De Hagniae Hereditate: An Athenian Inheritance Case

121 Pages·1976·1.994 MB·English

by  Wesley E Thompson

DE HAGNIAE HEREDITATE
MNEMOSYNE
BIBLIOTHECA CLASSICA BATAVA
COLLEGERUNT
W. DEN BOER• W. J. VERDENIUS • R. E. H. WESTENDORP BOERMA
BIBLIOTHECAE FASCICULOS EDENDOS CURAVIT
W. J. VERDENIUS, HOMERUSLAAN 53, ZEIST
SUPPLEMENTUM QUADRAGESIMUM QUARTUM
WESLEY E. THOMPSON
DE HAGNIAE HEREDITATE
LUGDUNI BATAVORUM E. J. BRILL MCMLXXVI
DE HAGNIAE
HEREDITATE
AN ATHENIAN INHERITANCE CASE
BY
WESLEY E. THOMPSON
LUGDUNI BATAVORUM E. J. BRILL MCMLXXVI
ISBN 90 04 04757 3
Copyright 1976 by E. f. Brill, Leiden, Netherlands
All rights reierved. No part of this book may be reprodu~ed or
translated in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, microfiche
or any other means without wrillen permisson from the publisher
PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS
TO MY MOTHER

CONTENTS
Preface ..... IX
Main Participants XI
Main Events . . XI
Partial Stemma . XII
Important Abbreviations . XIII
PART ONE
Isaeus II: Main Divisions of the Speech. 2
Theopompos' Speech (Isaeus II) . . . . 3
PART TWO
Ps.-Dem. 43: Main Divisions of the Speech 62
Sositheos' Speech (Ps.-Dem. 43) . . . . . 63

PREFACE
The great Athenian advocates, Lysias, Isaeus, and Demosthenes,
invariably present a one-sided interpretation of the case at hand,
quite naturally putting their client's version in the most favorable
light and distorting their opponent's reply. Seldom do we have an
opportunity to hear the other side, and seldom do we know the
outcome of the trial. A notable exception is the struggle for control
of the estate of a man named Hagnias, where we can hear both sides
of the story-or, I should say, two sides of the story, for at least five
separate claims to this inheritance were entered in several trials
over a long period of time. We also know the verdict in most of these
trials, which ought to help us evaluate the issues and the work of the
speech writers.
Strangely enough, however, interpreters have generally refused to
accept the validity of the verdicts. Partly this is due to the reputa-
tion of one of the writers, Isaeus, of whom the ancient literary
critic Dionysius of Halicarnassus says, "Not even if he tells the
truth, will the reader heed him without suspicion." (Cf. his Isaeus,
§ 16.) So it is with modern writers, especially Wyse in his standard
commentary on Isaeus. Moreover, lsaeus represents Hagnias' second
cousin against a woman, Phylomache, who claimed to be his first
cousin once removed. Since most scholars interpret the Athenian
inheritance law to favor this relationship but to exclude second
cousins from consideration, they have treated Isaeus as the devil's
advocate, who sought by suppressio veri and innuendo to make the
Unjust Logos appear superior to the Just.
On the other hand, Phylomache's representative, her husband
Sositheos, is regarded as an innocent bungler, who failed to establish
the case which he rightfully had in law. A few scholars, however,
have seen that we must rely on the ability of the Athenian courts
which repeatedly upheld lsaeus' side. Sositheos' failure is due less to
ineptitude than to the weakness of his position. While most inter-
preters have seen here a clear-cut case of a good legal basis against
a false one, what is really at stake for Sositheos' side is a question of
fact, not one of law. Yes, a first cousin once removed outranked a
second cousin, but was Phylomache what she claimed to be? For
her opponents alleged that her grandmother was not actually
X PREFACE
related to Hagnias, thereby breaking the link between Phylomache
and the de cuius. That is the charge which Sositheos had to refute
before he could win the prize. He apparently failed to do so.
It should be obvious that, if Isaeus was in the right and his op-
ponents in the wrong, we must adopt an entirely different attitude
toward his handling of the case. Instead of condemning (or ad-
miring) his sleight of hand, we can applaud the lucidity of his
straight-forward presentation of the issues. Likewise, instead of
wondering why Sositheos or his speech writer failed to point out and
hammer home the blatant fraud which Isaeus perpetrated, we can
see more clearly how he sought to emphasize the strong points of his
case and to bolster his arguments on the crucial point, the rela-
tionship between Hagnias and Phylomache's grandmother.
Therefore, I have written a running commentary on their speeches
(Isaeus II and Ps.-Dem. 43) from this heterodox standpoint, at-
tempting some appreciation of both writers' problems and skills,
discussing doubtful points of law whenever necessary, and trying to
correct Wyse's malicious treatment of Isaeus and his client. The
work is intended mainly for people interested in techniques of
persuasion and does not require a knowledge of Greek for its use.