Date. then put her brother, now his son-in-law, Kyronides in possession of the estate of Aristarchos I.-to which Kyronides had forfeited all right by adoption into the house of Xenaenetos. Kyronides and the daughter of Aristomenes had two sons,-Aristarchos II. and Xenaenetos II. Aristarchos II. was made adopted son of Aristarchos I. in accordance with an alleged will by which the latter left his property to his grandson. At the death of Aristarchos II. his brother Xenaenetos II. was, under his will, declared his adopted son and heir. The claim of Xenaenetos II. is now opposed by the grandson of Aristarchos I. He claims the estate on behalf of his mother as daughter of Aristarchos I., -not as sister (by adoption) of Aristarchos II.; though, at the preliminary inquiry (§ 2), legal form had required him to describe her in the latter manner. ἐν Aristarchos has been killed in the war,' ev T TоλÉμw τÉOVηKE (§ 22); words which imply both that his death is recent and that the war continues. Now this war is clearly not the Corinthian War (394-387), which, with the peace that closed it, is mentioned as something long past (§ 20). The war in which Aristarchos fell is probably the Theban War of 378-371. The speech may be placed between 377 and 3711. 1 Schömann refers the speech to 384 at latest. For (1) he takes the war of § 22 to be the Corinthian: (2) he takes the moλùs xpóvos of § 18 to be the interval between the death of Aristarchos say in 388—and the bringing of the action. Now this interval could not exceed five years, since that was the limit (προθεσμία, praescriptio) set by the law to the time within which an estate could After contrasting his own want of nerve and fluency Analysis. with the practised skill of the adversaries, the speaker explains why the form of his claim is inconsistent with its substance. He has been obliged to describe his mother, not as the daughter of Aristarchos I., but as the sister of Aristarchos II., although he denies the validity of the adoption on which the latter title depends (§§ 1-3). He relates the facts (§§ 4-7); and then argues that Aristarchos II. could not have been adopted (1) by Aristarchos I., while the latter had a legitimate son, Demochares, living; nor (2) by Demochares, who died before he was competent to adopt; nor (3) by Kyronides, who had passed out of the family; nor (4) by Aristomenes or his son Apollodoros (§§ 8-14). Xenaenetos II., the defendant, does not, however, rely only on the alleged adoption of Aristarchos II. He says that his father, Kyronides, had already acquired a right to the estate by discharging debts with which it was encumbered. But, the speaker replies, (1) the person liable for these debts was not Kyronides but the speaker's mother1: and (2) had the estate really been so encumbered, Aristomenes and Kyronides would not have been in such haste to procure the inheritance for Aristarchos II. (SS 15—17). The speaker answers the objection that his claim ought to have been made long ago. His father was deterred from taking proceedings by the fear of losing his wife, whom the next of kin threatened that they would claim at law (èπdikáçeσdai), if he claimed the estate. The plaintiff himself has hitherto been prevented by military service, and then be claimed when its holder was not the first heir, but that heir's successor. Here Xenaenetos II. was the heir of Aristarchos II., who was the heir of Aristarchos I. The estate of Aristarchos I must therefore be claimed from Xenaenetos within five years from the death of Aristarchos II. But it could have been claimed from Ari- 1 A petitio principii—that she by a debt to the Treasury', from bringing an action (SS 18-21). own. The personal worth of Aristarchos II. cannot excuse the fact that the property which he bequeathed was not his The holder of disputed lands is bound to produce the mortgager (éτns), the seller, or the legal decision under which he occupies2. Just so the adversaries must prove their title to this estate. Kyronides and his family already possess the property of Xenaenetos I. They now seek to deprive the speaker of his patrimony. As a citizen of good character, public and private, he claims the protection of his rights (§§ 22—26). II. Actions for False Witness (Síkaι vevdoμaptvριών). 1. On the Estate of Menekles [Or. 11.] II. 1. On the Estate of At the death of Menekles, his estate was claimed Menekles. by his brothers. But Menekles had left an adopted 1 A citizen who, on any account whatsoever, owed money to the Treasury, suffered total suspension of civic rights until the debt was paid. Cf. Isokr. Antid. § 10, ἀτιμότεροι...τῶν ὀφειλόντων τῷ δημοσίῳ. § 24. ὥσπερ τῶν ἀμφισβητησίμων χωρίων δεῖ τὸν ἔχοντα ἢ θέτην ἢ πρατῆρα παρέχεσθαι ἢ καταδεδι κασμένον φαίνεσθαι. Here θέτης = o Oeís, the mortgager (the mortgagee being ὁ θέμενος): and καταdedikaσμévos 'having got a verdict' against the opposing claim. 3 The author of the Argument says, ἀδελφῶν ἀμφισβητησάντων. The source of his mistake is plain. son; this son entered a protest that the estate, being his, could not be so claimed (διεμαρτύρησε μὴ ἐπίδικον elvai Tòv kλĥpov, § 2); and produced, as witness, his father-in-law (§ 36) Philonides. The brother of Menekles then brought an indictment for perjury (yрapη) уevdoμaρrupías) against Philonides. In this speech, Philonides is defended by his son-in-law, the adopted son of Menekles. The adoption had come about thus. Eponymos, a friend of Menekles, had four children :—the speaker of this speech; another son; and two daughters. The younger daughter was, for about two years (§ 6), the wife of Menekles; but, their marriage proving childless, they separated, and she took a second husband, Eleios. At some later time Menekles became anxious to adopt a son. His brotherthe prosecutor in this case-had only one son. Menekles decided, therefore, to adopt one of the two sons of his friend Eponymos (§§ 3-12). The date is probably about 354 B. C. (1) The Date. speaker says (§ 6):- Having given our sisters in marriage, and being of the full age, we betook ourselves to military service, and went with Iphikrates on an expedition to Thrace.' This might refer to 389 B. C., when Iphikrates was sent to guard the Hellespont and the regions about it1. But the tone implies that Athens was not then waging a great war. The reference is more probably to 383 B. C., when Iphi Throughout, the prosecutors are spoken of in the plural; and in § 38 we read, dμþótepoi oûtoi. But § 21 shows that Menekles had but II. * one brother. The plural, and the Analysis. krates began hostilities against Kotys, who had then just got the chief power in Thrace1. (2) The adoption of the speaker by Menekles must have taken place about six years later (cf. §§ 7-19), in 377. (3) Menekles died 23 years after the adoption, § 15— i.e. in 354: and this cause must have soon followed. After a narrative of the facts (§§ 1-12), it is shown (1) by the citation of a law, that a man without male issue can devise his property as he pleases: (2) by witnesses, that Menekles had adopted the speaker in due form, enrolling him among the members of his phratria, his gens, and his deme2 (§§ 13-16). At the desire of Menekles the speaker took a wife, the daughter of Philonides; and was in all respects treated as the son of his adoptive father (§§ 17—18). The adversaries suggest that Menekles, when he adopted the speaker, was not in his right mind, and was influenced by his wife, the speaker's sister. It is replied that his sister was the wife of Eleios when the adoption took place; that she had two children of her own, in whose favour her influence would rather have been used; and that the speaker was the natural person for Menekles to adopt (§§ 19-22). The prosecutor's real complaint is that Menekles exercised the right of adoption-a right allowed by Greeks and barbarians alike, and one which the prosecutor would have used in a like case (§§ 23—26). The prosecutor has no reason to be jealous; the speaker has inherited from his adoptive father little but the name of son. Menekles owed about £268 (§ 29) to the son of a deceased creditor (T@ oppavo, § 27). In order to pay this, 1 See Schäfer, Dem. u. seine Zeit, III. Append. p. 142. 2 § 16, φράτορας-ὀργεώνας-δη μότας. ὀργεώνες has generally been taken as уevvτai. Schömann has an ingenious note, (Isae. pp. 208 f.,) in which he contends that ὀργεῶνες, here, at least, mean an inner circle of yevvnrai, connected, not merely by a civil or conventional tie (such as he thinks that of the yevvĥtai to have often been), but by a tie of real blood-relationship. Possibly, however, opyeŵves, the sharers of common opyta, may have been the members of a sacred brotherhood, independent of any civil or gentile tie. |