τὴν κληρονομίαν, ἂν ὦσιν ὁμοπάτορες· τοῦτο γὰρ ἐγγυτάτω τοῦ τελευτήσαντος <τὸ>1 γένος ἐστίν. 2ἐὰν δ᾿ οὗτοι μὴ ὦσι, δεύτερον ἀδελφὰς ὁμοπατρίας καλεῖ καὶ παῖδας τοὺς ἐκ τούτων. ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ὦσι, τρίτῳ γένει δίδωσι τὴν ἀγχιστείαν, ἀνεψιοῖς πρὸς πατρὸς μέχρι ἀνεψιῶν παίδων. ἐὰν δὲ καὶ τοῦτ᾿ ἐκλείπῃ [εἰς] τὸ γένος, πάλιν ἐπανέρχεται καὶ ποιεῖ τοὺς πρὸς μητρὸς τοῦ τελευτήσαντος κυρίους αὐτῶν, κατὰ ταὐτὰ2 καθάπερ τοῖς πρὸς πατρὸς ἐξ 3ἀρχῆς ἐδίδου τὴν κληρονομίαν. ταύτας ποιεῖ τὰς ἀγχιστείας ὁ νομοθέτης μόνας, συντομωτέρως3 τοῖς ῥήμασιν ἢ ἐγὼ φράζω· τὴν μέντοι διάνοιαν ὧν βούλεται ταύτῃ δείκνυσιν. ὁ δὲ παῖς οὗτος οὐδὲ καθ᾿ ἓν τούτων τῶν ὀνομάτων Ἁγνίᾳ προσήκει τῇ ἀγχιστείᾳ, ἀλλ᾿ ἔξω τῆς συγγενείας ἐστίν. ἵνα δ᾿ ἀκριβῶς μάθητε περὶ ὧν ψηφιεῖσθε, τοὺς πολλοὺς λόγους ἐάσας οὗτος εἰπάτω ὅ τι ὁ παῖς προσήκει τουτωνὶ τῶν εἰρημένων τῷ τὸν κλῆρον καταλιπόντι· κἂν φανῇ κατά τι προσήκων, ἑκὼν ἐγὼ συγχωρῶ τὸ ἡμικλήριον εἶναι τοῦ 4παιδός. εἰ δέ τοι μηδὲν τούτων ἕξει εἰπεῖν, πῶς οὐκ ἐλεγχθήσεται φανερῶς ἐμὲ μὲν συκοφαντῶν, ὑμᾶς δ᾿ ἐξαπατῆσαι παρὰ τοὺς νόμους ζητῶν; ἀναβιβασάμενος οὖν αὐτὸν ἐναντίον ὑμῶν ἐρωτήσω τὰ ἐν τοῖς νόμοις ὑπαναγιγνώσκων· οὕτω γὰρ εἴσεσθε εἰ προσήκει τῷ παιδὶ τῶν Ἁγνίου χρημάτων



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, the 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)

DOI: 10.4159/DLCL.isaeus-xi_estate_hagnias.1927