Theopompos, in the speech of Isaeus, had taken possession of the estate of his second cousin Hagnias, as his next of kin and heir. Throughout the speech he is styled ἀνεψιοῦ παῖς so as to bring him within the phraseology of the law, and he successfully defends himself from the claims of the next generation below—viz., his brother’s son. But in the speech of Demosthenes against his son Makartatos, who had taken possession at his father’s death of the disputed property, it is represented that his father had got possession only by defeating another claimant, Phylomache II., by “surprise,” as it was called, by stating that her grandmother through whom she traced her claim was only half-sister to Hagnias’ father. But Phylomache’s husband, having caused their son Euboulides III. to be adopted as the son of Euboulides II.—his wife’s father and Hagnias’ first cousin, a quite regular course for the grandson inheriting through his heiress mother—proved that his wife’s grandmother was whole sister to Hagnias father, and brought the action under the guidance of Demosthenes against Makartatos. This Euboulides III. sued as true ἀνεψιοῦ παῖς and οἰκεῖος ἐκ τοῦ οἴκου of Hagnias.(153) He is described as having “one of the titles mentioned in the law _as far as which_ the law bids the ἀγχιστεία go, for he is _cousin’s son_ to Hagnias.” On the other hand, Theopompos, father of Makartatos and second cousin of Hagnias, is mentioned(154) as “being of a different οἶκος altogether,” and not at all related in such a way as to be heir of Hagnias (μηδὲν προσηκόντων ὤστε κληρονομεῖν τῶν Ἁγνίου, ἀλλὰ γένει _ἀπωτέρω_ ὄντων), being too far off in the family (or by birth). That the title of Theopompos (viz., second cousinship) was not valid, may be inferred partly by the ruses he adopted to get possession, but more especially by the fact(155) that none of the other second cousins on a par with him, and with whom he ought to have shared, seem to have believed in the validity of their titles, or at any rate taken the trouble to sue for part of the estate. However this may be, there does not seem anything in these speeches other than confirmatory of the view stated above of the composition and limitation of the ἀγχιστεία. § 3. Division Amongst Heirs. (M75) Succession to the inheritance of an estate was ordained by law in strict accordance with the ancient conception of the unity of the family. On the death of the head of a family, unless the paternal οἶκος was voluntarily continued unbroken by his descendants, the natural course was for each son ultimately to live apart and found a separate οἶκος consisting of himself and his offspring. Equal division amongst heirs was therefore the rule in Greece; equal division, that is to say, between all of equal grade.