Against Macartatus

or that Eubulides was not the son of Phylomachê, or of Philagrus, the cousin of Hagnias; or this, that the still-living Phylomachê is not the daughter of Eubulides, the cousin of Hagnias, and this boy not his son, adopted according to your laws into the family of Eubulides or that Theopompus, the father of the defendant, Macartatus, belonged to the branch of Hagnias. Let anyone give testimony in his favor on whatever one of these points he chooses. But I know well that no mortal man will be so daring or so senseless.

However, that it may be the more clear to you, men of the jury, that in the former trial they got the upper hand through their shameless audacity, and that they advanced no just arguments, (to the clerk) read all the depositions that remain.

The Depositions

The deponent testifies that he is a relative of Polemon, the father of Hagnias, and that he heard from his father that Philagrus, the father of Eubulides, and Phanostratus, the father of Stratius, and Callistratus, the father of the wife of Sosias, and Euctemon, who was king,[*](That is, king-archon.) and Charidemus, the father of Theopompus and Stratocles, were first cousins to Polemon, their fathers all having been brothers, and that Eubulides, with reference to his father Philagrus, stood in the same degree of relationship as the sons of these men and Hagnias, while with reference to his mother Phylomachê, he was recognized as the first cousin of Hagnias on his father’s side, since he was the son of the paternal aunt of Hagnias.

Another

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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,[*](Prospalta was a deme of the tribe Acamantis.) 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.

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.

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.

The 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.[*](The text is not wholly certain, and the precise meaning is therefore open to debate. The law is quoted also in Isaeus 7.20, where the note of Wyse should be consulted. See also Meier and Schömann, Der Attisch Process, p. 586, and Savage, The Athenian Family, pp. 128 ff.) 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.[*](This was in 403 B.C.)

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.

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.

(To the clerk.) But, preferably, read the law itself—the first one.

The Law

In regard to all heiresses who are classified as Thetes,[*](Solon had divided the people into four classes: (1) Those who received from their land an income of five hundred measures of barley or wine. These were called the Pentacosiomedimini, or five hundred measure men. (2) those who received three hundred measures. These were assumed to be able to furnish a horse for the army, and were therefore called Knights. (3) Those who received two hundred measures. These could presumably own a yoke of oxen and were called Zeugitae, or Yolk-men. (4) those receiving less, or having no property in land. These were called Thetes, i.e. Laborers or Serfs.) 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.

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 claim, because he had no semblance of right, although he was of the same age as she.

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?

(To the clerk.) Read the other laws also.

TheLaws

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,[*](The Ephetae formed a court of fifty-one nobles (Eupatridae) having jurisdiction over cases of homicide. See Aristot. Ath. Pol. 57, with Sandys’s note.) 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.

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.

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?

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.