previous next

I. 3.
On the Estate of Apollodoros
[Or VII.]

Apollodorus? Eupolis Mnesondeceased Thrasyllos Ideceased mother of the testator Archedamos Apollodorus IIdeceased wife of Pronapes wife of Aeschines Apollodorus Itestator one daughterdeceased mother of the speaker Thrasyllos IIspeaker, adopted son of Apollodorus I Thrasybulos

Eupolis, Mneson and Thrasyllos were brothers. Mneson died childless. Thrasyllos was killed in the Sicilian expedition, and left his son Apollodoros I. to the guardianship of Eupolis. Eupolis abused the trust. He intercepted, by a pretended will, half of Mneson's property; and also embezzled much of his nephew's patrimony. Apollodoros I. found a friend, however, in his mother's second husband, Archedamos, who supported him in an action against Eupolis. Archedamos died, leaving a daughter who was married and had a son, Thrasyllos II. When Apollodoros lost his only son, he determined to adopt this Thrasyllos as his son and heir.

At the death of Apollodoros, his estate was claimed by his first-cousin, the elder of the two daughters of Eupolis, and wife of one Pronapes. She denied that Thrasyllos II. had been adopted by Apollodoros I. In this speech Thrasyllos defends his right.

The date must be about 353 B. C. For:—

1. Apollodoros I., when about to set forth on a campaign to Corinth, made a will, and directed that his daughter, the speaker's mother, should marry one Lakratides (§ 9). The campaign was probably that of Ol. 96. 4, 393 B.C., or Ol. 97. 1, 392 B.C. At this time, then, the speaker's mother was unmarried. Her marriage—not to Lakratides, but to the speaker's father, Archedamos—may be put four or five years later: in 388 or 387 B.C.—2. The speaker, when adopted by Apollodoros, had already been a thesmothetes (§ 34); i. e. was at least thirty. But he cannot have been much more, for he is still a young man (§ 41).—3. Soon after his adoption, he went on a sacred embassy to the Pythian festival (§ 27). The first Pythiad after the speaker had reached the age of thirty was that of Ol. 106. 3, 354 B.C.—4. From §§ 14, 15 it may be inferred that Apollodoros I. did not live long after the adoption; and the contest for the property must have followed soon after his death. The adoption may, then, be placed early in 354; the trial, in 3531.

The speaker, Thrasyllos, was adopted by Apollodoros

during the latter's lifetime. This kind of adoption is always less open to suspicion than adoption under a will. The speaker might have barred the claim of Pronapes by an affidavit (διαμαρτυρία): but, confident in his cause, he has preferred a direct trial (εὐθυδικία, §§ 1—4).

Gratitude to Archedamos had prompted Apollodoros to adopt the speaker; who, at the Thargelia, was duly received into the family and the clan (§§ 5—17). Had there been no such adoption, however, the next heir would have been, not the wife of Pronapes, but her nephew, Thrasybulos. The silence of Thrasybulos is evidence to the adoption (§§ 18—26); which was ratified by the demesmen of Apollodoros. At their meeting to choose the officers of the deme (ἐν ἀρχαιρεσίαις), they placed Thrasyllos on their register (ληξιαρχικὸν γραμματεῖον: §§ 27, 28)2.

The wife of Pronapes and her sister had already inherited the property of their brother; but had ignored the obligation to constitute one of their children his representative before the law (εἰσποιεῖν υἱὸν αὐτῷ, § 31); and thus his line had become extinct (ἐξηρήμωται οἶκος, ib.). This would have been warning enough to Apollodoros. He would never have left his property to the wife of Pronapes (§§ 29—32). On the other hand, no one had stronger claims on Apollodoros than the speaker (§§ 33—36).

The public services of Apollodoros and his father, Thrasyllos I., are contrasted with those of Pronapes3. The speaker has already served the state as far as his years allowed, and hopes to serve it more (§§ 37—42). Summary: §§ 43—45.

1 The allusion in § 38 to the discharge of the trierarchy by companies instead of individuals (οὐκ ἐκ συμμορίας τὴν ναῦν ποιησάμενος ὥσπερ οἱ νῦν) would alone prove the speech to be later than 358 B C.

2 From §§ 26—28 it appears that ratification by the deme was necessary before enrolment by the γεννῆται and φράτορες could entitle the adopted person even to family rights; see Schäfer Dem. u. seine Zeit, III. ii. 27.

3 In § 39 it is said that Pronapes ἀπεγράψατο μὲν τίμημα μικρόν, ὡς ἱππάδα δὲ τελῶν ἄρχειν ἠξίου τὰς ἀρχάς, ‘returned his income as small, but claimed to hold magistracies, as if he paid the tax of a knight’—showing that the names, at least, of the Solonian classes were kept up. Schömann suggests that the offices for which the census of a knight was required may have been such as were concerned with the administration of the public money (p. 373).

Creative Commons License
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.

hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: