attached to them; or might, with the consent of his daughters, make by will certain other arrangements about his property.  A person who had no children or direct lineal descendants might bequeath his property at pleasure:  if he died without a will, first his father, then his brother or brother’s children, next his sister or sister’s children succeeded:  if none such existed, then the cousins by the father’s side, next the cousins by the mother’s side,—­the male line of descent having preference over the female.

Such was the principle of the Solonian laws of succession, though the particulars are in several ways obscure and doubtful.  Solon, it appears, was the first who gave power of superseding by testament the rights of agnates and gentiles to succession,—­a proceeding in consonance with his plan of encouraging both industrious occupation and the consequent multiplication of individual acquisitions.

It has been already mentioned that Solon forbade the sale of daughters or sisters into slavery by fathers or brothers; a prohibition which shows how much females had before been looked upon as articles of property.  And it would seem that before his time the violation of a free woman must have been punished at the discretion of the magistrates; for we are told that he was the first who enacted a penalty of one hundred drachmas against the offender, and twenty drachmas against the seducer of a free woman.  Moreover, it is said that he forbade a bride when given in marriage to carry with her any personal ornaments and appurtenances, except to the extent of three robes and certain matters of furniture not very valuable.  Solon further imposed upon women several restraints in regard to proceeding at the obsequies of deceased relatives.  He forbade profuse demonstrations of sorrow, singing of composed dirges, and costly sacrifices and contributions.  He limited strictly the quantity of meat and drink admissible for the funeral banquet, and prohibited nocturnal exit, except in a car and with a light.  It appears that both in Greece and Rome, the feelings of duty and affection on the part of surviving relatives prompted them to ruinous expense in a funeral, as well as to unmeasured effusions both of grief and conviviality; and the general necessity experienced for legal restriction is attested by the remark of Plutarch, that similar prohibitions to those enacted by Solon were likewise in force at his native town of Chaeronea.

Other penal enactments of Solon are yet to be mentioned.  He forbade absolutely evil speaking with respect to the dead.  He forbade it likewise with respect to the living, either in a temple or before judges or archons, or at any public festival—­on pain of a forfeit of three drachmas to the person aggrieved, and two more to the public treasury.  How mild the general character of his punishments was, may be judged by this law against foul language, not less than by the law before mentioned against rape.  Both the one and the other of these offences were much more severely dealt with under the subsequent law of democratical Athens.  The peremptory edict against speaking ill of a deceased person, though doubtless springing in a great degree from disinterested repugnance, is traceable also in part to that fear of the wrath of the departed which strongly possessed the early Greek mind.