This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
1 Cf. Ar. Av. 1651—1666.
2 It has sometimes been held (as by Sir W. Jones in his Commentary, p. 191) that second cousins were in the succession. Now the law, as quoted with perhaps intentional ambiguity in Or. XI. § 2, said μέχρι ἀνεψιῶν παίδων: meaning that A, B's son, is in the succession to C, if B and C were ἀνεψιοί, first-cousins. But the quibbling speaker there makes it mean that A is in the succession, not only to C, but to C's son. Hence the fallacy.
3 Of the relationship between mother and son it is said expressly (Or. XI. § 17)—ὃ συγγενέστατον μὲν ἦν τῇ φύσει πάντων, ὲν δὲ ταῖς ἀγχιστεἰαις (degrees recognised by the law) ὁμολογουμένως οὐκ ἔστιν.
4 Cf. C. R. Kennedy in the Dict. Ant. s. v. Heres, p. 595 a.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.