On the Estate of Hagnias

Argument

A certain Hagnias had several cousins, namely, Theopompus, his brother Stratocles, Stratius, and Eubulides. When he was at the point of death he adopted a daughter, stipulating in his will that, if anything should happen to her, the estate should pass to Glaucon, who was his half-brother, his mother's son. After making these arrangements he died; and the daughter received the inheritance and then herself died. Eubulides having also died, his daughter brought an action against Glaucon and was awarded the estate. After this, Stratocles and Stratius having died, Theopompus, acting alone, brought a suit against her and was awarded the estate. It is against him that the son of his brother Stratocles brings an action through a guardian, alleged that the inheritance belongs in equal shares to Theopompus and to his brother's son. The discussion turns on a point of fact.

Laws

I have read you the laws because my opponent bases on the first of them the claim of the child to half the estate—a claim which is false. Hagnias, it is true, was not our brother; but in the matter of a brother's property the law[*](The text of the law is given in Dem. 43.51 (Πρὸς Μακάπτατον).) has given the right of inheritance first to brothers and nephews provided they are on the father's side; for they are related to the deceased in the nearest degree.

In default of these, the law next names sisters by the same father and their issue. If these fail, it gives the right of succession as next-of-kin to the third degree, namely, first cousins on the father's side including their children. If this degree is also lacking, the law goes back and gives the succession to the relatives of the deceased on his mother's side on the same principles as originally regulated the rights of inheritance by the relatives on the father's side.

These are the only rights of next-of-kin which the framer of the law recognizes; the wording which he employs is briefer than my paraphrase, but he shows his intention quite clearly in the text of the law. This child does not possess a single one of these titles as next-of-kin to Hagnias, but is outside all relationship. In order that you may know exactly upon what points you are going to give your verdict, I challenge my opponent to state, without superfluous words, in which of the above-mentioned degrees of relationship this child stands to the former tenant of the estate. If he can be shown to be in any way related, I willingly concede that half the estate is his.

If, on the other hand, he cannot prove the existence of any such relationship, surely he will be clearly convicted of bringing a vexatious suit against me and of trying to deceive you in contravention of the laws. I intend, therefore, to make him stand up before you and to interrogate him, reading out the text of the law. You will thus learn whether, or no, the child has any right to the fortune of Hagnias. (To the Clerk) Please take these laws; and (to his opponent) you, come up here, since you are so clever at misrepresentation and at distorting the laws. Read on.

Laws

Stop. I wish to question you. Is the child a brother of Hagnias, or a nephew, the son of a brother or sister, or a first cousin, or the child of a first cousin on his mother's or his father's side? Which of these titles, which are regarded by the law as constituting kinship, does he possess? And beware of saying that he is my nephew; for it is not a question now of my estate, for I am still alive. If I had died without issue and he were claiming my property, it would be quite fitting that he should give this reply to one who interrogated him. On the present occasion, however, it is the half of Hagnias's estate that you say belongs to the child; you must, therefore, define the degree of relationship which unites him to Hagnias. Tell these gentlemen, therefore, what it is.

You observe that he cannot define the relationship, but gives any sort of answer rather than the information which you require. Yet one who is acting in good faith ought not to be embarrassed, but ought to be able to answer immediately, and not only so but also swear an oath and produce witnesses about the degree of relationship, so that you might have attached greater credence to what he said. As it is, regarding matters about which he has given no answer, produced no witnesses, sworn no oath and quoted no law, he thinks that you, who have sworn to give your verdict according to the laws, ought to believe him and illegally condemn me in this criminal suit. This is the wicked and shameless sort of scoundrel that he is.

I have no intention of following his example; instead, I shall state my degree of relationship and the basis of my claim to the estate, and I shall prove, in such a manner as to win your assent, that the child and the former claimants against me for the estate are all outside the limits of kinship. I must state the facts from the beginning; for you will thus recognize my claim as next-of-kin and see that my opponent has no title to the succession.

Hagnias, Eubulides, Stratocles, Stratius, the brother of Hagnias's mother, and I, gentlemen, are all the children of cousins, our fathers having been cousins, the children of brothers by the same father. When Hagnias was preparing to set out as ambassador on that mission[*](See Introduction.) which had such favorable results for the city, he did not leave his possessions, in case anything happened to him, to us, his nearest relatives, but adopted a niece; and if anything happened to her, he devised his property to Glaucon, his half- brother on his mother's side. These dispositions he embodied in a will.

After some interval of time Eubulides died. The daughter whom Hagnias had adopted also died, and Glaucon received the estate in accordance with the will. We never for a moment thought of contesting Hagnias's will, but considered that his intentions regarding his own property ought to be carried into effect, and by these we abode. But the daughter of Eubulides, with the assistance of her confederates, laid claim to the estate and obtained it, having gained an action against those who based their rights on the will. She was outside the prescribed degree of kinship, but hoped, it seems, that we should not bring an action against her, because we had not contested the will either.

But we—that is to say, Stratius, Stratocles, and myself—since the estate had now become adjudicable to the next-of-kin,[*](The will having been set aside, the next-of-kin would have to prove his title to the intestate estate.) all prepared to bring a suit. However, before the hearing of the case, Stratius and Stratocles both died; and thus I am the only surviving relative on the father's side, being the son of a cousin and the only person to whom, according to the law, the estate could pass, all the other relatives having died who possessed the same degree of kinship as myself.

But, it may be asked, how are you to know that I possess the rights of a next-of-kin, while the children of the other cousins, including this child, did not possess them? The law itself will make this clear. It is universally admitted that the rights as next-of-kin belong to cousins on the father's side, including their children, but the point which we have now to examine whether the law grants these rights to our children also. Take, therefore, the law and read it to the court.

Law [If there is no relative on the father's side as far as the degree of the children of cousins, then the right of inheritance passes to the mother's side in the same order of succession.]

Mark you, gentlemen, the legislator did not say that, in default of heirs on the father's side up to the degree of cousin's children, the rights descend to the latter's children; no, in default of us[*](i.e., on the failure of the children of cousins on the male side.), he gives the inheritance to the relatives of the deceased on his mother's side, namely, to brothers and sisters and their children, and so on, in the same order as was laid down before. But he has placed our children outside the right of succession. How, then, can those to whom, even if I were dead, the law does not award Hagnias's estate, imagine that, while I am alive and have a legal right to the property, they themselves can have any title as next-of-kin? Their claim is quite preposterous.

Indeed, if the right of succession is not possessed by those whose fathers stood in the same degree of relationship as myself, neither is it possessed by this child; for his father stood in the same degree as they. Is it not, therefore, outrageous, that, whereas the laws have thus explicitly given me the right of inheritance and have placed my opponents outside the requisite degree of kinship, this fellow should dare to play these pettifogging tricks and, at the moment when I was laying claim to the estate, should think fit, not to bring an action against me and pay the necessary deposit—this being the proper moment to have the question settled, if his claims were well-founded—but to annoy me in the name of this child and make me run the most serious risks?

His charge is not concerned[*](Grammatically the whole of this sentence depends on οὔκουν δεινόν (Isaeus 13.4).) with money which admittedly belongs to the child, nor can he say that I have received any such money—if I had administered any property in the manner in which he has done, I should deserve to be prosecuted; no, in bringing this kind of suit he has designs upon property which you, after permitting anyone who wished to dispute my claim to it, assigned by your verdict to me. Such is the extent of his impudence.

From what I have already said I think that you fully recognize that I am doing no wrong to the child and that I am not in the least degree guilty of these charges; but you will, I think, understand this still more exactly from the rest of my story, and, in particular, when you have heard how the adjudication to me of the inheritance took place. When I brought the action claiming the inheritance, neither did my opponent, who is now bringing an impeachment against me, think fit to make the necessary deposit on behalf of the child, nor did the sons of Stratius, who stand in the same relationship as the child, <either for this>[*](There is a lacuna in the text at this point.) or for any other reason think that they had any right to the money;

for my opponent would not be troubling me now, if I had allowed him to dissipate the child's property and had not opposed him. These men, then, as I have said, knowing that they were outside the requisite degree of relationship, kept quiet; but those who were acting on behalf of the daughter of Eubulides, who stands in the same degree of relationship as the child and the sons of Stratius, and the legal representatives of Hagnias's mother, were disposed to contest my claim.

They found it so difficult to know what to say in their written counter-claim about the degree of relationship, that the woman who was in possession of the estate and those who were seeking to explain her kinship, when they lied, were easily convicted by me of daring to put in writing what was not true; and those who were supporting Hagnias's mother, who stands in the same degree of relationship as I do (being sister of Stratius) but who is excluded by the law which ordains that the males shall have the preference, omitted all reference to this point, and, thinking to gain an advantage over me, described her as the mother of the deceased—the nearest possible relationship by blood, but admittedly conferring no rights as next-of-kin.

Having thus described myself as the son of a cousin and having proved that these women were not within the requisite degree of kinship, I thus had the estate adjudicated to me by you; and her former success against those who claimed on the basis of the will was of no avail to the woman who was in possession of the inheritance, nor did it avail the other woman that she was mother of the deceased who left the estate, but those who were trying the case attached so much importance to justice and their oaths that they gave their verdict in favor of me, whose claim was in conformity with the law.

Yet since I thus triumphed over these women by proving that they were not within the requisite degree of kinship to Hagnias; and since my present opponent did not venture to go to law with me, claiming half the estate for the child; and since the sons of Stratius, who stand in the same degree of kinship as this child, do not even now think of bringing a suit against me for the estate; and since I am in possession of the estate by your adjudication; and since I can prove that my opponent even at the present time cannot state what relationship the child possesses which confers rights as next-of-kin to Hagnias—what further information do you require, and what more do you wish to hear on the subject? Since I regard you as men of good sense, I think that what I have said is sufficient.