which they lay him out, before the sun rises. And the men shall walk in front, when they carry him out, and the women behind. And no woman less than sixty years of age shall be permitted to enter the chamber of the deceased, or to follow the deceased when he is carried to the tomb, except those who are within the degree of children of cousins; nor shall any woman be permitted to enter the chamber of the deceased when the body is carried out, except those who are within the degree of children of cousins.” [63]
The law does not allow any woman except female relatives within the degree of cousinship to enter the chamber where the deceased lies, and it permits these same women to follow to the tomb. Now Phylomachê, the sister of Polemon, the father of Hagnias, was not cousin to Hagnias, but aunt; for she was sister to Polemon, the father of Hagnias. But Eubulides, the son of this woman, was cousin on his father’s side to Hagnias, whose inheritance is in question. And the mother of this boy here was the daughter of Eubulides. [64] These female relatives the law commanded to be present at the laying out of the deceased, and to follow to the tomb, not the mother of Macartatus nor the wife of Theopompus; for she was in no way related to Hagnias, but was of another tribe, the Acamantis, and of another deme, that of Prospalta, so that she was not even apprised in any way at the time Hagnias lay dead. [65] It is surely a most outrageous result that these men are scheming to bring about, that forsooth we and the women of our family should inherit the body of Hagnias, when he was dead, and should perform all the proper rites, as being relatives and nearest of kin, but that Macartatus should claim the right to possess the estate of the dead Hagnias, though he belongs to the house of Stratius and is descended from Apolexis, daughter of the Prospaltian and sister of Macartatus. But this is neither just nor righteous, men of the jury. [66]
Now please read the words of the oracle brought from Delphi, from the shrine of the god, that you may see that it speaks in the same terms concerning relatives as do the laws of Solon. “Oracle
May good fortune attend you. The people of the Athenians make inquiry about the sign which has appeared in the heavens, asking what the Athenians should do, or to what god they should offer sacrifice or make prayer, in order that the issue of the sign may be for their advantage. It will be well for the Athenians with reference to the sign which has appeared in the heavens that they sacrifice with happy auspices to Zeus most high, to Athena most high, to Heracles, to Apollo the deliverer, and that they send due offerings to the Amphiones; that they sacrifice for good fortune to Apollo, god of the ways, to Leto and to Artemis, and that they make the streets steam with the savour of sacrifice; that they set forth bowls of wine and institute choruses and wreathe themselves with garlands after the custom of their fathers, in honor of all the Olympian gods and goddesses, lifting up the right hand and the left, and that they be mindful to bring gifts of thanksgiving after the custom of their fathers. And ye shall offer sacrificial gifts after the custom of your fathers to the hero-founder after whom ye are named; and for the dead their relatives shall make offerings on the appointed day according to established custom.” unknown [67]
You hear, men of the jury, that Solon in the laws and the god in the oracle use the same language, bidding the relatives to perform rites for the departed on the proper days. But neither Theopompus nor the defendant Macartatus cared at all for these things; they cared only for this, that they might retain possession of what does not belong to them, and to complain that after having had the estate for so long, they must now defend their title to it. I should have thought, men of the jury, that one who unjustly keeps in his possession the property of another, should not make complaints if he has kept it in his possession longer than is right, but should be grateful, not to us, but to fortune, that so many unavoidable delays have occurred in the interim, so that he is not brought to trial until now. [68]
Our opponents, then, men of the jury, are men of this stamp; they care nothing either for the extinction of the house of Hagnias, or for all the rest of their lawless deeds; men, who, O Zeus and the gods — but why should one mention the other things relative to them? There would be much indeed to tell of. But one thing which
they have brought to pass is the most lawless and the most abominable, and most clearly proves that they care for nothing except their profit. [69] For no sooner had Theopompus got the award of the estate of Hagnias in the manner which you have heard, than he at once gave proof that he knew well that he was in possession of what in no sense belonged to him. The thing which was of the greatest value on the farms belonging to Hagnias, and which was most admired by the neighbors and by everybody else, was the olive trees. These they dug up and rooted out, more than a thousand trees, from which a large quantity of oil was produced. These trees our opponents rooted out and sold, and received a huge sum of money. And they did this while the estate of Hagnias was still subject to adjudication in accordance with the very law which had permitted them to cite the mother of this boy here. [70]
To prove that I speak the truth in this, that they rooted up the olive trees from the farms which Hagnias left, I will produce for you as witnesses the neighbors and others whom we summoned, when we made a solemn protest against this action.
Read the deposition.”Deposition
The deponents testify that on being summoned by Sositheus they accompanied him to Araphen, to the lands of Hagnias, after Theopompus had had the estate of Hagnias adjudged to him, and that Sositheus showed them the olive trees being rooted up from the land of Hagnias.” [71]
If now, men of the jury, it were against the dead man only that they had committed an outrage in doing this, their conduct would have been disgraceful, though in a less degree; but in reality it is against the whole city that they have committed this outrage, and they have broken your laws. You will know this, when you have heard the law.