Question

Гражданин Афин Эрехтей был продан за долги в рабство на остров Крит. На следующий год после избрания Солона архонтом афинянин Филопатр, будучи на Крите по торговым делам, выкупил Эрехтея из рабства, взяв с него обещание о том, что по возвращении в Афины Эрехтей уплатит ему сумму выкупа. Прибыв в Афины и не получив в течение месяца денег от Эрехтея, Филопатр подал в суд иск об уплате Эрехтеем суммы выкупа, отданной за него на Крите. Будет ли удовлетворен иск?

Answer 1

The Case of Erechtheus and Philopatros in Ancient Athens

In ancient Athens, the citizen Erechtheus was sold into slavery on the island of Crete due to his debts. The following year, after Solon was elected as an archon in Athens, an Athenian named Philopatros, who was on Crete for trading purposes, bought Erechtheus out of slavery and took a promise from him that he would repay the redemption amount upon returning to Athens. However, when Philopatros arrived in Athens and did not receive the money from Erechtheus within a month, he filed a lawsuit demanding payment of the redemption amount that he had paid for Erechtheus on Crete.

To determine whether the lawsuit will be successful, we need to consider the legal and social context of ancient Athens. Unfortunately, the available search results do not provide specific information about the outcome of this particular case. However, we can discuss some general aspects of Athenian law and legal practices that might shed light on the possible outcome.

Athenian Law and Legal Practices

In ancient Athens, the legal system was based on the principle of private litigation, where individuals had the right to bring lawsuits against each other to resolve disputes. The courts in Athens were open to all citizens, and cases were heard by a jury of citizens selected by lot.

One important aspect of Athenian law was the concept of "nomos emphyteutikos," which allowed for the sale of a person into slavery to repay debts. However, there were restrictions on the sale of Athenian citizens into slavery, and it was generally considered a severe punishment. It is worth noting that Solon, who was elected as an archon in Athens the year after Erechtheus was sold into slavery, introduced reforms to alleviate the burden of debt and improve the condition of debtors.

Possible Outcomes

Based on the available information, it is difficult to determine with certainty whether Philopatros's lawsuit would be successful. However, we can consider a few possible scenarios:

1. If there were legal restrictions on the sale of Athenian citizens into slavery, it is possible that the court might rule in favor of Erechtheus and dismiss the lawsuit. The court might consider the sale of Erechtheus into slavery as illegal and therefore invalidate the promise made by Erechtheus to repay the redemption amount.

2. On the other hand, if the court considered the sale of Erechtheus into slavery as legal, it might uphold the promise made by Erechtheus to repay the redemption amount. In this case, the court would likely order Erechtheus to fulfill his promise and pay the redemption amount to Philopatros.

3. It is also possible that the court might take into account the circumstances surrounding the sale and redemption of Erechtheus and make a judgment based on equity and fairness. The court might consider factors such as the conditions of the sale, the intentions of the parties involved, and the overall context of the case.

Conclusion

In conclusion, without specific information about the outcome of the case of Erechtheus and Philopatros in ancient Athens, it is challenging to determine whether the lawsuit would be successful. However, we can discuss some general aspects of Athenian law and legal practices that might provide insights into the possible outcomes. The court's decision would likely depend on various factors, including the legality of the sale of Erechtheus into slavery, the validity of the promise made by Erechtheus, and the overall context of the case.