d lakCO\'t'r. Jce Osborne, 0 . _ 1-1 and UUw in "aion in Cbt
M
ow pr
em
20
C H A P TER
I
glve his
DEINlAS O F ATHMO NON
Interest in the matrilineal deme of origin. brother-5ister ti es and strong brotherin-law ties mark the pnct icC$ of Dein.ia$ of Atnmonon and his aRines, the family of a very wealthy banker, Pasio. Despi te Puio's city residence and the location of his b:m k in the Peiraeus.S.f his son's interett in their rural holdin~ is evident. Around 395 Deinia.s's siste r w;u muried to Menec\e.s of Acharnae. th e deme into which Pa.sio was enroll ed when he acquired Ath enian citizenship. 55 A son, Steph:l.Illls. W:lS born from this marriage, w ho would bter become the agent of Phormio. Pa.sio's manager and guardian of his estate. It was this association wi th the banking family that probably all owed Stcphanus to give his awn daughter in ,." fink», SLC, 160. nO. 146; IG 11'
67J7~. p.1W1; I)ma.
A PF, 142.
"' !)Mes. APF, 142.
tbid.. 411. 'OS Ibid., .30. on I'mo', CTIro1lIT>erK ;n A' ....,,_: on the ~
nur~
of Dcini.. '. sUter.
K<'
1Xm.
'-S.46. 54; I)zm" APF, 437- 38.
"
m
F A M I LI ES OF TH E PR IVA T E O R A T I ONS
2t
lIu rru.gt' with the "cry large dowry of I r:.lent 40 minae. Deini:u, e. 365, then g2,"-e his daughter to ?asio's son Apollodorus (Oem. 45.55; [Oem.] 59.2, 8), S6 so that the daughter followed her pate rnal aunt into the dcme o f Acharnae, a \';Iri ation of the strategy in Polyaratus's family, in which a sister follo ....w<:d both families tosha.... the ir wealth . ... S« alto D 2Yi... l tI'F, 'U7- 38. .. Stt >100 D~. APF, 437. III D>ViH. APF. 0] . I" T. W. Galliont, Ri•• .mJ SHMMoI i~ A"';"'I C....., (Sunford. Calif.: Stanford Un;".....tty Prns. 199]). ISO, dexribing s.h!jn,', ",odd. C.Jt..m modifi ... Thrc modd ",.inu'''' llul we .. I'C'Ciproc,ty bctw«n <'qu:als. who In' bound by Wlwip mdlor a!f...:,1w ,in. ;, of.ttl bloW'1 prwtimi
w"ic"
22
C H A P TER
t
Relatio nships among neighbors who were ilio in-laws were nOI always so dose and harmonious, as th e next examples show.
e lRON AND EVe lEMON
C iron alternated kinship endogamy with exogamy by 'llarrying first his mothe r's sister's daught er, with whom he sired a daught er, and then, after his first wife's death, a no nkinswoman, the sister of Diocles o f Phlya.1>O where the bulk of hh em,te lay (Is. 8.7,35). A1though it is possible that Ciron's deme was Phlya or one close to it,M th is is no t certll in. Rathe r, C iron's .alliance ",,':ith :1.II individual from a deme where his own estate by is one among several strategies fo r th e families of the orations. Furthe rmore, Ciron's daughter, in her first marriage. was m.arried to Nausim enes of Cholargus, a dem e of th e north ern plain whose center was approximat ely eight kil o meters west of Phlya, For her second marriage, the daught er \ VlI.$ married to a man from th e dem e Pithus, whi ch m:ly h:l"l."e belo nged to the sam e trittys as Phlya (7-8, 19).62 T hus, the re is some indication that proxim..ity of delllcs :lnd th e \oc:uion or Ciron's estate were th e bases for his mariral PDCtiCes. despite his residence in the ci ty {h , 8.35).63 The marr i:lges then should have been :l means 10 consolidate eiron's holdin gs in the local. rural. area.""4 Howeve r, eiron abandoned his descencbl\ts through his mother's siste r's cbughte r an d preferred to let Ih e brother of his se<:ond wife manage his esute (35 fr. ). e iron's kinship e ndog;r.my followed by txOb>amy seems to indicate an int.:oll'St in IOQking outside his mothe r's ~ffina\ kin group an d placing his trust in ~ nonkinsnU ll, wh o was. nevertheless. a neighbor. This tie with the neighbor w;u supported by eiron 's agn~t e, his brother's son. Js.ae us 8 revcl\s that e iron leems to havt: p~f( rred his so ns by his second wife as his heirs , but when these d ied hi s second w ife's bTQther, Diocles, supported the claim of eiron's brothe r's son to the esu te (1 If.). Furthe rmo re. Diodes seems to h3\'C been able to e ncroach o n Ci ron 's estate by h~ving his USler. C iron's second wife, remain in Ciron's house afie r the death of eiTOn'S sons by her. The woman, in facl, with littl e c h3nce of bel ring the aging C iTOn an o the r son, ne \'Crthe1ess remain ed wilh Ciron until his death (36 fr.). Male 3gnate ~nd brother- in-law colluded to kee p eiron's gDnd!On out of his estate, a g r:mdson descended ultimately from :l dilferent patriline. ... D.vi~, APR ) U , ", Osborne. Dtmimion o n 1M
"".ct location of Pith ..., ..,., ~
135, ."d 136. 0,34. '" h i, diff... ult w uy whnhtt both C iron . nP""Y fin", A'h ..... Poli.u in Cydo,h .. n. .. un" D.vi" . A I'F. 314: M. W:.I~lr., "lu_ cL s..:...d Pro!"'rti.,. ill Anica:' H..,.. n·~ 52 ( \983): 124-25_ ... OWor~ I><-s. 49. 62~3. fur the propemity of A,heni.", 10 acqui ... or build up holding> in tJ...1oul . .... .
'"
m
FAMI L I E S O F THE
PR.IVAT E O R.ATI O N S
2)
C iron's is not Ihe o nly case: in which marriage str.ltegies incorpor.ltillg the dem esma n failed. Euctemon of Cephisia is well known to us from lsae us 6. Altho ug h he owned three houses ill the city. two of which served as brOlheis. his marriage 10 a fellow demeswoman and his da ughte r's marr iage 10 a fellow de m esman betr.lY imerests in the na tive deme; because EUCIemoll owned a farm in Ihe nei ghboring dem e of Athmonon. local endogamy secured Ihis property (Is. 6.33).65 In fact. Philoctem on. Euclem o n '$ so n, adopted as his future he ir the son of his sister. and, therefore. a fellow dClllesman. W he n Eucte m on. however. informed PhilOClem on that he, Euctemon. intended to give one of his esta tes to his SOlU by another w ife, Ph iloctem o n protested (22-24) and. presumably. wou ld not recogn iu the legitinu(:)' of his younger half-brot hers. Philoctemon relented o nly w he n his father threatened to m n ry the siste r of Democr.ltes of Aphid na. a Gephyraeus. OemOCT:ltes \V1IS still resident , occasio nally n least, in his na tive de m e which W2S located around fifteen kilometers from Euctemo n'$ dellle, Cephisia. 66 Therefore, in order to settle his dispute with his son, Eucte lllo n reso rted 10 th e ai d of someone who W2S outside th e immediate rur.ll neighborhood but in the no rthe rn region of Attica and w ho WoIS still l'C'Sident there from tim e 10 ti me. In geneT:l1. Euctemon. despi te his residence and businesses in the city. focused ei ther o n the upper northern plain where his farm by or in northern Attica."'7 Region," bias occurs fairly frequently in the marriages of the Athenia ns recorded in the inscriptions. which w ill be examined in the nex t c hapteT. O n the other ha nd. Ihe urban neighborhood also e ncouT:lged Euctem o n's ties to the Ge phyraei: Euctemon owned a lodging house in the Cer.lmeicus, where one bT:lnc h of the GephYT:lei m ay have been reside nt.68 These exampl es reveal o nly too clearly that kilUlllen and neighbors could ... Stt >ho D.Yi... APt; 562-63 . ... D.vin. APt; 475-76. for rRnl(x:r.ltci rnilknry in Aphid, ... • 7 R..>plud St>ky "'.. oM fin. '0 point Out Eucumon ', ..-gio....1 bias. though St>.lry did urodrt_ ntinw. ,h. di",anc~ bctw.,~n ~ph"" an.d Aphidtt..>: R . S<->ky. &up in Ottlt l'IJiirin (Now York.: ManyLan.d. 19(7). 189-90. Euaernon" .hecat workod. and he did not rn...ry rRrnocmcf ";1I<:r : IIIe _ gi""n in nurri.agc <0, prob.ably. Nicandru. from Hili. Anonidn (/G 11 ' 573:}). a co ....' c:ilia: •• he lobouk. the doughlCf 0( Nicand ..... 0( H.bc. [}cause IIIe >Ion. _ found •• Va';. Archcdic.. d.,. rIy rnign.ed.o..nd rnided in. oM vicinity of Hili.. [ Iu"" inf<"feed .lul Ario«>boulc on ,hc ;'lKr;pt;"" is Archcdicc' doughlcr. D.v;es (AI't; 475-76) h.. l.n .h••tI...iOluhip
-
.., D.vin. A I'li $62. for Euclcrnon's .......... Davies c0I1J«rnrn ,lui Hcgeso, ,lie dougfllCf o f ProJt_ en"" who was contntm"""ted on a in th. Cer.trneicus. ...... ,he doughier of Pit. . nu, t of Aphidru. If "'" rith<-r ller family of ongin ,,'aJ modem in or """..,. the C;r.urt.ci€us. or .he f.mily of Clri rruy Iu.-e "",.tied. " <1$ resident ,...,...,: 1).Yies. APt; 478-79. n oikn. on oM iJo ... of Hc-gno' "",.. i.S". bu. ICC R . G.rl.ond. '" A First C:it2logue of Altic p,.,.jbolo< T<>rnb<;' ABSA n (1982): 142, for .h. con~eed ""'rri.agc. G.rltn.d. ho;no.."....... does not posit a cont>C<"tion bt,,,,,,,n Hege:oo .nd .hc Gq!hynci. tf D.vi..·.... nmu i • ....Jid •• lIen f>rux"nus "mo, her (or wif.) " .... ,he
Mi,"'"
ow pr
em
24
C H A. PT fiR
I
qU3rrei and that marr iages that were meant to cOllsolidate ri el and property "rere nOf nec~riiy successful. ...'} Ciron balanced exog:1Il1Y and endogamy by fim Imrrying l moth er's sister's daughter 3nd the n by nurrying the siste r of a nonkiils.n un who was, however, a run! neighbo r. But the neighbor encroaehed on e iron's C'State lnd eased ou t Ciron's descendmu through the mlttitine. In Euctemon's GlIoe, he married the daughter of one fellow demesnun and Slve his cbughter to ano ther. Nevc:tthdo:ss, EUClemon divorced his wife and married a nonidnswo man: th ese lCtions Ioel him in confli ct whith his son. Muriage strategiC'S. therefore, with their implicit go:il of consolidation in the rural neighborhood, did not :ilWlYS do what they ":ere intended to do.
THE FAMILY IN LYSlAS 19
[n the discussion so lin. little hl:! been said of the fenile Mesogeia and familie$ with interests there.. For this the di~ussi on rurns to the individu.ili known to us from Lysi:lS 19. W ith the family of the speaker of Lysi:lS 19 and its :wociation with Cono n, we have a group of people who were very ",'ulthy and who moved in the circles of the political dite. In th is GI~, therefore. politics had a great deal to do with the formation of marria~ ties, but it was politics not totally divorced from ties at the localle~·d. T here is a good chance that the anonymous speaker of Lysil:! 19 and his father, whose name is also unkllown bm who was a dose friend of Conon, ...·, ere frolll th e deme of M yrrhinous, The father's nephew Phaedrus, WlS from that deme: if Phaedrus w.lS l brother's son of the speaker's father, th e spelker and his r:.ther were from Myrrhino ui (Plat. Ilf,llcdr. 244a, ConU;v. 176d, Jlt,:,lllg. 315c; Lys, 19 .15),70 The marr iage 3lli~ncC'S of this family cen tered on the Mc:sogeia. Although th e 5pcuer's father flu rri ed a ","'Oman from the city deme of MeHte (the daughter of Xcnop hon , the' so n of Euripides). the spcakc:r'ssisters mlrr ied men whose demes wen: in th e Mesogeia, Phi lomelus of Paeania and Phaedrm of Myrminous. Phaedrus was probably his wife's fint cousin; he leased some land in his nat i... e deme. Myrrhi nOUS.lnd owlled a house in the city, He may be identified as well with the Phacdrus who WolS a friend of Socrates and suffered poli tic:il disgrace :IS l res ult of the' affair of th e mutilation of the herms in 415, so that his m.uriage to his fint cousin c. 404 was a gesture of kinship consolidation du ring a time of political disgrace? ' Here too, then, the fathe'r's exogamous union WlS followed by his daughte r's endogamous one. As for Philomehu of Pae,mil, the $peaker's second brother-in-bw, although .... wllom, Ri.d., 158, on neighbor as fOe ••!though some eM the ,d"',,,e... cited by G>lum do nO( 1'<"",,1 d.,tty ,he roI~ of .he neighbor. '" Sec abo n.vi.,., APr: 2OI}-201. " For 1'Iu..d",,', di)c, ...,. And. 1.1$: D ...'in, A PI) 200-201.
"
m
FA MI L I E S O F THE P R. IVATE O R. AT I O NS
25
the nature and locat ion of h is pro pert y are un known, th e connectio n with Paeania is tcpeated in the next generation . T he speaker hi nudf marr ied the daughter of Critodemus of Alopece. This C ritode mus had a son, Ar istomac hu$, who sent his (ArislOmac hus's) daughter into the deme of Paea nia to lIu rry D iodorus of that deme (L)'1. 19.1 6).72 Although D iodoru~ was known for hi~ mining activity, th e fi ndspo t of his gravestone, which aIm tcCords th e deat h of his w ife, at Liopesi (IG 112 7040). mggests that D iodoms owned some property in th is area of the M ('sogeia around Paeania and that the couple resided there. T he refore. th e marr iages conrracted by the spea ker o f Lyo;ia;j 19 and his fat her reflect both interests in the ci ty. whe re Phaedrus owned a house. and in the Mesoge b where this family's deme seell1.S to have been located . Interest in the M erogeia was sustained by the marriage of twO sisters and by the speaker's brothe r-in-law. Deme associations in Myrrhinoll5 also appear to be operating in the northern plain. Phaedros, the brother-in-law and cousin of the speaker of Lysias 19, was a me mbe r of the Socn.t ic cirt:le. H is fellow demesman Eurymedon of Myrrhinous was married 10 Potone, Plato's sister. Give n th at Eurymedon's homonymous son or grandson. named as one of Pbto's heirs, held a landed C${ate bordering on that of Plato in the deme of Eiresidae, it is quite possible that this land had belo nged to Po tone's husband ; therefore. Plato and his brother- in- law "''ere neighbors. n If the reconstruct ion is correct. Plato. from Collytus. was a neighbor in the no rthern plain of a man from the distan t deme of M yrrhinous: this proximity of landed estates then facilitated the exeeuton hip of Pla tO'S estate by his sister s son. Speusippus. in the next ge neration?4 Perhaps the chapter is n ill nOl closed on the local element in Cono n's politic;u network,.. Eu rippides. the son of Adcimantus. aJso of Myrrhinous. was an ~J
s.,., alto Oovieo, APt; 61-62.
13 Diog. lafn. l.42~3; D~vK-s. APF, 334. T h" .~
,. D .... io, A Pli 334. AnOOcide.' kin grotlp m:ty b.a"" prxticcd ,inu4r nun..."" .... which link the dly 10 the MftOjJci •. Andocide.· de"'e was in ,he dty. Cyd.uhen><:Utn. h i< poooible that hi< (>th",. f.!her. />own..... Iud nurtkd. "-'1UI1 /fun, s...;.ia c. 470 (And. 1.41; Dn; .., A Pr; 30, 329). 1( .10, then th. marriaBt of Andocidei >im-r 10 CalIias. son ofTdocle!. to judge /fum'M ~ n.m. Tdocln. nuy ~ ~ a mvriage 10. (eno....· dcm",,",un in C)-d.>therunJm. or nuy b.a .... bc:<:n >J1 a1[,.ncf with • man in Angelc o. Myr mmOU<. boxh of which bclongfd to dle Wnf tT'ttY';II. Slci. ;. (I)mn, API; 30, 253-!>4). In odlcr words, Andocidn' l:in group m:ty tu..'t k Ill IWO wO.... n in nUr_ . ioge 10 the vicinity of Stciria; their oBi" ... i" turn. ",nt • WO"'1" into the city (:unity ~ Andocideo. by h:wing he. nu. ty Ihf onlO" f:u:her'. f.ther. He< ~nt. Andocide!' liKcr. bxk into. (amily whow: c u",,"n ndghborhoool f:>eili.1u:d thc alliance bcno.=1 t'M) gtUUps who _'" quite pouibIy £run, di>p.o....., <$' AndocidQ and hi> f.ther I~ ckNc I., the smifhy and hou", of Calli........ ~Tdod... in .h. ,"'~ (And. 1.39fF). T he (amily ~ NiciH the gencnl focuocd on the u ...,rn SKtlon oflh" Mooogd> .. ""II. Th. siucr of Andocidts' brotb~,_in_ bw. CaUix. Iud nurricd N;ci:ui broth • •. Eucnln of Cyttimidu. Euml..• broche,', ""'. Nidas 11. nurried lhe vKinity of A"gel< and M y.rh;...,u.. by ",.. rying lhe
wet"
,,,to
26
C HAPTER
1
amba!;5.;ldor to Sicily under the :legis of Co non in 393.15 Another amb3ssador with Euripp ide'l was Aristophanes, the ~n of N icop henms of unknown deme who. 3t the imistence of Co no n c. 393, became the second husba nd of Phaedrus's widow, th e sister of th e spe~ ker in Lysias 19 (1 tT. ).76 Aristophanes held land a t Rhamn ous, the demt' into wh ich T imotheus, the son o f C onon, sent his daughter in marriage. T imotheus', daughter nurried Mene'lth em. the son of Iphicrates o f RhanUl ous, L 362. Because Menesth eus md his fath er had patrilineal kinsmen residing in th e deme of Rhamnous in the founh cenmry (l G 112 73 4 1: rD em.] 49.66]),77 Iphicrates' kin group Slill had some property and interests in the local deme. T hus the members of the family o f Lysias 19, who ""'ere :l5Sociates of COllon lind were po~ibl y from M yrrhinous. alternated kinship exogamy with endogamy: the father's exogamous union was foUov.~d by his daughte r's marriage to her fin t cousin who wu from M yrrhinous and who leased land there. Another daughter was gh'e n in marriage to a man from Paeania; her brother's broth er-i n-law sent his daughter imo P3eania as well. A5 for oth er fellow demesmen and associates o f the family of Lysias 19, Eurymedon o f M yrrhinou$ married PI~to', sister and W3S probably a landed neighbor of the philosopher. Conan's associ~te Aristophanes ~n o f N icophemus, the brother-in- law of the spe~ker of Lysias 19, held b nd ~t R.hamnous where Timotheus, Conon's so n, sem his daughter to a family whose ki nsmen stiIJ resided in R.h mm ous. These Dmilies, from th e high est politic;!] ~nd econo mic uratum, wi th th eir prt:stige in Ath ellS ;md their nuny ties in Greece ~nd ~bro~d, must have taken many considerations into account wh en contracting their m~rriages, but Conan's use of social networks in Rhanm ous and Myrrhinous reve;!]s the interplay between local and nation~l, materi~l and polirio L
A RECONSIDERATION OF THE NEIGHBOR Osborne h~s given us ~ valu~ble fou ndation on which to lIndentand social networb in the deme: o ne of th e obvious W3ys of netwO rking is th rough m~rri age. The fellow demesman co uld be very useful in the form~tion of kinship ties: the cse studies above reve;!]ing th e use of fellow demt'Smcn are buil t upon Osborne's discussion and serve to add to it. But the focus here is not just a ll the fellow n Ariu. RJon. l:J,&4bl 5 arwhd><.>lia; l Y" 19. I~ I)mn, .i PI; 202-3. Th~ homonymi.ughter) of . Euripidc1 of Meli,. (l Y'. 19. I ~; AFF, 199-2(0). n.c ... n12)' be oom~ coll.,.r:aI kin$hip or ph)' h.tft' much like d.e e_ ofOnetor . "d Aphobu. dioc ..... d n.o..,. I~ S«. ;>\><) D.vies, A l'l; 201-2. for the "ur""l1". 'T7 See 1).vi ... A PI; 250-51 , for ,he marriage . nd Men=hcu,', ogru''',
'"
m
fAMILIES
OF THE PRIVAT E ORAT I ONS
27
demesnun: ~ f~mily call COIltr:lCt a series of m:arri~ges into a deme to which the owne r of a contested esUte belongs: at limes a piccl:' o f bnd of Ihe contesled esl:.Ite lies in :.I deme into which interested kin ",ill mll rit:illy ally. AI times families will ally with members of a deme close to the estale in question. At times individullis from proximate demes ,vill marry. Or bndownen with neighboring plots o f 11Ind contract nUTriage 1I11iances, or neighbors in lin urb.m qu arter strike up lin .al.lillnce. In sollle of this. one may fi nd individu.al.s from dispa rate demes aUying, but lit o ther times there is 1I focus on Ihe rural deme, eith er despite urblln residence or in conjunct ion with it. The localion of the rutive deme can be important, but is nOt always so, in the consolidation of proximate holdings. Of whll t use were neighbon and fellow demesmen? Again, Osbo rne hlls done a grellt deal to enlighten \IS here-neigh bors performed services for ellch other lind looked after each others' property when o ne of th em WoolS lIw:.Jy. As a consequence, therefore, neighbors could have detailed lmowledf,-e of the value of their neighbor's property and how they used o r abused it.71I According to Plut:.lrch, when Themistocles was considering selling part of his estate, he announ ced that the buyer would hn'e him as 1I useful neighbor (Thffll . 18.5). The historicity of th e remark is not importan t: the attitude is, of course. indicative of cbssical views of the helpful neighbor.79 Demesmen had knowledge of property held both by nch other and by non_ demcsmen wi thin the borders of their deme. so One ovt:rlooked example outside of the orations is the statement of Demerrius of Ph:.li erum to the effect that Aristeities Ihe Stal esm~n , w ho w:.Js from AJ opece, had an esule in Phalerum and wu bu ried there. The reference to burial in Phalerum, though contradicting the tradition abont Aristeide-s' poverty, woul d snggest th~ t D emetrius kn ew about lIctivities in his deme (Plu t. Arist. 1.2, 27. 1). Wh ether an individu.al. owned land in his d eme o r no t. his fellow demt:"!;men \'Qted on membershi p in his oikor---:a cru ci.al. step if lIdoption had led to 1I quarrei llmong members o f Ihe lesUtor's extended kin group.S! Nor c:.ln "'"l: assu me th:.n th e d emesm en would loo k more fllvorably on 1I fellow deme.smlln·s claim to an oikos within their deme: th e nondemesmall co uld hope to find su pport- Ihrough bribery, as ill the U~ o f Pseudo-Demosthenes 44. 3ccording to the speaker. but ~lro through well- placed mari~ :illiances into the deme. H aving discussed in detail how social netwOrks focusing 011 a region or deme \\.'eTC formed lind mallipulllted, we now turn briefly to the means w hereby th e newly acquired 3ffine maintained and reaffi rmed lies wilh h is kinsmen of ori Q,.b.,ruc • .or.-.., 146: 10<:",.' ~). 70. diocuued .~. roo r\1"h~. c:un,pln or ,be u"" or the nank nuin.ains w, rarni.lin ~ of 1"",-.:. un •• , when renting ptOpoJty. would .. ,;mo. try.o rili "'"", ncigJIboring bnd: "\..co.s.es. 224-25. 0<} For ;nouncc: [Dem.l 50.8; I•. 9.16-18: V . G.b, id ..", "n of [lk.". J H .bo-vc, .0 which .dd b. 7.27- 211. 7"01
N
M
ow pr
em
28
C H A P TE R
1
gin and those by his marriage. Frequently. the endogamous union would help to mai nta in ties with the kin group o f origin. but adoption. combined with endogamy. could also be a strong means of consolidation.
MARRYING IN AND ADOPTING OUT
The marriage strategies discussed abo ....e attest to th e frequent uSC' of kinshi p endogamy after the expansion of ties through nurriab'"eS with non kinsmen. In several of these cases marriage alliances \N't're reinfon:ed by adoption. What emerges wi th great regubrity is the use o f the neighbor. whethe r a fellow demesnun or someone from a nearby or e....e n a distant deme. Let us summarize here those adoptions which followed marriages to a neighbor. T hemistOcles, from Phrearrhi i, married into a city family of A!op«:e; the
n.--. 48.
D.vies. APE 552-53 {or the .......un', dtme. Invi~. ~r. presumes tI... both nt>ola w.-re di"inc" On me demc:s 0( CoIon.~• ...., T... m. 0....0.. 131 (L...,n.is). 139 (Am;",,"is. bul asoigr>e
"
m
FIlM I L I I!S OF THI! PRIVA T E O RATI ONS
29
the female line; the adoptee is ehO!len from a line o utside th e adopter's m.ale agrultic line but within his sphere o f residence o r activity. This adoptio n pr.lcti ce indicates that marital ties wen: originaUy form ed on the basis of propi nquityspouses wen: 110\ wandering fa r to marry.8 ~ How then did a Io:in group react when o ne of its own was adopted Out? In Thelllistodes' c:ue. after the adoptio n of his loOn into his father-in- law s. Lysander's, oikos., his ~'Q children by tv.'Q different wives married. while anot her daughter marri ed her father's brothers son ($ee appendix, p. 218). Although th ~ endogam ous unions occurred at th e time o f Thelllistocies' disgr.lce :.md, therefore, could have been prompted by it as ....'C1I ,8~ the c:ue of Sosith eus shows that endogamy follo ....'t'd adoption OUl witho ut the threat of political disgr.lcc: aft er Sositheus had his youngcst loOn adopted imo the esute of his wife's fath er, So5itheus's tbugiller married his brother's so n. A ~trili n e. then . ....'Q uld pnctiscendogaluy as a response to the adoption out of one of its memben. In other 1;:lSeS, howe\'Cr. the adoptee. altho ugh adopted o ut o f the patriline, will hinudf (herself) nu rry back into the patrili ne, o r a direct descendant will do so. For instance. according to Tho mpso n's reconstruction, GlauCU! o f Oeum had his tbughter adopted by his nutrilineal half-bro ther. Hagnias. of the same dcme. but the adoption was fo llowed by the d:l.Ughters marr iage to her fath er', full brother. There are other, more certain cases o f Ihe use of this str1llegy. In lsae us 10 Ar istarchus o f SypaletUis had nurri ed OUl of his deme and kin group. his bride being the daughter of Xenaenerus o f Acharna e, a nearby deme. AristlrchU5 secured the fortune of his f.lther- in-law, XerulenelU5, by having hi~ son Cyronides adopted into Xenaenetus's estate (4-7). When Aristarchus's own estate became ... Osborne. 0.- . 128. nuinlain. ,lin propinquiry In adoption is OttOr>dary m bnship ' in. I un su-euing hom: 1Iu, propir>qui,), ""II neffSUry to iniri ... "",.. i. 1I" lies for th~ funilia diSCWKCIivi,;n ........e close to ,h~ dnn~ of his >dopI:i ... funily. N.usicleo had been odop!w by. family." 0« ..... &om A<'gilil (D:ovi~ APF. )97). TIoe "' .... ....., fu rther ;nuan-cn o(lh~ adopc~~ coming from Ib~ Anlt Ikn", .. the adopt .... bu'. ag:a.in. no ""'....II" link u uplicitl)' OUtW in on~ c . .... and. in tilt OCM •• oomC"'T'< of "W'atic kiruh.ip ~ .h~ ....., f.mili,.. ""y be indiolw. For Ib~ former imuncr, 1J>Vi.... A PI; 229:Th".dippuo ~ bo:cn adopcw into . notll-er f, ,,,ily of Ih~ Anl~ Ikme. A",pl..-n. Th~ adopt;... f. mily bdonged 10 • dilf=!lI pllr'm y (Is. 9 .2. )l) .nd. th~ ... I0",. would !H)( Iu... bo:lonvd 10 Thu.dippu . .. p'..ili....,,,,.. other ineidtn. (ANi 4S) invol .... th~ odoprion ofTh ...ybuJ", of Lou ... into 'he hou..- of HippoloclUdcs. ,lit son ofThnoyrncdn of l.-ouoU: .lIe "mibr;ry of _ in Ihe rwnes may HIIW" 1OlIl~ I0I'l of >gIWic kimhip: O.bome. llmoot, 2-4S n.7.1>owt-w •. 5UICIo m.. .be kinship is uncle... >OS",.. · d..m ght",- Nit_he.marflood he. !i~ cous;n (r. ........ 1J,othn ·,fOn)•• fter t.n father. Ik. th: Ott I).vi"., APF. 212 If.. fot th= d... .... The .rndrncy .oward r ndng>.my .. . ti .... of poIi.icaI dil£lXC is <"Vidtnr in u.. pncticd of ... her po~tial familia (0« appendix . nd bibllosrophy u...rm).
,I,.,
30
C H APTJ!R
I
insokem ( 15-16),116 it fell under the guardianship o f his brother, Aristomenes, M oreover, th e speaker stated (1 7) that some families with insolVC'1lC esta tes would try to ha"" their children adopied into other ' Two of Callitelcs' sons, M eidon II and Meidoteles, marrkd two .. For which lee. WyK, ,_ 662 . ... Wyfptcd Qu' bc~ .... of hit & ........ .. In 1M omion II", ""'.ker colll"' .... XcnKnetwi ....u: wi.h . di"l'U'ro pi"" ofl.",d, X.,.. .....""...... tmreiO .. ,I.ln
«au.
w..
5-867, i, op<'<'U~;"", btll >cc<'Pm1IMlC:M;.-e1y by Ooborn •. ,-"'- 132_ .... Sec ...., D.via, API; 1<47; Owom•• v......... 132- 33. !lU"" .ilnply the: adoption did nnl ..panu: D;c-,"eq;< ,.... IV from his gt'net'" (.on;1y and 'be
,tu.
~,
Huml"hrcys, nrmil)\ 109.
fAMILIES
Of THE PR I VATE ORATIONS
31
epikliroi, or inheriting daughters, of Cillitelc:s' wife's brother who W-IS from the same deme. Myrrhinous. From the fi ndspot of th e stones at Markopoulo. mor.:OI.'er, both families w.:re resident in th eir native dcm..::. Although M eidoll 11 and Meidote1es we~ not neces.sarily adopted into the house of their mother's brother, on.: of th em. ncvcrtheless. would probably have left a child behind as heir.92 Thu.s, this partial absorption of Mcidon and Meidote1 es into their matern:ll uncle's lin.: was then followed by the marriage of Meidotelb' daughter to Callillledon, the full brother of Meidon and Meidoceles. Therefo~, in six casel. tv.'O affinal familic:s of the llou~lidae. the family o f Isaeus 10, the family of the son of Polyeuctus of Bate. of Meidon, and that o f Dicaeogenes II I. there was an eagerness to acconuuod;ate kinSlnen outside of the p:&triline by providing them with hei". but th e imel"('$ts of the: pJtriline wc:re: never far away. Although ~holars have maintained that th.: bw sen:red the adopt.:e from hiJ o r h.:r oikoJJ of origin and. th.:refor.:, from the patrilin e. 93 nev ertheless. endogamy within or hack into the patriline could compenute for the adoptee's abse nce from the PJtriline. In mOSI cases, thC5e maneuvers "''eft' facil itated by the proximity of both kin groups.
KINSHIP IN_MARRlAGE IN THE ATHENIAN CONTEXT
We must always look carefully at all the rights and obligatiom that prople can hold in property, group melubc:rship and in each other, and see how {hac are diwihuted. Very ofte", th"lines of divi1ion become blurred when this is done, but at leut "'" eKOpe th" f:iliacy thaI having s.>id of ~ syst"'" that it is ·p.:olrilino:i1· "'" Iu~ disposed of the nl<m important qucuion about it. W" Iu"". in fact, only jUst Mgun. All sy5lems ~re in a selUe: 'tr:msitional'; chang.. i~ tho: bw oflif~ in 5<Xic:ty.;u "",U as . til nature .... ~
The Atheni311s of the Or.ltions strikingly ...xemptify this dictum of the anthropologist Richard Fox. On the one hand. their lIU1rrillge pr:l.ctices often reve:tJ a strong patriline:tJ orientation; on th e other hand, whenever property is tr.msmitted, it is common for concerns o utside the pacrilin.: to surface. In the C1$e$ of some of the families and kin groups discuued abo....e. a sibling followed a sibling or a woman follov.-ed a kinswoman into a particubr deme Jt marriage in order to secure lIffinal ties or to reinforce a claim to a kinsmJn's property. Fo r o ther families and kin groups, kinship endOg;lmy W:lS resorted to when an esute came into crisis, or, in one case, when 1I kin:unan faced political disi,'r.Ice. or when a pan-iii".: lost a m ... mbc:r through adoption. Not aU Athenian ... H .... i..,... ~ 1:132- 35. ~l For u.1mpk. ibid .• 93: MxO""'.... Il.lAw. 9?-100: Rubimttin. AdopMro. 57~ . ... R . """'. KifIIIti" ..J A"-'4/'" A" Anrlwpolcgit,,/ l'mpttftvr (t"'rmond.worth: "" nll"in. 1967). 155-56.
M
'" .m
32
C HAPTER I
families resorted to ki nship endogamy: a rough estim.ate from the known or inferred nt.l.rriages in Daviess lining, for insta nce, indicates a proportion of endogamo us unions of 19 percent-nOl a terribly high figure compared to other agrarian societies that practise kinship in_marr iage.9oS H owever, more instances of endogamy may well lie hidden in the listing; we are at th e mercy of texIS that do not alw:lYS detail rebtionships among members of a kin group. In any case, o f th e instances discussed above, there w:IS a greuer tendency for a man to either contract. or attempt to COntr.lct, a marriage through his father's line than through his mothe r's line; th e ratio of such marriages, or attempts, runs abo ut two to one. This ratio is refieCled in Davies's listing as a whole, for a possible 37 endogamous uniOIU. 96 Of the 10 un ions through the mothers line in ... For -'''' agr:on..n _i~i .. kimJ,ip endosomy can run .. high OS SO pet<:eT1' ~ ;ill n ...."ges: J.-l . Fb ndrin. F-illn; v......"J, ~, so:wmitl ""'" l'. rttinoM J«thJ (Pam : Hachtttt. 1976) . 39: Fbndtin points 0111 ,h., • high dtgrtt of local tndog>nty foot"" kiruhip .....Joguny. S« ako J. Goody. TIv ~, cf 'M Fuor;1y """ MIUriIl,ft i" E...."., (C:unbridge: C.mbridge' Uni ....... ity "',"", 1983). , 86-61, for 'he a1.en.... ion of endopmy and e>;Og...l1Y .mong the poli.ical ch", in Eu_ ro~. SepleT1 akodiscussn Ih( p.>tlern fof ~:Wrl! f:l.milies in rnnC( ; 1« below. note 102. H. Rosmfeld. " Tht O ;m,r.>dic. ion Ik,w"tn l'n;>p$ R dkctnI ut thc MufU@:<' Syo_ Icm of m A ... b Vj]I1g".w.r ~ «I.J. G. ~rmiany (Paris: M outo n. 1968). 2SJ-59. ",cords that of eighty l1 .. rriages made by n..teo in. ~11;"">iI"" 5 1 ~n;tnt wttt 10 women within Ihe linc.~ md 2J pcm::nl of th(:S(' with p.>uil1ten.l puolld CousU>l. How~'. ,h~ ....... thow " ·ho.,,, sh-ptical of high fill""'" /Or kin""ip erwiqpntY: l . Holy, l(jouJt;p. H".. ,...... 4"d s..lidmi'1 (M.nchestCT: M.nchester- UnM:niry f'n:ss. 1989). 17-21 . For rnid"a1 p.>ttiliny in ~ndop",y. """ E. L. ''''en. - ....p"'c .. of .... ffinity in a L~b.n"",, M • ..,.,i.c VilJ.8"." ,n 1",........ ,,1< r..",· i/y S" ...,...... 33-}oI. who upwru that tht m ..... iage of. -,mon to . "r.mgn will be lubncw by h~'lOn ·. m:..... 8" .o her f. uglutt (fig. 2b). o r WI tWO in.dividuals who.,.., disuntly ...",•• «1 bu, " 'ho d o ... fnrng«n conjc<:n...,d by other " hoI • .... and which! h.... included in my discuuio", in !his chope. and in the .Pl"mdi>:, .... nOC liStw here; 'hc mirim "oed '0 n:>.ory. "X«pI W. "z " sunflicus + FZD (19): PoIemon + FDSD : Phi!..grus + FUI) : Call;.,........ + FUDO; Sosith"",·, brother', son + So.itheus· dongh'er (F"D; ;dl allianc.. for tht Bou ... litbe: If.): Thucri.idcs + A ) (94-95, "emn..); De mophon + fil l) (118 If.): D>odotu< + UO (] 5 1); J>olynoclu. + FBD (112): t\n;hUdes + BD (]94): I'h>tdnu + FUO (?) (200): t\n;hq>,00is + FI) (21 1): Phr.toicLes + FBI) (2 11): I"yribn'p'" + Z D (330): Tht<>tnnn<us + ZD (.o1);Thr>pO" ..... is uncLeu: Hippodeia + Thyn_Les (1. 2); ~nes IV + d:>Uihter of. GephyDC'US (141); l'eric.ionc ...d .-.mton (33 1): t\lcn ...... nidn + t\g>ri.. c (333). Through tht n"",her', Ii...,: Andocides + MilD (30 1f.); Sosi.hC1.lS + MFUSI) (19-80): U>i!"" + MU!) (9 1); t\phobus + MH', ",idQw ; ~h .. + MZD (118 If.): Olorus + M Z D (235-36: D.vi.. is . kqxiaJ); H ipponieus III + MMUD (265); Cimn + M ZD (3D): C1eom"don + MU!)I) (320). Rcb.ioouhip unck ... ndlor d' ...." : J>oIywc ..... + w,(t of bc homachus (6): Akibiw... III + Hippo""" (if both ",b u"d.o ""'ideo) (19); i"toc<mon (81); d:>"g/l.~ + (tUaw dcmesnun (195);
,h.inc .
n
U:<>aa,,,,'
pr
err
F,\MILIJ:l5 OF T lil! PR,IV,\TI! OR,\T I ON 5
33
D;lvies' register. 4 v.'Cre cnes in w hich a man married an inh eritin g daugh ter, and there ....'ere. apparently, no male agnates o f he r f;lIher to claim he r hand, or willing to do so. Th us, Andocidcs the o ra to r ;lnd his cousin (m oth er's sister's son) strove to marry Epilycus's daughten, th eir mothen' broth er's dtugh ten, beca use Epilyc us had no brothers o r brothen' sons."7 The !-ame re;lsoning [;ly behind Hipponicus lll's attempts to ma rry o ne of Epilycus' daughters (his moth er's moth er's brother's daughte r).98 According to Sositheus, no agnatic kinsmen ...."ere willing to cbim tll e hand of his wife, :I ki mwom;ln thro ugh his mother's f:lther (or mother's father's brother's son's daught er). Though th e marriages of Meidon II and his brother to th eir moth er's brother's d;lugJlIen have not been discussed by Davies, Humphreys's reconstruction also shows that the unions were precipitated by;l crisis: the daugh ten' father seems to have had no brothers, In these cases. although the WOllla n's kin grou p is !>ending out two wOlllen to a l1l;ln's oikos, the man will be leaving his child beluud ~s heir in the woman's original kin group. O therwise, m.:l rriage to a kinswoman through the matriline could leave the offipring from that uni on at a SC'vere dis:ldvamagc le~lly: Ciron's grandson from Ciron's tirst muri;lge to his motherl siuer's son was prevented from inheri ting Ciron's esute by Ciron 's agnate, his brother's son. Sositheus. in the end, ~ppef unkn<>wn (kn,c (499; Inv>cs does no! .Uk lbe potIibility of endogamy; lbe roots in ,be ."""..,.' noma may suggnl kin_ ship .in, bo...... toO COUUnoll for 'his to be mo ... pn!IlibilityJ. In ,he im..",... in.t>.- """ions
,Ila".
II.... ! "'...... no! ~ by D:r.ioes.u.c'" is 011<' of. "",moge to FBD 01. 10.5), oM 10 ZD (I:Htn. 4 1.1 IT) aood thft,e Qth~n of .. "cI~ .. rd~"""',ip (11:km. J 411.5; 5\1. I I 'J.-;!O; Lyr.. 13_1J. ~ Owin, API; "[bid.. U465 . ... For 'nlUD«, H . ..ison, ~ 1,IJO.-.-'9: MocDowd , 1..-1 92--99; ~ ,nose recenlly R . Juot. 1I&Mt1r it! A,,,..,,;.., L..Iw MId Ujt (London: Routl.dge, 1989). 83-89; V. Hun.a. "i\gJutVtr ;,. ,lot A.· <Wtrl M u;!mtt1lNtl rn..tJ, ed. B. HaJl"'rn:and n Hobwn (Srn,ffidd : 5hdf",ld Academic Pn:I.$, 1993),
m.
102-3.
3.
CHAP T E R 1
societies in order 10 consolidate prope rty.l 00 Certainly this has been borne Out by the Att ic orators in all cases except that of Lysias 19, where political disgnce and, perhaps, the confiscation of property whic.h inevitably followed, prompted the marr iage of the speaker '$ sister to her first cousi n. Political disgrace, or thn-at of di sgn ce, as \.\o'e will see, m~y well h~ve been the force behind the endogamous unions of the po~rful familie-s of th e fifth eenmry (a ppendix, pp. 216-29), For the orations, in general, as Osborne maintains, "kin dl"termin e marriage" to reinforce links and prevent the disintegration o f property.l0l Kinship endogamy would be especially effective in a society where equ.al division of the paternal propt:rty among the children (p.u tibility) might eventu.ally reduce holdings to an unprofitably smail size. 102 As will be discussed, for Athern the pnctice of partibility applied only 10 male children . Theoretically, marriage to a patrilineal kinswo man allowed the woman to reside dose to her patriline. 103 Although our $Ourcc:s are not informative about the domicil es of patriline;l! kinsmen, the rources do reveal tllat patrilineal kinsmen tended to depend on each other for mOral and material support. Marriage to a father's brother 's daughter or brother's daughter w:u an ans ....'e r to political threats agai nst the family of Lysias 19. and as will be discussed further in the appendi:,;, th e Alcmaeonidae, the Salaminii, and the 6mily of Themislod es. Among the less prominent f2nulies from our Ol,ny_Sin« D""'•• 5« Goody,~. 31- 33. 186-87.;bId bibliogr.lph)- th=-in. For (! S. M~lIh l:W$ (C>mbridgc-: C.mbr~ Uni"""";ty p~ 1986), 120-28. Scg.kn.1>o diSC\Wel u.. .11.... n>lio" of nog;o.n>y with endog.....),. Although I).vl$, Ptcpk, 197ft'.• cia,,,,, !hat putibiHty 112$ hi$tQnc.Uy n"""r muJlO'd in .,......-diYision. mil .bmty 10 ofIin ,he crisi$ may "..,U b.. due, in pm. "" the ,endc""ks rowud in~n .. rriage. To .rgue th., k;n!hip ;n-maffiaSO' w;u nO{ practiced '0 • ..,id """rp,,,,,,ling, on the ground! tha, n",h • crisis II"""r occn.red in • panible ;nh~rit:>na Iystem, lNy be p""ing 'he ,00
the horse_ "'-' $«, fur ;n".nu, M. Onenhc:i" ...... '·Co"lJ>I~mm'.rity .nd ' Il< St,ucrutt< of P:".,ol!~I_Cou<;n
~all bdQ",
Muri.g.e.M Aootrir.... ."~'~I 8!1 (1 986), 936.
"
m
FA,... I L I E5
Of T H E
PRIVATE
ORATIONS
35
i!.be where out of the six known or inferred cases of endogamy, fi\"e instances reveal that a spouse was sought through th~ patTilin~. III Lysi:u 32, not discw!.ed above, ~nd in P!;eud()- D~mosthen es 44, Ih~ nurriage, or inte nded marriage, of a man to his brother's daughte r would ally the hoUSC$ of twO brothers, who held join! property (Lys. 32.4-7: [Dem.] 44.10 ff.).1G4 In fact, in Lysi:u 32, becau!.e Diodotlls died sever:al yellO lifter his nurrillge 10 the !.bug}lIer of his brOl her Diogeiton, Ihe llltte r assumed guardillnship of Diodotus's estate, thereby comro Uing the origin.a1 wellith and lIny wealth accrued lipan from Ih e original estate (Lys. 32.4-5). When both spouses came from the s.;ame p.1triline through m.ales the marriage was obviously agnlltlc in bi:u. Marriages to J fath er's siSler's !.bughter o r a siste r's !.bughter, although nOt bc:tv.-"een spouses of the sallie plltriline through males, did. ntvertheless, uit illilltely inV(llve the deKen!.bnts of a brother lind siste r of the same plltriline: the impliclltion here is thlll brothe r lind sister ...."ere looking to th e illterests of their Clikos of origin. The marriage o f the no n-Athenian orator Lysias to his siSler's !.bughle r m ay well have brought Ihe wife bllck to her mothe r', originlll oikru, or, at the \'ery le:ut, to her original kin: Lysias lived with both his wife lind his widowed mother (fDem. j S9,22). The one ceruin insunce o f marriage to a father's siSler's !.bughter in Davies, Ihe marriage of ClIllias llI's son, H ipponicus III, to the ooughter of H ipparete lind Akibiades, h:!.bnced Hipparete's marriago:' out 10 Alcibiades, Io5 Furthermore. H ipparele's !.bughler look up reside nce in the house of Hipparete's brother's son (Lys. 14.28). Th is bite r union would hllve reinforced tv.-"O oikoi that were suffering severe financial problems during the PeloponJIesian War, and lilly 'w eU have bttn intended to bring some of H ipparete'! vaSI dowry back 10 her oikos of origin (see appendix, pp. 225--27), In the case of Deinias'$ family. Theonmenw's nurriage 10 his !iSter~ !.bughler otllov."ed fo r the fluidity of bounoories between his Clikos and Ihat of ApoUodorus as ml'" ffi'O men shared their weotlth. This fluidity is rt'"fteCled in D emOSlhenes 41, 1101 discuucd aoo.."e. In this ontion. although LeocntCS'marrial,"<: 10 hi$ $iSler's daugh ler accompanied 1m adopti on by his wife's falher lind led to his residence in his wife's oikos, the situation would probably have been temponl)'. Leocntcs' wife was an inheriting !.bug tller: her hmband was adopted so as to provide an heir to her father's (SU tt', and most adoplecs, after It'aving a natunl son in Ihe
Otho.""
'''' 1 ~ wj,h o.,·i", {APt; 195-96). 1OU.:M-ed by (Dt->4 1~), who bdio:w ,boo ",",our's 1U<<m<111 duo Arcl.iadon· rc:fu;a] ro nutty hi' n;.u Itfi <>! in dUllh"Y both marr;ro ' n)U.M
oUt..,..
rugr of a "".... I t t bolow. d .. ~r 4.
M
ow pr
em
36
C H APTER
1
oikos of adopti on. returned to thei r o rigin:!.lline. 1('6 Ne\'(" rtheless, because of the endogamo us un io n :md adopt ion. Leocr.J.{e$ had brought some of his prope rty imo the nu riul residence (4-5). There w.l.S. therefore. a strong patrilineal bias in Athen ian law. and in a greate r number of cases Athenians tended to comnct marriage$ that re flected this bias. If an individual married within the kin group he preferred nu rriage with a kins....'OIIl;m through his father or brother. That th is preference did not :!.Iw.l.YS resull in consolidation o f kins.hi p ties and property is evident from the o l';ltio ns recording Demosth ene5 the orator's dispute with his guardians: :!.Itho ugh the elder Demosthenes fU rned to his broth er and sister to provide husbands for his widow and w ugh ter. the intended marriages neve r tr:l nspired. th e guardians embeuled the estate. and the da ughter wa5 finall y giren to the son of her mot her's siSler. In haem 7. which wa5 nOI discussed above, Th rasyUuS 107 married out. but it scelltS that his SOli wa5 imended to mury one o f his brother's wughters. But the brother. Eupolis. tried to embezue his nephew's estate. so that a dispute erupted between uncle and nephew. No nur riage wa5 contncud bef\\"een the com ins. e'lell though the parties involved kn ew that endogamy wo uld have bound the we:!.lth of both houses together. by increasing the uncles hold on the nephew's e$tate ( I I f.). In fact. Thrasyllus's son tu rned to his matrilineal kin, his h:!.lf-sister an d her son, to carry on his line (i bid .. 9-13V otl lsaeus 7, there fore. shows that the ideal of endogamy wa5 not realized because o f dispu tes am ong agnatic ki n. lsaeus 7 is hardly exceptional in its depiction of feu ding kin. Yler chapters will show how the ~gllatic bias in inheri t.. nce laws co uld m.. ke ri~ of the \'("ry individuals who had th e righ t to inh eri t, a friction that o ften resulted in their cOllling to depe nd on female kin of the patriline or on kin thro ugh the matrili ne. H19 H ence. th ere wa5 a basic contradiction between kin" .. The Q At ex«ption '0 this pr.w:tk.. .. ,he "",~ktr"1 cbim in b . 9. ! If. tha, C leon and his rother Iud p.wcd m'" onoth.<-r oi/ro< throug/l adoption . A whok linr ~"I! i~1f from il> ",'riline "'""' un",ual. If 110< un_A,h~n;'" . Cleon'l """ and th~ 'f><'aker .....,~ boch d..inling ,h~ . igh. '0 ~ adopted '"." ,h~ ...... 10 of A>typhilu. , who wU . n agna'~ of CIcon ~n.d h", .on. Thercfoo.; by d .. ming th. t Ckon', f.the •. C leon hi"""lf. ~,wJ a ..o". ;ill .....,'" 'ntmbers of ...other oilN><. .M "",.ke, has dre<1ively ....,.."red .hnn finm ,lid . p1lfil;"...nd from Asyphil",. csn't. The "",akn. alkga. i011 nuy be, ''''P«O: Cleon p..,o.,b1y h.d other so,,, (APr; 229). n.. ~aItc<'l rival might rwver Iu~ ken ..dop<ed illtn ano.her ho_. bu. nuy weD ... ~ ,,~ in the ",triline. In 'he c.... of the f:uni!y in 1>C",o"he"cs 4t. Spudw. who nurried ~,cs' e,,- wife afte. L~,cs .nd ~,cs' low. l~tus. h.d q ....."'!ed • ....,n.. '0 Iu.,." left heif1 in PoIl"'uctus. osu,..: ..... btLow. clupl'" J . •".,. fo< Thr.uyth.... ,.,.. I)ovics. APr; 43-44. ' 08 Wyw. '- . 557: Osborne. 0tm01, 136. '09 Foo- othn "",,,... in ""e; Fox. KinJJ.ip, 121: I. M . l<wu, ~ I'tobkrn< in the Cmnp:ora,ivc Study of UniJill"~! l>cscem ." ,n 1M RlIr,,,,,,,, cfMOnron (London: T.vi_ "ock. 1%5). lOS. Lewi • • rgues in syst<"ml tha, . ppear '0 h.~ dua! descent. pmiline.!ity nuy \)(! I1lOngly IIn:»e<1. In 'his rega.rd.....,""" S. ~lUCki. " Kimh;p T ics ODd Young 1',.. ricWts in Fifie",uh_CcnturyVntiu; ' ~ Qo
""I!
r.th.t._lll_
,hal..,.....,
pr
err
FAM IL IES
OP THE
PRIVAT E O RATI ONS
J7
dt.ip endogamy, which stressed inh eriun ce through the patriline, ~nd adoptio n prxtice. in which th e adopte r o ften selected his hei r through ~ femal e relative. Disputes ;unong kinsmen, panicubrly n,..le agnales, as w ill be d iJCu~ blt'r, had a direct effect 011 domestic relationships and oikoj composition .
________ c
HAP T E R
2 _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Town and Country, Marriage and Death
OUR r:.XA.\,IIN"'TION of the lite r.lry sources has sho wn to Whlt e xtent locale,
though
necessarily the native demeo, pla)'Ni a role in th e marriages of the pro~ n icd elite. From time to time urbJ.n domiciles ("cilitated alliances among fa milies in ndghboring dem es or owning neighboring a Ula, and at other times propinquity in the city C'ncollnged alliances among prominem families in disn OI
par:ne' dernes. Once
twO
(amili e::! were united in m :...rriage. kinsmen :md
kinSW()lnc:n acted so as 10 reinforce thos.e ties an d consolidate property :md wnlth. But dl<~e strategies were no t resfticted 10 th e families in the ontions. The present chapter will deaJ with individuals in th e gr.wc in'ICript io lls, many of whom were socially o r politic.. Uy obscure both in their demes and in the larger, formal stru ctures of the polis. Wh ether or not these lX'Ople were also poo r is a highly de bated quC'Stion. T he standard view claiming that the purchase of gra\'esto nes could be afforded only by well- to-do families is now being challenged. 1 On both sides of thh issue. however, th e estinutes of th e cost of gt'2vestonc:s, including inscript io n and sculpted reliefS, are quite speculative. It would be safest to say at this point th at the nlan euven oudined below may describe the str.ltegiC'S of ric h and poor alike, though this is far from cernin. Furthermore, because th e study of marriage smltegies is de~ndent on the full record of both the husb;md and wife. indica ting the dem e from w hic h they come. the most inform ative of the grave su'lae are those dated to th e fourth ce ntu ry, w hich often give the demes of both sPOUK'S. Therefore, our concl usio ns are restricted to the fourth century. although in some cases the Il1lIrriages recorded may date to the late fifth century. The soci.al commentaries of H ump hreys, Garland. and Osborne on the gnveStoIiL'S are by now well known . H umphrt:yll and Garbnd. however. focused primarily on burial :md bu rial group:! and nOt specifically on m arriage practices? Humphrt:yll argued that large extended groups and clan plots were not the norm . Although she is correc t in showi ng that the c ho ice of burial plot was highly individ ual, it was individual ill all A th enian way: as H umphreys' dt!SCription of groups itse lf shows.) those extended group buria15 that did occur generally elll1 ~ the......n., ciU .nd Ooborne Ie<: Mlow. """" l .. >d 7. 's. C. Humphrrys. 1'W """'iIr- I.,,"......~4 Owl< (london: RDuoltllge ~nd ~" l',ul. 198.l), 111 _17.
"
m
TOWN AND COUNTR Y , MARRIII GE liND
DEIITH
39
phasizcd kinship through the f~ the r. Therefore, brothcrs' SOilS, f~thcr's brothers' sons and their des<:cndanlS mlke up th e nujority of individ uals re corded in grou p buriau. It d id also h~ppen th~1 cross-siblings were ~Iso bur ied tQboc ther, ~ t limes with the spoUk: of one sibling ~nd th eir descendants or wit h the spo uses of bol h ~ nd their c hi ldren. As will be shown in c hapl er 4. the d ispl~y of t ies betwee n crem-si blings is ~ manifesu tion. not a co ntradiction. of 19nation. Sisters were lOO bur ied togeth er in th e plo t wi th othe r o riginll fami ly members o r, in one case, with their mo the r's brot hers' sons. who m~y also have been their husb;lIlds (IG 112 58\\ ). In two cases. sisters were buried together in plots isolated fro m Iheir families. witho Uilhei r c hildren (/ G 112 5673 + 568 1: 6025 + 6(45). Therefore, children descended from two sisters \vere not bur icd together. o r, at th e very least, the exum gravestones do not show. o r refuse to show. Ihis rela tio nship. The omission is ag:lin perti nen t. Only in one il1St ~nce , in the literary sources, were sisters' so ns bu ried togeth er. Acco rding to Pseudo- Pluu rch. lsocn tcs' mau:rn:.l1 ~unt and her son were buried in his plot, :LIong with lsocrates' m othe r, brother, adopted son and other relati\'t:s (lPlu t.] A·lqr. 838b-c).· No o the r source tdb us tlul a woman could extricate her son from his father's plot and be buried w ith his mother ~nd her siste r's family of mar ri ~ge. Cert:l.inly. this unique burial pr:r.ctice of lsocratei ki n nuy reAect th e or:r.tor·s gn:at n:putation. with margin:ll kin gravitating IOward his burial Spol.s 13ec~use, hO""CVeT. Pscudo- Plut~rc h ~dmitted Ihat stones in the plot wen: missin g or had been destroyed ([P[ut. ] M OT. 838b-c). he was nOI able to give the full story to postcr ity. In short, burill, as a public statenlent. lends to focus on the nuclc~r family. and then on the patriline; Ih e [:.u-ger number of individuals in the parril ine consistS ofbrOlhers and Ih eir desce ndan ts. bu t cross-siblings a nd thci r descend~nts can be n:pres.cnted. R e pres.cntalio n of kinship ties through strictly female lines is very rare. 6 Rob in Osborne, in his discussion of the use of kin and neighbors in muri~ges, concludes &om his study of the gr:r.vestones tha t locale was not a decisive consider:r.tion in th e choice of mari tal p~rtners.7 Those stones that record marriagc-s betwee n indivi duals of neighboring demes are in the minority. while the occ urn: nces of neoloc:.l1ity o utstri pped even those of virilocal ity.~ (Neoloc~lity would be defined as reside nce close 10 nei th er spo use's dcme. while \'irilocality is residence in or closeT to Ih e husba nd's deme.) H O""eVCr. Osborne slUdied th e role of m igrations in marriagc in only a h:llldful o f cases. and he did not con• S« abo C. Tuplin. 21!8-JO!>;
H~mph rryo.
~Some Em~nth!;om
r-;I)'.
to
,h~
F.mily_ T"", of boc.., ..:· CQ 3Q (1980):
It6.
5 Ibid.
BeIiup .~. 0« the lTlrd wnh", !hem. Apin. ddini,;om ntt
pr
em
..0
C H APTER 2
sider findspots in deuil. for. 015 we will sec. the practices of those: domiciled in the city, regardless of demotic, could be quite different from those o f residents o f fUral are:.ls. wh ere deme and loe:.lle pbycd :.l Inge r rol e. O ne eX:.lmple in which the findspot of the gnveStone c:.I n nuke a subst:.lntial difference is in the case of Aexone. Osborne lIuintains that this deme seems to have had no connectio n with the Peiraeus. yel the findspots of gravestones recording men from this dem e show th3t sevent ee n out of t\venty o f th t$(' men, w ho were domiciled in th e city. resided ill the Peiraeus.'J M ore rece ntl y, D3msgaard- Madsen's investig;ttio n of migr.uio ns. b:.lSed on 3 thorough uudy of the findspots of the gravestones, has reinfon::fi:l a th eory c:m tiously proposed by Gomme that the cbssical era witnessed he3VY migrat ion from thc co untry to the city. 10 U nfortunately, Damsgand -Madsen's study WlIS 3 preliminary o ne 3nd did not consider mnri3ge ti es or women's mign ti ons, though it noted briefty th3t wo men were less SUtiOll3ry th31l men. 11 The basis of the present cha pter will be th e corpus of gnvc inscriptions compiled by th e Copenh3gen team o f Mogens Hernun Hansen, Lars Bjertrup, Thomas Heine Nielsen. Lene Rubinstein, and Torbe n Vesterga3rd. 12 Although th e corpus includes inse riptions of H ellenistic 3nd R OIlUIl due, the present study will foc us on those inscriptio ns of th e d :.lS$ical era. tilling from befon: c. 300 B. C, The purpose here will be to study th e nurriages conrracted by both the we3lthy and the less \\'e:.llthy, and to determine to a gre:.lter extent th3n hitherto into w hat demes Ath enians nu rried.:.Is \\'(' 11 as wh eth er th eir nurriages involved migration or kept them . more o r less. in their demes o f o rigi!>. Of prime importance 10 this study is H . Osswald's investigation of the town of Porto in northern Portugal, in the firs! half o f the seventeen th centu ry. Porto lay a few kilometers from , Ibid .. 2-3. I focus on men alom ... the "",men whose n;lmes pI'OCede a nule fWD<' in the 11""ill"" and " 'I>o:ore not buri<-rd-M:Ilh p (Iurh ...: Iurh ... Uni...mry I>res... 1988). 5s.-<>8. Migrotion u denied by Osborne. o...r..s. 16. 41....(2: . nd D. Whitche.ad. TW Dnooa oj a...w..1Atrir. 5Q8 f ?-u. 250 lI. C (I'. inwon. N.J.; Princnon UniYenity 1'rnI. 1986). 352-57. who, I>ownoer•• p1"'''' nOO , 0 ......, $tUdiM the fimhpou of V",,",oneo in donoil. Sec M . H . H.noen eo ..... "The Dc-mogrophy of the Ionic o.,m.,., The Evidence of ,he Scpukhr;l! lr>JCriptions," A....JR- 19 (1 990) : 44. n. 36. for bibliogrophy on .he lUue. " [4n~-Madsen. - Ani.e Funeral h..rnptioM." 6J. U D .... t.osc a. CopenJugm Univeniry. h..... i.utc of C h ub. compiled by L. 8jeruup. M. H . H:oruen. T. H ";ne Niehnl. L R "birncein . aOO T. Veotcrpard. l;lm indebte-d to Hob ~lin for sending me 1 copy of thi! corp .... A•• he time of m:eipt .he fiLe consUted of .he inscriptions da.ing to .he cWsial en ",Id cuUed &om IG II' 5228--7861 . 7862- 13065. 100 the ~ in W. !Tel<. '"At_ .iJ.;ht "UCMifren;' AM 61 (1942): n - 211: G . Sunuris. "Am.cht Grobiruch. ifr ....." ibid .. 218--29: W. !Tek. A ttifo,,-..,<, vol. 11 (Princeton. NJ.: American School of CbssiaJ Srudieo . , Athem. 1974): SlOG 12--35 (1955--85): M.J. Osborne... Anie Epiuplu. A S"pplemen'," A",&< 19 (I988): 5-60. 11u"" since conwlted.ht Cwren. wu.,. of SEC.o volume +0.
pr
ell"
TOWN AND COUNT R Y, MARRtAGE AND
UEATH
41
the coast and ha d extl:llsi~ [r.Jde conneclions but illi economy depended heav_ ily on agriculture. Osswald nudied migr.Jtions from the countrySide to the city and compared nurriagt: pr.Jctic" in the city with those in Ihe co untry. H er concl usio ns were that the city encouraged a high degree of heterogam~marriages ~tween families from dispar.Jte villages. The farther one got from the city, the less frequent heterog:lmy became, and Ihe run l inhabitants tended to marry 10c:illy, eilher in Ihe ~me village o r with families of villages nearby; only then, as a third choice, we re spouses chose n from the city. In the most homog:unic (nurriage within a class or profession) and endogarnic area women had to move more than men.1) In order to determine to what extent locality played a ml e in th e m arriages of those rt'corded in the gr.tve inscriptions, in Ihe calculatio n, below J have ignored aU inscriptions w here the fmdspots are not known. This can be: frustr.Jting in $.Ome instancC$, because there are illln-deme marriagC$ reco rded on Slanes in cases where findspots have not bttn nOled. Although the intn -deme marr iage in such a case clearly indicates some attelllion to loale, we cannot asK'SS Ihe extent to which rur.l.l. or urban domiciles en( ounged these alliances. I ha\'c aho ruled OUI any 510lles where Ihe deme of a woman's father is not staled. for Ihis info rmati on is also essential 10 a discussion of maritallQC:Ile. Nor. in th e tabublio ns below (tables la-d, 2a-d), have I considered the stones whose fmdspots are \'llgu ely given as " "thenis"; this term dOd not indiCOlte either an urban o r a rural locale. Thert'fore. of the approximately 1,330 men and 721 ....,omen in the corpus compiled by the Copenllf)' IS ( 1990): 201 - 2, 208-9; Mo.roganry in thit .. udy _ ddinc:d ;II nur~ bctwn:" inpk in tM inKTiptions ~ noI &on. th" _ :dttorr. dit
.Iu.
.rgu.
lIont'I an btloug ,~."..
to
one fmUly and terood OM or t;WO nurriascs. 1 ckpm lliglllly front 1M DuUIh
who ruonl • m1rriago <mIy when • WOIJUn i, op()ft<"tronymic and 1M = n with ....·hom .n. is buried. Mr hIlWM.
twnt"
o
C HA PTE R
1
tr.iIcted benveen individuals domiciled in the city or it$ environs. while a mini. Illum of 52 were between individual! domiciled in rural areas. 16 Of the 60 urban marriages. only 18 (30 percent) could be said to have occurred ben\'een individ uals who came from the same deme o r from demcs close to each mher, that is within an eight- or ten-kilometer radius. Significantly, 42 of the 60 m.arriages (70 percem) were comncted between individuals of dispa nte demes, over ten kilom eters apart. Logicllly enough, therefore, as mlny as 61 percent of all urban marriagt'S (37 unions) were neolocal. with both spouses immignting to the urban center, while vir ilocal and uxori local unions conni nned only 17 percent and 14 percent respectively.17 These figures SUggesl Ihal w hen people mignled to the city. there was ample opportunity to con tnct marr iagt'S ei th er wi th f:uni1ies from city demes or with olhers who had mignted to the urb:1II1 cente r from runl areas in Attica that ....'Cre at times far- Rung. If we view the rural marriages, the 52 or more marriages ~king place ben\iCen individuals who did not mignle to the city, or in two cases spouses from city demes mignting a small distance into the country (/G ]]2 61 93, 6748), the percentage of 1lI.arriab'eS between individuals from dispante demes is reduced: 21 unions, o r 40 percent of the runlmarriages, involved families from dispante demcs, and of these, 16 were virilocal. I was neolocal, and 4 uxorilOCo1.l, thaI is. in the \vife's demc or close to il. Therefore. in the dispante alliances. which nuke up slightly less than half of the runl marriages. wOlllen \vert genenlly st'nt out to distant partS of AIticot--ll pattern sU~'e5ting di vision of labor by gender: men stayW in their demcs to till the land. while the women. who were for the most part rdeg:ated to household management. were' sem out some distance from their original home to nunage another man's oikru. T he tende ncy for men to stay put is also refleaed in the very low percentage of neoloc:.a.lity for all runl ma.rriagu in o nly 8 percent of the marriages did both spouses move to a region aw;r.y from thei r dc-meso To judge from all inscriptions recording rural nurriages. a large percentage was virilocal (44 percent). whereas uxori local marriagt'S consituted a mere 8 percent.'~ to Sinc~
I rc<:~ivcd. copy of th~ COp< nurrUgc of ci.her OiOthcidn o r Socnln of H..w, '0 Annago .... The .. one "'..... found at VouL>. in ootlthw,,", AttK"1. 11 u.,...dn ,hac. on .Ut 11011.,.. found in 'M city (IC 112 5560, 5822, 7372, 7525. n86. Agora 17.56) 1M nu..,,,d ....,men ",,,,, conunemo... ,,,d '1"'" froon their f:uni/y of " ... rriage; i" one case (Agon 17.56) Ihe wOm." "-oJ buried with. member of her o. igmal f.mily.l. may ",~II be .1u"M .. ones commemor..;ng ,hi: ....,"un .. husmnd .nd her chiklre" were lost. This is p~ the ~ in n86 " .h<-re • ...."mn from a city Cc on t..,.n""..ion of .he nurtugt' and =u. nctl '0 her family in the city. in which CDc nun ...1 ,..,..i-C:illed ux(H"ikxal nurt~, o r more '"P"cific.uy nco-u"(H"i]<xaJ.---..cJ~ . 0 the wif~·. Mm. th.n th~ huwlId'.-... "".ually uX(H";1ocal burials. the woman ag;o;n being COI1l-
1)''''0><''''''
pro
err
TO W N
AND
COUNT RY ,
M AR R IAGE AN D
DEA TH
43
Beside5 these 21 unions of partners from disp.lr:tte demes, wh.lt then do we nuke of the renuining 3 1 m.lrriage:s (60 percent)?Ten of th~ marriages involved individuals from prmOnute demes while a m inimum o f 21 wt"re intn-deme a1~ liances. Thus. the incidence of m.lrr~ among neighbors, that is, loc;al endog;uny within die deme .lnd wi th proxim.ue dentes, rises when f;lnulies renuin in rural :ue.as, while heterogamy .and neolocality ;lre encouraged by the urb.ln ~nter. 1<; These b.lJd numben , which refl ect .a differen ce between um.an .lnd rural be~ havior, reV"e.lllittie o f ;lCtu.a.l imere;ru. r""Qr these WI." must look a little m ore closely at the inscriptions th emselves. particularly the group burials. to.see to w hat e){tent the urb;ln setting or its environs unde rcut o r re inforced rural ti ~ . and to see how v.ar io us flmilies extended and then co nsolid.lted kinship ti C$ through e){ogouny ;lnd endogamy (local and kin). It w ill be o ne of the c hief ironies of the present discussion that. al though the inscriptions can give us some idea o f th e marital prac ti ces o f the obsc ure peo ple they record. too oft en smttegie5 un be gtC.lned o nly from the bu ri.al pract ices of the d ite. Let us, then. look first at th e urNn sett ing, w hich is here defm ed as not j ust the
THE FAMTI rES HURlED IN THE C IT Y DEMES: LOCALE AND AFANE S
Some of the larger buri:.ll grou ps (bbles la-d) TC:"IfC".a1 tlUI ce rtain fami lies con ~ tncted illi:.lnces either with (ami Ii" of their OWll or neighbor ing dentes o r with those whO§(.' sphere was fai rly loc;olized in the lI..wtl (em er. I II o ther (a~.IQCal endogamy Kcom pani ed eX<>g:lmy as famili es att empted bot h to localize and 10 e xt end ;lAinal tic:s. Le t U5 begin with the groups in the Peineus (table l a). mo:mon..cd "",mo." h« blHband or "'...... b.! fanury (SEC 21.83 1: Ie u ' S..m. ~S) . N ,n the urban cues. the.1OIl<' for th~ wi(~·. h....,."" n...,. .....-e!><-en k.st. or d~ "",n"", ",.urn<"d to her !Ut i"... dtn~. or . o. 1 buriW with o r ['Ur her ~ (6025). OM nu r• • which nuy " _ b«n n...,1t>caI "!Pin .. bHed o n ..,., ..,hury burial ot ,1>" wi(" (7J 7b). wlllk ml'N ~;, ;Io c:aI nurri.gft (7231. 1259. ~ne nO. 39).", ag:.in JOIimy burials but in the InIlobaOO', dcmc. Th=furc: in til."., th,..., c",""" nwit.1 reoiden"" wa. probUlly virilocal. The argument abov<- ...... n>es thn won,en ""'''' i.ed to .he """.. held .•Ithou&" it .. '1uit~ liuly Ih>l ",omen help.-d out in 1M fi~1d cert.inly fron, timo: 10 ,;n>e: R. U_ k. '" The u oour of Won .." in Cl...k al ",.hem."
toN""
CQ« (1994): ).t}-4.6;w, &I>ridd. "~ MoO! SIlent Won.. n ofG"",« .nd Roo, .. : R urall..:abour and ~n·. Lif~ in ,ho: Ancinlt World (I): GlR H (1995): 202- 17. " S« below, note S1. fur ~ won"n. p«1t.pI Iron, R ..."',,"".. who _ buried in ''''1 okn.. bUI ~pJ.rt Iiom her hlHbar>d ft' !Ht1..) . who in turn ""'" finon T nc<>
M
'" .m
«
C H A PT E R
,
TABLE 1a City Buri:als: The ~i l':lew HUJN",/~
fnstripriDfl •
Dmw
wya Dr"",
Typt'
of
RniUOVf ·
SEG 25.243
Adurnae
"'"~
5783
Acharrule
Xypete
"04
Ae)!;on.:
PcincU$
6<7.
Aexono:
Co
"
'''0
hexane
An~g')TUS
5327
Athmonon
A thmono n
" "
6306
CeiTiadae
Xypelc
5607
up hile
Amphitropc
"
6391
Cyrum idu
Cer:r.mei.s
"I"
6028
EkIlS;!
E1eum
no,
Erittia
PW"
Hm,
"
Ie~ria
" ...
~"'''UI
Acherdom
7695
Phl)'ll
"'"m
" "
no>
Ph",
Teimr;l$
7717
Phreufhii
Col~w
TIl7
Phru r rhii
Erc hia
7230
Pithul
Ph~l"r\1m
7269
l\)tamw Deindiotac
Habe
7277
Pl':lSiae
Anagyrus
7412
Su niu m
Sunium
741 5
Sunium
LlImpu"e
74]8
Sunium
Euon ),rnon
7456
Stciria
Sl:eiria
6926
Xy~c
Elew is
,,3<
Xy~te
Cop=
SEC 39.256
"s.t.o J>OO:" 10 tab&<:
" "
"'" " "
" " "
"
Id.
P'
m
TO WN AND
COUN TRY , MARR I AGE AND DEATII
45
TABLE lb C ity Bur ials: T he Cer:ulleicus
6715
Achamae
umpue
5376
A"silia
Aegilia
5678
Aruphlystus
Agryl"
5678
Anaphlystus
Achama"
"
5725
Aphidru
Sunium
"'"
Cydantidae
"
Mu :nhon
"'" "'"
Cydaruidae
Cen w
5633
Halae Aexonid"
Anagyrus
6746
l..cUCOnO<:um
A""on"
6746
l..cuconlX'um
Scambonidae
6746
l..cuconoeum
5753
Phalcrum
Aphidna
5728
Phalerum
Aphidna
7 449
Sunium
6230
Sphenus
5633
Thria
"
C)'damida"
" "
"
ThoriCUJ
"
fG 112 5450, Alcimache, th e daughter of Callinuchus of Anagyrus, may have been married to one o f the JOlts or grandsons of Philon of ncighboring Aexone. Thi$ inscription is part o f 3 group bur ial in the Peinem commemonting Philostr:1t1lS and Callipus the JOns of Philon, the ir pare nts (?), th d. sisters and Callipus's twO rons.:.!\) Although resi den ce for these people W25 in the pon deme, they had kinsmen in th e native. ron! derne: the brother of In o ne
Ca$e,
Davia. API; 276. does "'" Ie........ wh.t"" in ..... """"IU Hr4:line ..... dougj:>ler 01' l'hilot> i, to be plloCtd (as the doughter of either Philon ! or Philon II ,h" oon or CaUip .., II). The Atiscagor. rumter ofPlurugon. the mother of Philon I and Iili b
certainly p<mibIe.
M
'" .m
" Ci lY Bu~i~!l:
CHA PTER
,
TABLE Ie EJsewh~rt in Athens and Environ!
H"sNnd ~
Dm,
lIlMriplil)?, •
'1~c{ W!fo~
Dtmt
Filldspct
RnjJmlr ~
6767
Sunium
Mar:lthon
Phakrum
741 4
5unium
Ma .... lhon
XYp"te
A IlOr;! 17.1%
Cropid:lc
Cropid..:le
Ago"
AIlOr.! 17.191
Conthyle
C qJhilia
Ago"
SEC 2 1.890
Melite
CydanthenaeuII1
Ago"
SEC 14.174
Pmiae
}'aeania
A","
5396
Aelhalidae
Cephale
Cypsdi
5479
Hili.
Cmhocida.,
SepoLia
5753
Ph!y>
Aphidna
P:ttuua
7528
Sphcttus
Aetlulidac
Ambdokepi
Acharnae
I'hy!"
city
SEC 35.255
M eli!e
I-bb"
city
Sli e 29.207
Ccnm,,"
Cc nme"
c ity
",n
Hermul
Acha rnae
D aphn;
"'54
}>"'r.leU$
Ekulis
TtlIchon~
5533
Halimow
Alop«e
Tr:achones
55}}
H:olimous
HalimQUS
Tr.lchon~
-
'"
Pdr.lW5
Ro"f
n?
Chbornc no. 19
Stamiris no. 6
"
" " " "
. !itt ,><>
Philostr:ltus and Callipus, Ph ilocn tes son of Phil on, wa5 huried scpar:ndy in his nllti~ demo: of Ae.xone (5448). A similar in terpb.y between native dem., and city i<s evident for a family from Acharnae. III 5822 (table 1d) Na usisrnltc, the daughter of H ieron o f Acharnae, Wa$ n13rried ro Protimus o f not too dinant Cephisia; she was buried in the Peine- us, without her husband it seems, while her brother, who W3$ ·wealrhy ellQugh to perform a tri enrchy,21 was also buried in the dty (fi ndspot in th e area z. 1bid.. 2~J.
"
m
TOWN
,"D COUNT R Y, MARRIAGE AND DEATH
47
TABLE ld
City Buri,"s: Wives Buried Alone '/~of
H"sbofnd~
Dt....,
InsmpriMt •
00.,
1V!fl}
Agor.. ]756
Adurna~
Halle
A","
n?
5822
Cephisia
Ach~rn;tC:
Pcir:leul
7372
Gugrttw
Rlunmous
Qlympieion
"'"'
7786
Pd.r.le...,
Chob rgus
Peir.leul
;,..,
Thoricw
Alop""
Ago"
7525
Thria
Spheltw
Peir:leul
Fin,lsp<>r
RrJjJrnu "
,
" n?
" Numbc .. without ... um: inchat;on ",rer to IC II'. u n _ ......Jocal; u _ Ul{orilocal; y ... virilocal; - - ;n 11>\;".. de",e.
of th e Dipylo n gat~58 1 0). The siblings' f~ ther, on th e other hand, ....';IS buried in their native, runl deme (5809).22 For ~llOther family buried in the Peine u$, marriages ""'ere focused in the region of the northern plain and th e northern M esogeia, despi te residence in the Peir:leus. In 7702 Polyclo o f Phly;! has marr ied Themisto from Teithr.ls, a deme approximately ten kilometers to the south ~nd e~st of Phlya. Polycles gave his thughter in nurriage to CalJiad('5 from Ericda, which , according to the conjectured location. was situated abou t five Idlome!en to the south and west o f Phlya. :u As for the familio from Eleusis in Ihe exta nt gr.tve$tollC", whose finrupol!l were in the city demes, th e sample is hardly large so th~t firm conclusions an: impossible: then: are alli~nces with families o f the pori demes Pei r.t eus and Xyptte (6054/table 1cl. 6926 (table 1a) Te$pe<:li\'l'ly). One furtherstone, 6045 (table 2d). has a woman from ElewiJ married 10 a man from H alimOll$. The :illiarlces ill_ volving families fmlll Eleusis go no funher so uth than this. Whether the alliances with the familie$ in Pcincus and Xypele indkate quarrying intercst5-thcrt' were quarries in both Elcusis and Peineus---or whether the alliances with f:ullilies from Peir:l.eus/Xypele and H alimow suggest religio us connections pertaining to th e Demeter cuit, is uncertain. For this latter point, Eleusis', role in the worshi p of D emeter hardly needs clIpbnatio n. but Phalerum. dose to Pdr:l.cus, was one U 'l'My """It> '0 ~ ,,,0<1>« (.g"~ic?) kiluwom.111 b"ri~d ill .... city .. weD, ir N ...,.;..,.~,,,. daugh,e. of (?) N~ucydc:s or Ad""IUc, is ",wed (5823). Stt ibid .. 243. al Th~Ilu.ro:, r.tM ....:at ... mcd ApoIlodo-rw:, .,..,ry "" mlnOn 11>11"'. bu, <'In~ ,uc:scro;n Tcimm: ApoIIodorus IOU of On..iphon ...."ed propt'[Y ;n his .... ,,,..
M
'" .m
.8
CHA P TE R 1
deme. :!.mong others in Attic:!.. that had an Eleusini um, whi le H.uimou5 was th e Jtarting point for the proc~ ion of th e Thesmophoria. The deme had :!.Iso been a si te of an ancient cult of Demeter.2o< In all alli:!.nces except th:!.t with the m:!.n from H.uimo us, residence was in the Pein eus. The findspot of 6045--thc wom:m from Elcusis m:!.rried to a man from H alimou5-2t M enidi (Achamae), :!.nd the fact that she was not buried wi th her husband but close 10 her sister (6025), suggest that her original famil y's interest by inl:!.nd no rth of the city. So fa r Eleusinians have not ....':Indered too far to form their alli:!.lIces, which tend nth er to concentnte on the Peineus, its environs, or H.uimous. 25 At times f:unilies from coast:ll demes reveal shipping interests or assoc i:!.te with individuals who have such imert'Sts. This appears to be th e case: for two families from Prasiae allying with f.unilies in Anagyrus and Peine us. In 7277 (uble h ) A!ciades and his tv.'O sons are buried with his wife ill the Peineus; for two gc nentions there:l.lter the family resided in the city port. One of Al ciades' sons, Democ hares, nurried Democnteia <:bughte r of Archei<:bmus of Anagyrus. Her brother is recorded ill Demosthe nes 35. 14 as a wiUless for and associ:lte of th e speaker, who has given a 10:ln o n :I shipping contr.lct in the Pein eus. u 7286, on the other h:l.nd «(:l.ble 2b), records a nun who h:!.d imerests in the Peinew but did not mign te permanently th ere. and. in fact, brought his city wife to his runl deme. Poseidippus of Pnsiae brought a woman from Peinew to his own deme (findspot at Markopoulo). Posc:idi ppus was propertied with bnd in Prasiae and performed two syn trien rc hies. His brothe r appears on a list o f arnphictyons o n Delos le:r.sing temple property there. l l Suni um with its fi ve intn-O('tlS! 6028 nuy bt' ~onIing the intr>-deme l<
.U...",. of po<Sibi. bill......" . :u In 6Q5.o4 Philou",ene. d:mgllt ... of Gn.>.mon of Ekusis ••p~." 10""'" migroued 10 Tnchones (Ihe city dellle. Euony,non). pt'rhaps for her marria~ 10 lhe falher of NicO/lUCh ... of Pdrae .... N icoonenes. Philomncnc', broth.r, on th. othtt hmd, was . ni", in E\eusi$, all",,<11 in IG II' 1188.2 as honoring' hieropham. H"",,,,,,,,, K<: Whilehead. err.--.. "27. no. 159 for his conjecou", th.>1 Philoun"",,, was the n\Other of th. f"'OPO'<" in 1188.2 . Th" dnne Copru., which was in the ...... nitty> as Eku .... dHpi>yo in one ....., • nc~ with • city funity and rtSidel'\Ct' in the PeuxUI . ln 6929 and 69301 the group burial"""'" tI..l PnxiIU ofCof>rus " '35 buried with her h...b;.nd. N icippus of Xypete. and his broch ... and the Im... 's childres!.. Jon .. KI. th.".·, brod,..,. Nicippus_ 200 An:henomides. O"'uxnl .... ·' broth ..., is othCTwisc unkl1OW11 :md Iherdi:>re bclOflg> 10 the group o f n"", describN by Moui as individ1.l..1h of nwwle$l tneanJ il'M)lVt'd in commen:Ul tnlw.c_ lin",: C. Moui. - The 'Wotid of the En'porium,' in the Pm..." Spn-ches of ~•. in T..M j~ !lor A .......I ~. «I. P. G."""Y. K. Hopki ..... nd C . R . Wbin.k.. (lkrkdry: U n;v"nity of Cal_ ifornia Pres.. 1983). 57. V D.vies. AI'R 469. Ooborne. Dnou>.. 2 for EupoJ.mu. of M )Trhino......,,'phictyon of Delos. whose brorh ... lu$ • home base in the ~ineul bul associ>!es do.ely wilh hi> fellow demeorncn in the port.
pr
err
TOWN AND
COU NTRY,
M AR RI AGE AND
DEATH
.9
imo the deme;28 indeed fouTout of five of these intn-deme alliances OCCUTft'd at Sunium (7425, 7442, 7448 [2 instances]: table 2a). while in the fifth case (7 412) residence was in the Peiraeus. Out a closer look at how ~ple ~ha\'Cd in all urban setti ng is equally instructh-e. particularly sillce there was extensi \'e migration from Sunium to the city: of the 21 lIIell frolll this dellle recorded 011 the gravestones, 11 resided in the city (7 of these in Peine us and 2 in Phalerulll). O ther individuals who resided ill th e city but "''ere from SuniulII married far and wide: there was a marriage alliance with a fami ly from Euonymon (7418: table l a), o ne with a family frolll Lamptre (7 415: table la), tWO alliances with separate families from Marathon (6767,7414: uble Ic). alld one with a family from Gargettus (7449). All families concern ed. except the case of 7449 (uble 1b) with its locatio n in the Cerameicus. resided in the Pciraeus or in Xypete nearby. In one insunce we have an idea of why a man from Sunium migrated to the Peineus (table ta). In 7415 Nneinonicus of Sunium, who \v,u commemorated with. presumably. his wife H egni ppe of Lamptfl;', W;lS a member of the Salaminii, a gmas which had. among ot hers. two cemers, at Ponhmus (Suniu m) and Phalerum, close to th e Peiraeus. where- Ameinonic us and his wife were buri f"d. Although the Salaminii had cemers in demes suc h s. 1-1(1.41.247 n. )9 (or .he i,ucript;ons. In 743-4l""heomnn", .. c".:d a< the wik orn...odorus . .on or Diodorw or Suniunl. Giwn ,he 1"000 or u.., =-. ~ pc-ople might be rWl.:d and therdO.., &om u.., _ cut - . Q( Amrinonicw. on .n ,nocnpt;on concerning the ,ion or. dispute bmo"m the smn,;n;; or H<"pt>phybc"nd Sun;um: SlOG 2 1.527.71: W. S. Fergu. -.. ''"T1n: S>4min;; 0( H<"pt.phyu; and Sc>un;on." HtJ~ 7 (1938j: 1- 74. np. 14. Ig if.. H-45. Aloo,s. c. H umphn:ys. MPhn,a.s in Ak>pekc.and tM Salamin;oi.- .7..1'£83 (1990): 243-«1.>nd par_ .icuhrly 247. wh= Humph...,.. cmphasius tIw or;girully . M umn cent .... ~ .. Ak>p«c .nd bnllcit<-d ..... to PluJcnun .. tntting in.~ in the polis grn.'. ,., Sec:ilio Ki.chuer. PA 9960. (or the conjcctumi .. cnun>.
"mirn.
".td
pr
em
so
C H A PT ER
I
Demagor:a's sister W:lS sem to the: city for her muriage, or, equally likely, both ",,'Omen wen" !"('$idem in the city, with one sister being sem back to he r fath er's native deme, whi le th e other was sent to a deme whose IOC:ltion was pnctically :It the opposite end of Att ica, IG [12 7414 (table Ic) is instructive for how urban residence encour:aged heterogamy. In the inscri ption either Alexus o r his son Stntocles o f Suniu m marri ed Phi\oumene, cbughter of Theoxe nus o f M:lr:atholl, The f:lct that both fat her :llId son wen" buried in Xypete with Philo umene may suggest that residence in the city beg;an with th e father an d was co nt.inued by his son, Alexus, Philoume ne:. moreo\'er, had a sister. In 6609 (table 1b) Mnesiptoleme, daughter ofTheoxen us of Mar:athon, was married , possibly, to Deinias, son of Phormus of Cyd:lrlticbe. 31 She was buried in the Cenmeicus with. perhaps. her husband, Deinias, his brother, Procle ides and the latter's w ife, and the me ns pare nts and gnndparents (fat hers fath er and mo ther). The family frolll Cydantida e seems to have resided in till' city for 1'\\ '0 generat ions as well: bu rial of sevenl genenti ons in the Cerameicus suggests that Phormus and his son Procle:idc:s resided in the city; urban residence was th en followed by the marri:lgc:s of both Phormus :lnd his son Procleides to wome n from city demes (Bate and Cettus). J2 Outside of this fam ily group, in 7717 (table tal the family of Theodorus o f Phrearrhii, that is, his father :lnd gnndf:lther, had been resident in the Peir.leus for o ne ge nention at le:lst before Theodorus' marriage 10 Philoumene o f Colon us,)3 This migr:ation to the city port followed by urban ma rriage is nOi unlike that recorded for th e fam ous Themistoclc:s (appendix. p, 21 7); the politician's domicile in the city allO\ved him to marry a wo man from Alopece, Turning to the burials in the Cenmeicus (table Ib), fam ilies here can display si milar inclinations to exte nd and con tract , One of the most famous of the periboloi is that marked by the monumen t of Hip parete. gran ddaughter (son's daughter) of Alcibiades. the famous politician (5434, 67 19 . 6723. 6746, 7400). If Kirc hner's stelllllla is correct.J.O Hipparete. /Tom Akibiades' dellle: of Scambonicbe, rll:lrr ied Phanoclc:s, so n of Andromachus of Leucono io n of the: salllC city trittys of Le:on tis. Furthermore. Phanocles' fa ther. Androlllach us, and ~'Sh<- i. r"" i"cluded 111 Kircbn"r . Slenuru. PA 1>1963 .
.» Tbe ".arne Mneolplolell,e is reminio«n. of Th<-nu..odn · family (Davi.., A PF, 21 7) . ~ n..n .. Thcmwocl", ,tKlf .~.n in a f.mily oko {mn, M. ,."tbon . Ie 11 ' 6794, edj!.-d b)o Kyp.ariHc< in 1927 but no! ..,.,n b)o Klrcbner in 19)5. T«ortkd. Th"ntioloclcs "'" ofnen,i",,,,,1cs commemnn,.-d ",i!h his "'" Thentio' oclcs. NeI.h .... Kirchnn- nor D2Vies tu. ...rd my COrlMClion " 'i!h !he {m",,,, poli.ic;'n. Eilhe, ,he", II wmc wn of nuril.! connection ",i!h the f. mnus ThernislOd..' f.mily, Of !he .... ml'S "'" being u«!d fo, pmp.aS"ncb In • demo w~ significm<:c in the Ptnla" Wan ,leeds no d,,Th<:Odo ...... '. gnndf>lber. A""bios «(.!her·s f.. her), had nurri.-d Glycc wughler of A"",hinc< of Ereh;', Throdorw' b"",hen Amilluchu. and "'nibios.rc cotlUnemnnl.-d in nl8, aha found in the I'nr>.cus. "" His "em"", .. foll",,'W b)o D.vkt, API; 21 - 22. and Humpb"')'S. "'''';/y, 11 7. b", is questioned by G.rbnd. " FIn< C".!ogue," 1>12. ).I
TOWN AND
COUNT RY , MARR I AGE AND DEATH
51
mother, Critole;J., daughter of Ph;J.nocies of Cettus, were ;ili.o of the u rne ttit~. P hanocles' ,son's SOli, Phanoeles, the son of Aristion, thell married C I('Q fmm AexOlle. abont ten kiiomefeI"$ from the city and on a good communicatio n route along th e 'west CO;J.St. In o th er words, the city f;J.mily of Phanocies fo r rv."O gene r.ni oru allied with memben of its own trittys ~nd in the third gen e rati o n ;U!ieer Mi eioll from AIUgyruS, then nurried a woman of a neighboring deme, Hilie, if the H ab.e ill our inscription refers to H alae Aexonides. Outside of the C erameicus, 5479 (table Ic) shows that Exopius of H ilie, pt:"rhap5 to be identified with a landowner in the mining di5tri ct.37 is buried with his wife, D emocleia of Cothocidae and one o f her brothers in the (:ity at Sepolia. bu t her two o ther brothers ~re buried on Salamis, where the family pmperty may have been located. ~ If so, the deme of D emoelt:"i~ 's family is knov.'n. being ofliturgic:u standing, with a symrierarchy to its c redit.39 In th e case of Exopius, therefore, his marriage alliance, besides focusing on th e mining di5trict, focu~ as well on the island of 5:llamis and th e dty, very similar to the pncti ce of the family in Pseudo-DemO$th en~ 44 outlined earlier. where: Arch iad~ resided on S:rhnus, his brother's family resided in the city, and their sister w;as marri ed to a man £rom Eleusis. Our sun'e)' indic ate~ that among th e members of several fanulies buried in th e Peiraeus, although rome members were bu ried ill the city and presumably resided there. others resided in the native, rural deme. In some cases we could .. H~,npbl"e)"-. Fdmily, 112. Th~ son i cOUlin, a falh~", bon ~po. appe ... '0 M oori"<J with the group. "' Ibid .. 114. 129. n. 57,""ho nOp«;flCaJly dllc"""rtria. , I>cro ;.. strong likelihood th&1 uopi ... _ &om i\uonides. b« • .,se thc p«>pl. from .b. cast 00.... n; """UdIy 01>0-<", n..rn ,he ,nining diMric<: 0._ 122, 207-8, labia 9 and 10. "" Ie 112 6-47• • 6480. with pcrlups tIroir cousin (f.lthee<·, .....) in 6475. >«. ~. I)"via', M.m"", (A PI; 176). D• ...;n bd ic>n thai tho two ~bood", .. " Sib";,,., ."d Exoce..idn ate" ..... ally f.th.<:t) broth.... nd f.lher., brother', ..... reopecW....ly. '" D.\'ia. APF, 176.
J--,'.,
S2
C H APTER 1
tell why individuals resided and were buried in th e Pe.iracus. Some individuals disp layed com mercial in terests, while for one man from Sunium the Pe.iraeus by close to the cult center of his gfl1os, and he married a woma n fium a delile on a sailing roUle to Sunium. People from Suniu m who lived in the city tended to marry far and wide. while for some f:uni lies a marriage in a rural dente. which was locally endogamous, was b.lbnced by an exogamous union in the city. M igration to the city and its port .....":1.$ frequently followed by urban marriage. For the famil ies buried in the Cerameicu$, there was aho :.t b.lbncing o f loc:U endogamy with exogamy: marriage for tv."O generations within the same trittys v.":I.S then followed by marr iage outSide the tritty!. The statistics suggest that there wou a difference betv.-ee n rural :lnd urban b-ehavior whe n an individual. or his family, SC'lected :I. marriage partner. Sollie of the urban F.i.milies .seem to have considered locale. the native deme or rural ndghborhood. while others focu~d on a region. These interesu can only be inferred as there are no literary sources to expbin motivation. nor can random exogamy be enti rely dimll~d either. H oweve r. the intn-deme marri:lges recorded Oil stones in the city cen;linly. and probably also the marriages betwcen families of proxinu te demes. suggc!$t that for some o f these "urban" families the native deme and the ne ighboring demes ....."("re nOI entirdy forgotten . Tills is evident in the burial of some family members in th e city while other members were buried in the native deme. Once domiciled in the dty, Athenians could $till look to the native deme or its dose envi rons for $pOU§C!i. but there was also a good likelihood that the urb:l.n ccmer provided an opporwnity to go br be)'Ond thc native deme or region ~nd to COntr.Jct marriages with f~milies nom disparate parts of Attic~. Some families balanced local elldog:uny with exogamy: one sibling, for inmnee, will marry within th e native deme, while anothe r m~rries ~w~y from it. This maneuver reflects ~n imerest in extending and then consolithting all iances. Lct us now turn to the rural families. to $("e to wh~t eJetent the rural. neighborhood played a role in Iheir marriages.
THE FAMtl lFS IN RURAL AREAS
Our survey will begin w ith the rural. cicmcs of the west coast. will proceed to south Attio and then up the cut coast, and thence to the inland demes (ubles 2a--c). Included under thc rubric "coast" will be those dem!:'l wcll inland fcolll th e cO:I.n but as$igned to a co~stal trittys. The sa.mplc of inscriptions for E1eusis is small, 28 stones, but they Sttm to indicate thaI the men in this deme. if they had not migrated to th e dty, did not migratc to any part of Attica for marr iage. R ather, their wives came to them. at times from great dinances. while women were Kn t out of Elcusis as well. The great dista nces in\'Oked in some of these marri:.tges may well indicate that Eleu-
"III
pr
m
TOWN AND C O U NTRY , MARR I AGE AND DEATH
5)
TABLE 2_ Runl Burials: Nonh~C'rn, SouthC'rn , ~Pd Westn n Attin FinilsjX'f
T HENo.'ruwaT 6022
Ekusis
Adu rnae
ElC'U!lH
T tUI SoUTHWEST
619)
Euonynlon
5525
H~lae
AC'Xollido:s
Euonymon
Komp;
l-buC' Aexonicks
z..,,, Voul~
SEC 40.216
HaJae AC'xonides
HaJ~C'
57)3
H alae Ae:o:Otl;!ks
.... phidn3
Viti
oroornC' no.. 32
umpue
umpm~
Korop;
Osborne 1lO. 32
umptTC'
Tbol';\C'?
Koropi
6366
Cep halc
CC'phale
CeI1IitC'a
n25
Cep hm
Phrur,h;;
CeI'llIC'a
59n
DcirWiotae
7425
Sunium
Sunium
Sunium
7442
Sunium
Sunium
Sunium
7~48
Sunium
Sunium
Sun ium
7448
Sunium
Su nium
Suniulll
lboricu.~
T oor;cus
Thoricus
SEC 34.202
Aexonides
,
-
CCl';\tea
-
' !itt nol:o,. 10 labk 2<1.
sis, ~ a major cult center. attracted people from allover Attica, W hen f.mtilies from E!eusis allied with Ihose from inland demes, Ihe btler tended to be in the
northern region. betwttn Ihe Aigalem and Pentdieum ranges: in two
t:lI5n
men
from EleUS;1 married women from Ac hunae (6022: tabl" 2;J.) and Pithus (723 1: Db!.: 2d) and brought their wive$ to their deme. 40 In 6405 (table 2c) a woman
c"uVj>O.
.... ThiI ......,,,... th>l Pi!hUl boclongrd.o rn.. inbnd tritt)" of Fo< 7231 IC<' .boYe, note 18, R.c«nlly. TniJI don noc.\how u.., dm>c in "" nul' (~aM "nn)'f ['tbront ...: t\lhmu.rtl. Vic;-
tori1 ColIe~, 1986). map). conjrcruring t:1<1>tr. citY or ;nl.;lod u iuys a.ignmau. S<.: an Po S;".....e hom :ol ...ell Pirh ... t- noc b«n pbced Of! .he 'nap.
M
'" .m
54
C HA PTE R
,
TABLE 2b R un! BurWs: &litern Anica Hlosb.lnd~
I"Sir;plion ·
"'"'"
W!fo ~ ~_
Fi"dspoH
5228
Angd~
Angell'
Markopoulo
5280
Hagnous
Phepe~
Markopoulo
Humphreys··
M}'Trhinom
M yrrhinoU$
Markopoulo
Hum phreys··
Myrrhinous
Myrrhinous
Markopoulo
H umphrry! ....
M)'T. hinoul
M yn hinous
M arkopoulo
'" '"
HytMdac:
M arkopoulo
"ad<
~rkopoulo
0<
An go:le
M arkopoulo
'"
Angell'
M arkopoulo
Pnsiae
lieineu,
M arkopoul0
SEC 30.228
R lu.rnnoWi
"',~
RhanUlous
6006
Rh:..mnous
Ei te)
RJumnous
S t.:G 26.30 1, 34}4
Riun",uus
P i, h u.
Rha ...no" ,
Thont'
p,jJ<~
Rhamnous
SEC 35.178 SEG35.1 78 SEC 35.178
SEC 35.178 7286
SEG 21 .855
OSee OOI"" O'X« 2<1" S.C. H Unlpnrq->. '/lot 109 .. od .abl~ I .
"""ilJl m'....~ .,J Drollt (London: R.oudcdg<: and KepI! l'auL
"
" 19!13).
from Eh:usis was scm out to Cephisia. wi th residence there, to marry
Aexonides (5525, SEC 40.2 16: fi ndspots I t Zoster and Voula respectively). In 5525 (Ilble 2l) C hlerelel. da ughter of C hlere:lS o f H:lbe, was rll.3 rried to her fellow demeslllln Eupolis. Both families were prominellt in th eir demes; the fathen of both SpolUd along with Eupolis and his brothen cooperated in erecting l sutue of Aphrodite. Eupolis's father is also known :IS m oving a decree in th e deme, while Eupolis's blQther was a s)lJltrier.m;h.41 Abo, accordi ng to . , 0........ A N , 25. The ... i< """ ....,ordtd "".~ 01 ~ """,''" frooll Coulhylc '0' " .." fro'" Elnni< (OSba....e no. 39). wilh rnidt,~ >f EInnU {uble 2d). 5« alto 6972.;n which. won .." from nortb ;,,1100 J>n-sa>e ",;gnteloo ,he Thriasion pl.;" wh= 00 hltlbondi drmoo. On.o<. """ 01 'wo I><>monyOlOUt dema. I'rohobly by. Alto. SEC 3:;.178, 1M Gouland," suk. "'" n,..,nyU ... of Q., n...rico",.,. I.lrMor, 85-%. 13-4.
"
m
TOWN AN D
COUNT RY , MARRIA GE AND DEAT H
55
TABLE 2c Rural Burials: Central Anio.
THII M IiSO(;ElA
5658
Anaphlyscw
An~ph!)otu!
Liopeli
5867
lbte
Erchi,
Spat ~
6()97
Erchia
6834
Erchi,
M dit~
Spm
6100
Erchu
Erchi3
Liopcsi
6135
Erchia
Erchia
Spat3
6131
Erchia
»hl~
Sp~ta
7087
"
UOpc"Si
0<
7820
Pacania
0,
Liopeli
7060
Pacania
J>acania
Liopcsi
7095
l':acania
Knl'la
7098
Puania
Liopcsi
7527
Sphcttus
5817
Acharn;M:
,.<8
Acharn~
5349
Alhmonon
Cdriadae
"
-
Koropi
Menidi
Aexonc
Mcn idi
MUlls;
"
-
Ccphisia
Ekusis
Ccphisia
,
6430
Ccphisia
Ccphiiia
Ccphisia
-
64"
Ccphma
C"phisia
C"phma
6437
C"ph isia
Phcgous
Cqlhi
5983
Decd d a
Phcgous
Tatoi
6748
LcucollO"um
LeUCOliocum
Menidi
, "
"
C HAP Tt; R
,
TABLE 2d R un] Buriak: Spouses from Different J)cnln Tr~<1 llU(riptj"" ..
H",""nd~
Dr.....
W# ~
F;ndJp<>1
Ckmt
lV1id(ltC( u
SPQlJ$!;S fROM DI~"TANT Dam.
5848
Ach)rn~ e
AaOtlt
M enkii
5349
Alhmo no n
AJ<>p«o
Marwi
5867
Bate
Erchia
Spatll
640'
Ctphisia
Ekusis
c.:,phisu
' 'fn
o.:,i r:ldiot~ e
0.
Ctnlca
6022
£leusis
Acharru.e
Elcusis
6W7
Erchia
Cycbl~uaeum
Liopai
683'
Erchu
Md,te
Spall
6IJI
Erchia
PhI)"
Spat:!
5280
H agnuUl
Phtg;w:a
Markopoulo
5733
H aix Ac-xOflida
Aphidn~
v"ri M arltop""]"
SEC 35. 178
"" 0.
Angel ..
"'ngde
M arkopoulo
SEG35.178
0.
Angele
M arkopoulo
SF-C3S. 17l1
"
" " "'
6""
o."~
7087
Paeania
"0.
Spall
7('"
Pican;"
"'chanue
Liopel;
7286
"'ns;ae
Pd .... euI
M arkopoulo
Rhanlllous
Pilhus
Rhanmoul
SpMrtlU
C.,iriad;oc,
Koropi
Thon,.
!>allene
R.hamnoU$
"
SECZ6.301,304
7521
S EG 21.855
Thrw;lll plain
WIVE!! BUlIFl) AWNII
'407
Anaphlystus
Acxonc
Karebl Liopesi
"I"
7111
E1cwis
Pithus
EI.. u~;s
"
Osborne no. 39
E1cusis
Conthyk
Etcu!';s
"
H alimoul
EkuSil
M cnidi
"'"
6Q.l'
"
m
TOWN AND
C OUNT RY ,
MAR R I AGE AND
TABLE 2d
Instripl;"" It
7259 SEG21.831
7376 SEC 30.219
H..Jb
D EAT H
57
(O",,;,,~d)
Wifti
cm..~
Fi"dspot
Pacania
I'otalJllIs
G.,"
PhclPc~
.... ~)COI1~
Glyfw
Thoricw
R h~nUlOIIS
C~p hisi~
Tticorymhus
Rh~mnolls
RJwnnoul
° Nwnbtn ,..;,bou, .o.un indication rcffr to Ie 11 ' . • on _ neo1ocal; II _ uxorilocal; v _ viriJoc.>l; - - in
""ti~
"
d<mc.
Michael Osborne's reconstructi on, A,"i~s I of (K"rhap5 T hone·.} $ent his daughter [0 neighborillg Lamptre to m;l.rry Philocedcs l. T he lalleis brother's son. Amocbichus III. married within his deme of u mptre (Osborne no. 32: [able 2:1). For south Attica (table 21.). besides the fo ur illln_deme ma rri:ages whic h h:ad th e spouses buried in $uniulll, 5658 rt'coros all intn -deme marriage for Anaphlystus in which both spouses moved to the M esogeia (fmdspot :l.1 Liopcsi: I:l.ble 2c). For Cc-ph:l.le marriages are contraCted with Ill em~n of Ph n::arrh ii (7725 + 11873: [able 2Ol) and thn e is o ne in(r.l-demc uni on recorded (6366: table b ). with muit:l.l residence for bolh families ~ing in or Ile:a r Ceph:l.le ..... At T horikos SEC 23.134 records the name ChOlercphon ofT horikos w ith the names of Charinus and Sosippe. perhaps his
other pcmibility to
"'reoUt.
dimnce from AruW~ .lffin.. in u mpr.re; M. J . o.bor the mid- filth ...,,,,ury in Ie l J ·U,l.J2 . ... Qnc, furtha' n ..,,;"gc bcrwttn a man &urn Ccpluk and • wonun fro", Amph~ II.. ~ parm~f1 .... ding in m., Prirat1.l. (lG rr ' 5607). 0'" n .. rri.as< involvina disp>,.,.. do;n\("f has a ~ on SaI.mis; a nun fium CcptuJ~ buried with his thrtt ooru is rnarrWd to a wo",an fron, l'rvb.WnthUi' (I'>lSS). The fir"'p'" ......., hmbd.. 1<0 w...nd ;w: ...... tbe ..,.it 10ft. .
n..
&om Po:i.,..,\U. U ......., famili .. nuy be ..,latnf to ,he group t'"tCOI"dtd in IG U2 6218 wben: • SoliSl'''''' .oil of E uthippus.. ...... btIr;nf with hi! bn:>th~r Charntidt:.s ofThoricU1. , ho IUPI(' Sof;g."1(S and. the root in h.ls polfOllynlk a"d the !XI ID>II .... root "C/ur'" abo 'PP""" ,n the- au.,,,,,,h,,n group. I would sp«ub", til>! u.c,..., wu. lcimhip li~ with the: groups in SEC. Unfonu""t~1y; tJ.. find.pot ot 6218 is givw n SoUl!<""" nW"ri<xl. the ........ of rxmocho."","", of Atubus of'Thoricus. and Sosigtn.. and b" bn:>tb .... w.:"' llI,.ied w;,h ~. wif~ and ber (;unity of on>th("t and ""' ....j. I>nnoc. ... ru.. Sosigt'tlel' brott..r-m-
'"Pf"'J
C""'''
M
'" .m
58
C H APTER l
If .....'C move up the east c<nst from south Attica (table 2b), an inm-deme marriage is re<:orded for Angele (5228), with residence in th e deme, while the fa mous Go ulandris stele, as noted by Robin Osborne, displays local endogamy despite the disparate deme5 of the spouses, The stele. SEC 35.178. records Themyllus so n of Themyl\us of De married to a woman, Nausistrate, from the not wo diSlant inland deme of Hybadae. However. also commemorated on the stone are his so n Antiphanes and the latte r's wife, the daughter of Dionysius of Angcle, Antiphanes' son Themon and Themon's wife C leopasis from Angele. A space is left to record Themon's son's name with the latter's wife, Archestr.ate daugh ter of Meletus of Angele. Because' the findspot of the swne was at Markopoulo. Antiphanes. his son and grandson ce"aillly migr.ated to the dem e of Angele,46 a migntion that suggests that the men were attracted to property in their w ives' deme. Moreover, the deme of De experienced a great deal of em igration during th e classical period. Of twenty-one men recorded in the gravesto nes, r\(\.'C1I ceruinly migrated to o r became resident in other parIS o f Attica. A fat her and his sons and a daughter o r wife, for instance. were buried at R hamnous (SEC 30,203. 204). Three inscr iptioru re<:ord men (two of who m appear to be rela ted) in southwest Auica at Koropi (6954.6967. SEC 17. 103).·7 whi le ilCVen men are recorded on stones found in the city and another on a swne found two kilometers west of the Agora (Slami ris no. 6). Another man migrated to Salamis (6950). 4~ Women were sent out as wen: Lysimache of De. who was th e b"" abo from Thor,eu., h."".......,r. mam«l a WOITW1 from Aphidna, ",,,,,",,, r.th"", Panrnythus. _ abo buried " 'ith ...... Although tM findspot of 62]8;' unkoown . On~ can inf"" tTom Ih~ re<:on>fn><:Iion WI I~",odura __ aloo int woman !Tom Aphidn • . fo<. ru",.,..ion of 62] 8 ..,., H Unlph~ """,;/y. 1 ] 4 . ... It. Eli~nn~. "CoIk<:lion DoU)' Gout",dri,. II : StCl~ funmi", .niqu~,~ HCH 99 (1975): 379-IH : H umphrcyo. F..mily. ] ] 6: Osbotn~. INmoJ, 131, An:hdl""~" f.. her. Md~lu,. could be "'_ bted to the MeL"""" >On of M~n<1tntlJ$, on . ]ilt o f pr)'.. n~i. in Agon ] 5.47.23 dued c . 330 S.c. MelellJ$', f.. h~r m.y well be l c.nistntc of )(</jlit.J o.:r-',wi"" ofAIMI, Hnpm... suppl. ] 4 [Princeton. N J: A",~rican School of a ... ic:al Stud_ ,es >t Alheml. map 1) had (u·" I~nulivdy"';gr>eta i, on the map. Siewcn (7;;11)'1'". map 4) abo "';gro, Ihe dcmoo to 'hoo C1 ~aI Loc..ion .nr=iw. f...:b Wt K«loi should M Idl otT the map of Attia . .. Fat " ruleu,,;on of ,be migration. of individwb !Tom 0., • ..., Eli~n~. "CoU«ttt iJ the poss;bility ,h:at the £lon e""" ",,,$«I. Other n"nes.~, on which Ih~ wom.n', n.me iJ added cuelessly ."d at" 101"" dal~ do show w, the woman i, .-cbled to the nlen with whom u..: it ]isled: foo- enmpLc.IC ]] l6131.
pr
em
T O WN AND
COU NTRY ,
MAR.RIA GE AND
" EAT H
S9
wife of a LCOCl'3tes, was buried at R hamnous. 49 In :lllother cue (5977; uble 2b), a woman !Tool 00' \VoIS sen t to Deil'3diotae on the east co;ut; ~idence W~ decidedly virilocal, as indicated by the findspot of the il1$Cription at Cer.atea.!'o Ano ther wonun from Oe W dem. du.1 owned f~rnwnd. pn"..."n.bly. in the ....,.... d.. funiJy 0( PllilopoiU. .on of Po/yltn.nu. PoIy5c..., ... w:u • poIilician of som. nou in Ih. bltl:1" 1"" 0( me fIfth <e"tu~ Lp. 20. 1 ff. ; for hi. ramily. 0« IC II~ 1249'1. 12658. 12967 • • nd D.Yi"". A Pt; 467-l>8 .
.. For Ocnoc and Eil ••. = o.bome, 0......... 2~ 7 . n. 41 : .hen: ..... also. C1eouicus IOn 0( E.. _ lIicides 01 En ... boJ ,iw" RJumII(>U1 '" wd a! ." ArisfOnitt d..ugh<e. o . wife 0( Plunodc"M 01 Eilea: SEC 31.194. 197. For u.. lwo demes callw EK"•• nd !h. ""I>IIO""Y concn-ni"ll which 0..., _ 1oc,,1N! in nonhe:>\< Attic•. ) « T,...;u. Ot......, 141-.42; ror Tric"'1'nlh ..... SliC 30.21II "",...do • C.lliltOrnKnc d..uW"'" of C"phili,. 0( "",,,,..od de""" who I...t be.n "",., inlIO' " .. n from Trio:oI Rlwnnow. c..ui<wn.... h" ..... buric1,,'1") If 'hi> reconM""'Clion i> co,,,,,, •. 'hen i< ro,,1d "nde",,,. o.borne"..... l.!I!d'i"", !h" women whos/= demo ""'... not m .... li<mw on the Melx alrne from rhdr hlJ$b:andi dtnu:: (.or\30-31). Gulond, '" Fi", CatalotJu<." 16S- Ui. don not m~,uion c..u ... huol»nd in IW ... null •. The n.nl(" o f C>l\il«)(luchei f.dlef. Ccpltisiul. aIS<J :<j>pt"'rl in Tncorynth .... Ihe den"" of Calli!lom><- ,wn~ Olbius, ...... of Tim_ orhcUl of Aphidtu., dtrne" nO (!:rell (li,una from Rh>nu,,,,," (ibid.): pcrh>ps T unorhc ... ...... >Iso ....wi•.., or ,ffinc.
,I\>.
.,.,,""he·.
M
ow pr
em
60
C HAPTER
l
Rhamnous with men /Tom distant dem~ (7372, 7376): in both cases the women ~em nO( to haw ix"en buried with thei r hmband'l. In 7376 (table 2d) the woman from Rha mnous, married to a nun from Thoricus. WlIS bu ried at Cephisia. T his buri ~1 m~y suggest the marriage of la nded neighbors and therefore the mig r:a tion of both fallIili~ to Cephisia. but this is speculative. In 7372 (t:lble I d) the wonun fTOm Rhanmous had been married to a man fTom Gargenus but WlIS bu ri ed iii the dty. Ag:.tin the um:m setting nuy have provided an o pporrun ity for f.llni li~ from distant dellle'l to ally. Thus in demes in the coast:ll trittya of Attic,r, eJCcC"pt at E1eusis. there wou a high incidence of local endogamy. Individuals married wi dli n their deme or married individuals from proxitnlte demes. This was especially true for south At[ia w ith itS imn-deme unions and for R hamnous with itS locally endog:.tm ous marriages. Especially noteworthy was the large family burial ofThemyll us of Oe ;lIld his dexendanu in Angele. ThemyB us's migntion from Oe WlI$ then followed by the repeated nurriage$ of his de$Cendanu to individuals from Ange1e. Ag:.tin we ~e an extension out to Angele foll<M'C:d by co nsolidation within th e demc. In Myrrhinous the large fami ly burial of Meldon reveals a good deal of kinship endogamy with two brothers marryi ng heiresses. A
THE IN LAND DEMES OF THE MESOGElA AND THE NORTH
Besides these marriages contncled by familks fro m coast:ll demes in rhe Mesogeia, there are twelve marriages, to j udge from findspots, lin king families w ho from inland deme'l who rdided in the rural area (table 2c).5l In all except twO marriages the spouses came from nearby and IOmetime5 (:omiguous demes; and several intr:o-deme marriasc$ are recorded. For instance, in Erchia th ere is one intra-
",1C:-nM insc"l"'ions ."" IG II' s.817.
S~,
6100. 6111 . 613S. 6430, Ml7 (2 m.unc... ).
706/), 709S. 7098. 73lO.
"III
pr
m
T O lVN ... ND COU NTRY ,
M ... RR I "' GE ... ND
DEAT H
61
were of litu rgical status and resided in the de m!! o f origi n .~ 7820 records an alliance among families of Paean ia and Oa in the same trittys and therefore neighboring; residence 'oV;l$ near Paeania (findspot at Liopesi). Two intn-deme mar_ riages are also recorded (7060, 7095) for Paeania; in these alliances, residence was in the Mesogda. at Spata and Liopesi. The families of the Mesogeia did not ma rry solely among th emse h'es, but did marry into the nonh ern inland demes: 6131 records a marriage that had a woman from Phlya migrate some len kilo metel"$ to he r husband 's deme of Er(:hia. On the oth er ha nd, 7098 records th e lo ng-dista nce mar riage of a \\-"Oman from Acharnae who ntignled to Paeania. he r husba nd's deme. O therwise wo men from distant coaslal and city demes by and large mignted 10 the inland fo r th eir marriages. 5S T he northern inland demes (table 2c) also show a great tendency for families to fo rm mari tal allian(:es with o nes fro m the same o r neighboring demes. For instance. a woman from Deceleiajoins her husba nd's family at Acharnae (58 17), w hile 5983 records the ma rriage of Nicodcmus, son of Phanias of DIXeleia, to a woman from Phegou_ nearby deme. if the conjectu red trillYs assignmem is (:orre(:r--with residence in DIXeleia, the husband's de me. Nicodemus. the proposer of a d«rec for th e phratry Demotio nim.e, 'oV;l$ a wealthy and impornllt man in both his phra try and his deme-D ecd eia, the center fo r the Demotio nidae.!16 Another family in Phe b"Ou5 (6437) se nt thei r daughter to a man in ... For 11K >tnnnu of61)5 ..... D.vio. A Pr; -102: for 6 100. ibid .. 361-62. wlKn D.V\n. follow· ing Kirchner. focls eml b«aUK then is a Iowlroplooiw &piCt...! Of! the >10m Amicntes ....... of Call. ienlles of Erch". rurnc10 .... ~ di...! befo ... his nu... ;'~ ' 0 Ariot ••du.... do"gh,.,. of l)'lis of Erchia. who n romm.mon.ed with him . D.vin n followed by o.bor .... 0.--, 134. For . m""" . .. ".iorury not •• ...., C.rUnd. "Fi", c..>logu .... 1)0, n. 20. who. ri.inll I e II I 5614. demon. >Inc .. duo Iowh.",.., oi could be oucd Of] tho: II:r:"," of married p«opk . u ~ lUCh rrurriasa ..... re<:ordcIso >Ia'a her hwlund __ tiom Pu.ni • . Th. firnhpot was in the Mroogci..>; if hen rfttrs to one of the city dem ... th .... the dtma of the 'potl$eI ......... not f~r mno:wcd. for women nom city dema ....... for i,>OUn«: fI:HI. 6834 . 7~27. fI:HI will be dioc"oocd fu ....... bckrw. In 7~27 Tirn.eJyIl>·J f:lOh.,., E"thyc",,,,, of CeJr~ •. ~. be COlnlTlemo .... ed on • gnvatOf!e found in .... he". {SEC 32.279} . Tht .. on. _ ",,,!.cd but if itS flndspot.......,..Is tlut i. originally "ood in Ih. city. then T~1b WOO from .n "rho" f~ and Iud mig .......! '0 the M ~ fot her nu.rug.-. In oo:htT alliJnas linking f,,,,ilio from dHp>....'" inhnd dcmes Or Iinlth· .n &om w.p.... •• parts of A"ic. the f,,,uli .. rnidcd in th~ City' n02 (T.ithnJ and 1'hIya). n l7 (Etchi. '00 Phn:umii). Ouuidc- of .hoc in""",,,. neoIocal;ty is n:-cordN rot" perlupo four m ... _ r;'ges. S6S8, 6193. 6748 , all illl"'-dcmc aIlionc: ... Iu,.., dw: coupla """'""'I! fmm A,uph/ysnK. E,,· onymon, and~ . ...,.pec:. i.dy. The coupl. nom "',uphJysnn".."",.j to ,IK Mroogci..>. tlw nom Euonyrnon ".."",.j slightly IOlnhw.nd down Ihe C<mt• • nd the couple from l,c,,,ro ......... m ,,\OVed in.o dw: nonhem pbin ....... nd Aelu .......,. 7376 is • K>liu.,. burW .. Crphi";'" of. WOINn 60rn IUwnnow who Iud been married '0 • nun flOm Thork"L 0.... firul. "xorilocal " ....... go is re<:ordcd in SS67-t.c mill"';o... of 'he oon of I>oq..."ctu. of llite to his ""fe ~ tic,,,•. Erch.ia . ... C. W. Hedrick..J r.. 1M Dmrn tflN Donotori.midai (Adon ••• Ca.: & hol.....· Pn:.. 1990). 55-506.
.Iu.
Pot.",,,.
pr
em
62
C HAPT E R 2
Ce phisia lIe.. rby, .. nd their son nurried .. wom .. n from Cephisi.., his own d~me. R esidence for all was in Cephi5ia. 57 E\'C n when there are alliances of fami lies from dist:.lnt demes of the northern inland. there nuy well be a loe..1 dement. We n:<:all the discuuion of the Gephyr:Jei from Aph idna (above, p. 13), w ho may have had property in the northern pbin. Similar str.uegies m .. y be indica ted in the stone 5753 (ubl e I c), which COlllmemOr:J tes two brothers .. nd .. sister from Aphidna who ,",,'ere buried ncar Padu ia, a suburb of Athens stretching towa rd the nonhern plain . If C h.. ridemus of Phl ya. who is recorded on the stone, i5 the sister's husband, then the stone not only n:<:ords a uxorilocal burial, but nuy indiCate as well th .. t the proximity of the husband's deme to the siblings' residence encour:Jgcd .. muriagc tie.SlI For other famili es nom Aphirul" who m .. rried f.. r .. nd wide, residence was in the city (5725, 5728: table Ib) ..5'J On the other ha nd. some f.. nUlies from north ern city dellles allied with families of inland deml;'!; in the northern plain, so that proximity of demes may ha\'e pbyed a subsuntial role. 6748 records spouses from Le uconoeum migr:Jting to Ach.. rnae (uble 2c), while another sto ne records the migr:Jtion of .. woman from Achar nac to her husband's (ci ty) deme of H erOI US. five kilometers away (6077, fimi5pol .. t Daphni: ubII' l c) .6U In the Mesogeia and in the north ern inland d~lIles, theil, there was a hi gh incide nce of local endog:amy. For the most pan rural folk, if th ey stayed in their deme, had a greater tendency to marry locally, though not ncc~rily in their own deme. The eXlensive m.igr:Jtion or women, 011 the olle hand, allowed men to stay put and farm their land. but, on the othe r hand. allowed farmers to ally with f.. milies out~ide their own locale. In the event of .. crisis ..ffecling" r.. rmer's crop ill olle loe.. le, but not affecting his .. ffines' crop ill .. nOlher loe..le, dis;mer "' In .no: in C"1'hisU. lhe .pouses raide-d in Iheir "",OrdW On Ihe StOn~. H u,nphlt')'l, F.mti'r. 112, SUI", Uul Ihe « one pmbably .l twO .........,,, .. "'"en: Lnc. addctl 10 the MOI~. S.... does no! COIlje<;IUn:. n:l.aoonship~" Ih ..... WOIMn . nd Ih. sibimlP r.o,,, Aphidru. If,", i,,>Ore lhese...,.,..,....!hen H u"'ph~ ;' i...o.r«I in St •• ing lb.. ,he spousc o( One broth.r i, "",ordM; besides Ihe twO br<>thcT.. lhei. sisl .... ;md ...... huol>.oo. Ihe ........ ining individwl on the...,,,,, is IApolelxi. son ofT.uriocus of Amphin-opo:, w"",," n,~r:md r~lhcr nUl' bt m:<>«ktl OIl 5614. Given!lut Ih. rumc of Apok",,', molhn in Ihe !al, .... inscn pciOll woo H Otrod";. of AlopKe, and gr..,n Uul !he """"" of Ihe oiblLngl' (~.he. In 5753 _ ~"<1"Od<1OrOhisi•• who, IIk the Gcphyn.:i,....,. .>ell... '" the dry (>tt 1boo."e, cb.p< .... I. P. ll). OIl In (O,,!nIt, ""e wonun from i\Jop<"«• ...... h of the ..s... If....led 10 h .... htHbond',
""In'"
pr
err
TOWN
AND
COU NTRY ,
MARRIA G E AND
D E ATH
63
could be aVl:"ned. Exog:illny. therefore. ~llov."Cd f.. rm en to spn:~d their r isk~ UI Whatever ~cti on to nonl ocal infl ux may be behind lonJ endogamy at Sunium and Rhamno us, and in the I~rge and nu mt'rous pc riboloi in the b iter deme, th is kind o f behavior cannot be isola ted from n lral betuvior in ~nera1. 11 is quite clear that in the case of m~ny rura l demts, including Sunium, whe n dem~men migrated to th e city, they could contract marriages wi th members o f their natl\'(' deme, but were equally u likely, indeed more li kely, to contract marriages with f..milies frolll distan t demes.
MARRIAGE STRATEGIES: THE ROLE OF KINSHIP ENDOGAMY
M ore Qften than nm the inscr iptiQIl§ dQ not inform us whethe r spou!o<:"S wen: reb ted to each other ; only in inSlancd of homonymity can the schola r detec t the possibili ty of ki mhip in-marr iage. But eVl:"n in cases of loe~1 ~nd kinship endogamy, frequently the marriage and the ma rr ied couple are isobted from ~ny record of the extended un group. Then:fore, this section will concentrate o n twO families where the signiflance for the f~lIIily"s or kin group of a wom an's marria~ OUi a n be ~pprt'Ci ated. These itrategie:s will be qu ite f~mi l i~r by now, for they ~n: evident in the pnctices o f some of the fam ilies discussed in cha pter I . As with the snEdy of many of th ese S!Q nes, considerable prosopogra phical conjecture is invoh'ed. In the previous cha pter, ....'C noted how fa milies extended th eir ties o nly to con!.Qlid:ne by 1I101.rrying e.ndog;. mo usly. within their kin. For inscl.Ilce, D e.moe hares' d.lugiller, H ippodeia, married out, bill her second union was endogamous. Besides the onti ons of Demosth enes, a horos stone and a gr.oI\'(' lekythos (Finley, SLC, no. 146, and IG 112 673701. respectively) inform us tha t H ippocleia, th e d:r. ughter o f Dem ocha res from the de-me Le uconoeulll, married a n1Ol.1l from Phly;l w ith propeny in that deme. She then return ed to her own deme to be remarried to a fellow demesman and perha ps kinsm~n. T he marital practice found in the ontions, the refo re. is paralleled by the marr iage of a fa mily in the in5Cripc:iolU, which was from ~ northern city deme and which allied wit h a family in a no rthe rn inland deme; ill Hippo d eia's case, fiuthermore. her endogamous union was prob~bly rou ghly contem po raneolls with th e n13rril.ge of her brother to the ir mothe r's sister's d:r.ugh ter. 62 T he pract ice o f sending a wo man Out and bringing h .. r descendant hack. o r th e wolllan herself back, as in H ippodd a's CasC"o may be !\Cen in th e case of ~n oth er family in th e grave inse riptio ns. In 58 11, whose fi ndspol is gi\'('n VoIguely as " Athen is," C leostnltc, th e daugl"lIer of D exi menes of Acharnae, was marr ied to Sostnltus. son of En toeles of O~ed:LIid:r.e, and WlS huried wi th hi m. Also com., T. W. GaIl>n •• Rmt ...4 s.-;...J iN An(ino, GImt (So:anI"Ofd, D.!i(.: Sunford Uni>Tniry l'res). 154-55. <>;l D ovict, AP"; 142. Th<- fUldl.pat of Hippocki>', kkyt'-. 67 J 7•. Q unfonu ...."ly unkllOWn .
6-4
C HAPTER 1
melllonted on th e sto ne :.lI"C C lcostr:r.te's siue-r, Sostr:r.te, :m d the biter's husb:md, Er:r.tocles, $On of $o$tr:r.w s o f Oaedalid:i.e. The fe-llIini~ed form of $o$tr:r.tus for o ne womans name and the root sl mli ill the other wo m.an 's name suggest tha t they are re lated to Sostr:lWS and Er:r.tocles. $On of Sostr:ltus. Also, because Sostra tus's f:.llher was al50 named Eratocles. and the yo ull~r Er:r.tocles· fath er was named SoStr:l tus, I would infer that th e twO huslnnds were related to each oth er: they may well have been fOithe r·s brother's sons!O each o ther. III o ther words, the elder Sostr:ltus and the elder Entocles ....-ere brothers. Became th e women C:.IlIle from a different de-me from that of th eir husb:.lllds, but had simibr names to their husband or husband's fa ther, the women may well have been reb ted to their husbands through a woman. If so. it is more than likely that a fem.ale ascencbnt o f the womens husbands had been gi\-en in ma rria~ to Deximenes, the wolllen·s father. T herefore, th e ascencbm , a ki nswonu n of $o$tr:ltl.IS :.Ind Eratoclcs. went to ,",charnae-, but her cb Ugh te-TS ....-ere b rough t back to Oaed:LIidae. ~ '"' 5imib r str:ltegy has the fa mily re:.lcting to the departure o f a ki nswonun by nu.rrying within its deme. If Davies's reconstruction is correct, Meu genes o f Cydtthenaeum was hillueif married to a fellow de mcswomJIl (6587); Meta~nes' brother's cbughter. DeiiOis. the daughter ofNici.as,was -Sent o ut of her deme Cyd:i.th enaeum 10 Illarry (possibly) ,", polexis. 5011 of Euaeon of Ert:hia: th e findspot of the sto ne on which she is reco rded (6097) was at wopesi. and Iherefore nu y indicate that Delias mignlted out and resided in her husb:.llld·s deme. This mig ntio n out, howevt:r. was fo llowed by a good de..1 of intra-deme co nsolidatio n on the pari of her agmu es alld her own descenda nts. D:.Ivies surmises that Delias's brother's $On marri ed a woman o f his own deme and th:.ll Dclias's ow n gr:r.ndson ($On's SOli). PhI6Sisthe-nes, son of Eualcides of Erdua. married:.l wonu n from his deme of En::hia (6 135).6« In other words. the nlarriage of a WOnl:.l n Out of her city family and her introd uct ion in to a runl family was followed by intr:r.deme Ilu rriagcs in her families o f both o rigin and of m.arria/:.'C".
POSTSC RIPT: THE DOTAL HOROI
There has been no systemalic study 10 dale on the rcbtio n betw'Cen fmdspots o f horoi defining secured property for a dowry and the deme o f the wom.an to be married. M ethodologically, this study nu y seem hJurdous as the sam ple is \-ery "" Stt. C. A. Cox. -S;II~'" Oaugh«n .. ><1 1M l)em e 0( MarT~: A NOIe.-jH S 108 (1988): 187. M Th~ 6ndopot of 6587 is . ................ unclear: IC cites it :as AthcN., but SEC (3S. I 73). without ~xpbnatio". cites " as Allia. w hile C . Ko kub , M"'""" '~"op!........ AM. w ppl. vuJ . 10 (lkrlill: Gcb •. M alU\. 1'J8..4) lim its findJpoc ill th~ inda (232) '" ullk".,..", apin without e~pWuti.on. n.., SWnc n in the Uriti.... M ..... um .1S the SEC cditOT1 and Kokub (193-94. no. 37) poin' o u' . O;r.'ia., A I' F. 401- 2. cites the OIher imcription. outlining the f:uni ty tift. 6 109 and 61 10. D.vin w ggnts th .. ,.; _ ther l)el""'·' b
"
.
TOWN
AND
COUN TRY ,
MAR IUA G£ AND
D£ATH
65
smaU; omy fifteen of the stones recording th e woman 's deme ha\'C: findspots that are known. Mo~r, many of thes<' StOIlt'$ have no date and are nOt nttessarily of the classical en: in fact some can be dated as bte as the ~co nd century B.C. In addition the stones are biak:d to\v:lrd the 'wealthy, so that alPi n the practices of th e "aven ge" family cannOt be assessed .6s Nevertheless. there are some advantages to th ese documents. the chief one being that the dotal homi always mention the woman'l name and often he r fJ W3S from M eHte. had property secured for her in or n.,3 r the Agora. dose to he T kyriC>1's dcm.,.66 If the kyri<JS 132. 134, 13:'. USA. 1)6. U7, IJS. 1..0. 146. 1~g. 151, 2 1A; Millftt ""'. U7A, 1463. 148A. On lh~ bi.. of I.... SWtlo. ,~ Milletl. xi. All t..mi round in ..... A~ ]uo,o" nOW bttn .m.cd by G. u lorwlr c< :>I •• InsmpliDm : H ... Pok,.,' 1UturJ~ uoJ$tj 01. 19 (J'T'n«U}n, NJ ' Amm.;>n Sd>OOl of CI ...i",1 Studio al 6S T m. swna '" be ",..,J ..,' Fink)'. SLC,
not.
o'.
A.m."., 1991 ), .. Finky; 183. poinu.,.... that this W>ne was one offiVl" linking th~ dowry witt."....u q>i ~ as ovpo<ed '" ..".,n'""-. MilIcc •. ltViii. noon dw ..".,.i...c- is fQund for .... rtP<:tion • ."hc. dun pupil_
66
C HAPT ER l
her :lppointed gu:ardi:ln there is :I good chance th:l[ the woman herself W ',iS from M ehle; he r deme, however, is not kn own. Although the homi set'rn to affirm the thesis that city condit ions encouraged heterogllllY, one StOne found in th e city may indic:lr(' that a rural locale WoIS, nevertheless, a force behind the marri:lge. In horos no. \48" (Millett = Agora 19. H8 1) the woman from J>hrearrhii. Cleitarete the daughter of Scyth", who had property secured for her dowry in th e city, ha~ been identified tentatively with Pyrrhus's mother. eleituele, in l$:Icus 3.30. 6 7 If th e idenrifiC:luon Ius :lny validity. this woman's daugh ter's son. the $peakc:r of the ontion, was evicted by his rival from an t1pStrrum in the mining district at Besa (ibid., 22- 23). The implic:lrion of the eviction is that the property belonged to Pyrrhus, Cleitare tc's son and 1ll00her's brother 10 the speaker. Pyrrhus's fa ther. therefore. although owning a house in the dry :Iccording ro the hOTOS. set'UlS to have married a wol1l:ln whose n.ative dem e -w.IS proxi nutc to Pyrrhus's sphere of :Ictiviry, and therefore perhaps to that of Pyrrh us's father himsdf, iu south "ttica, To conclude gencnlly, then, tile behavior witne5SC
1.1)' Of dout obligatio .... Xc HalT"~ ugun>mt Wt "f'O'u..n.w is no .tiff• ..,,,, lhan ..m.... typos of..,_ curity uon! by the Arhen~ ...: E. M. H~lTi •. '"A J>artMBMA : Alhenim T..-minot"lP' for fk:u Security in
uueo and Dowry Agr<"<"menu.,- CQ 4.3 (199.3): 7J-.9$.
~'For the iden.ity ofCkiurci •. ...,
Millen. cornmmnry ad Ioc. bootc, thai w f .. h.tt of the Ckit<>rciC on the .. onc _ ... m<:yrm"' ~ wurhhop h;od bern 10<.'>1<:<1. E"""" of Lampt"'. howe ........ Iud 00fU (ibid .• 17':H1O) .• nd as
. .
"""">OIl,,,=
.", pr >rem
TOWN
AND
COU NTRY .
MARRIA GE AND
DEATH
67
migr.nioJl of famil ies. ofien from diswlt ~giom o f Attio. then allowed for 01. marital alliance. Wh ether such heterob'amy also ~flectli at times social heterogamy. that is. OJ.lliOl.nces Ix:fWeen famili es o f different social statui. cannot Ix: known. Nevertheless u rban and run! biases on be observed: an individual in the city waf in !IOllle CUd married to a spouse from Ol distOlnt deme, while his or her kinsmen (kinswomen) ~mOlining in the n;a tivt deme married locally. The inscriptions suggest thn th e rural setting encounged OJ. higher rate of IQCI..l en_ dogam y, particularly for men, w hile the mobility of ....,omen could be marked by the practice of $euding OJ. kimwoman Ollt to follow another into a cernin deme, o r by bringing a woman's ckscendOlnt back !O her kin group Olnd na ti ..~ deme. In yet other instances, a ,,'Oman's marriage o ut could be followed by a family member's endog:amous union within th e deme. if nOt wi thi n the kill group. Somt:times concerns in Ol f.lluily or kin grou p regarding marri age and the selectio n of partnen could span generations, 01.5 the family attempted to sp ~a d iu risks and cOIl'lOliwte w hat it had. Marriage strategy. however, is only half th e pictu~. for in this discussion o ur participOlnu. and particubrly the women. appear as no mo~ th;lll pawns. The dynOlmic hOJ.if of th e pictu~. domestic ~latiollShiJ>$. needs yel to be discussed . to determine fint to w hOlt extent nurriage strategies were successful in securing we;uth and keeping kinship ties inlact, and second to w hOlt extent th e model of the nuclear f.nnily accurately rdlttlll the complexity o f in terests in the oikos, the bOISic domestic uni t prompting ma n iage and in turn being affec ted by it.
"
m
________ c
HAP T E R
J _ _ _ _ __ __
Harmony and Conflict within
the Household
Tun INVESTIGATION so far has foc llscd on the bnds of interesu moriVolting m.arr iage alli;mces ;lmong the elite and among the less \veU known, and hence the emp h:/oSis has been on th e pa tr iline. the formal ge nealogy. The p:nritine. hO....1!ver, is only put o f the picture. Marriage 1$ only p
eficial imcre$U, ~uch as pnent :md child or brother and brodler. Through the ex;uninat ioll o f dyads. affective ties among fam ily members c m be better undcr$1:000. 1 In particubr. it will become den how property intere$u could cOllwlidate bot also disrupt ti es among fa mily memben, and th is will provide a balance to the often seemingly ri gid schemes ill the marriage st~l egies previo usly ex;r,mined. In Ihis chapter, the discussion wiU focus on the tn nsmitters of property and wealth. the hmband as chi ef tnnsmitter and his wife, :r.nd will then eX:l.mine how each p:l.rent interacted wi th his o r her child. The next ch.:a pter wi ll examine the role of property intel"("ll.$ ill sibli ng rebtiomhips. The chief sources throughout will be :I.{;lIin th e or:niolls with thei r almost conSl:lnt concern for inher;t:l.nce. A{;lI in [ must poim Out Ihat the orations h.:ave prot>lerru as sources with their incessant distonions of the truth, denigration of opponenu:l.S unwo rthy citizens. al\d depictio n of the speaker's side as good citizens. As David Cohen has rece ntly stated. in :1.11 .:agonisti C society the orations on inheril:l. nce provided an .:aren:l. fo r an ongoing pursuit o f conRicl so that rhetoric and ki nshi p ties ....'ere m:l.nipuIated to fit the needs of the moment. 2 The picture of inheritance drawn by the orations was frequently the conventio nal one: the , A. P~bm. KiN/lir in 'M AlII: An An'~"""""" tJ Atlonu (C>mbrWg..: CambridiIC Uni~ilionl. will ",Iy m:.nl lim~ 1<> .ime "" ""h~ ....... uu. for inMana: l'Iu ....ch .. bioot:"'pb~. I'luran::h" ~"'YS 0f1 .K~.ion «>want c hil<1m •• nd 011 brotherly Io>oe. hov.TYef. wiD".,. be ~ .. ,hcy ",.ely ~"ain 10 Ath~ni.n indi_ vid~ 11uf>rcb in ~",I;" a difficul. ",urc~'o...., b<:<;a...., .,( h;" b.~ rical signific:ance of tlu, ".....,.,.J ,","onl. s..: 0. A. R ......II. '''ul_~ (london: I)u" kwonh. 1'17)). 102- ). For bibl~phy 011 """ comradie· lions in PI .... rch ... ~ A. G. Nikolaido. MI'1utarch ~ Comr.odio;:tionl," aM,d 42 (1991): 15-4 and II. 4,
,.
m
HOUSEHOl.D
H",lI,M ONY
"'NO
CON FLI C T
69
foew w;tS on the downward transmission of wealth and. given the leg:r.l biu. on downw:ard tnnsmission :lIl1ong males. T his bias had a direct effect on emotions and needs among family members, which in tu rn structured and were structured by property concerns.) No discussion o f property interests ....,ould be complele without first stating that ancient Athens was a shame culture, that is, o ne in which there w;tS a tendency to evaluate oneself according 10 the way one w;tS seen by others. Shame w;tS COl uscd by the fear of external sanctions. Shame and honor in Athens were closely linked u honor w;tS fimdamemal to one's reputatio n and social ....'Orth . H onor for a nun could be public honor g:.Joined through his political reputation o r nis benefactions to the city. A nu n·s reputation also depended o n the proper conduct of h is family members. so that honor was also tied in with behavior at the private level. Here the \VOlllen of a man's family were important. A ....,oman's ho no r w;tS bound up with Iter public display o f sexual modesty. Whether nurried or unmarried, she w;tS expected to manifest reser...e in her dealings with th e o pposite sex. In many cultures. the reputation of a woman depe nds upon he r fulfillments of community expectations of chutity. Her mO\~ments, dn"SS and behavior must fit a standard o f modesty.4 In Athens, behind the \VOJIlaJl S public display o f modesty, her interest in property use and tr.msmission could infi uence relationships among close: family members u ....~ Il u among extended kin.
HUSBAND AND WIFE
Social historians and anthropologists studying European societies al"(' now acknowledging that women could have a great deal of informal power at the private level of the household. A ....,oman 's chutity ,vas indispe nsable to th e honor of her family of marriage, and, therefore, she could g;.i n leverage by threatening to trespass against chastity. Furthermore. wome n s imere$t5 were refiected and expressed in succession practices and in the successful management of the household economy. P~rti cularly im port:lllt to th e status o f women w;tS the dowry. because of its place in th e conjug:.Jol house hold and the negot iatio ns over it5 use and H . Mcdick :md D. s..bcm. ;ntrodUClion 10 Inwal """ &ooticn (Cambridge: Ca.nbridge Uni_ ...nity "'-. 1988). 2. argue p~rty ohould no< be rrifi«l. urwkn«><>d ,n the Conlell' of enlOlions and n«ds . • T1Ic bibliognphy on .... anM: cuh .. ~ " vaH. For >om" d"" ...."'" of 01 ..."", ndgndg
W.
b." .........
pr
err
70
C HAP TER J
transmissio n. A l~rg.- dowry ensured the wom~n ~n ill1port~nt role in th e deci5io ll5 of the lIl~rit~1 ho u5ehold: it helped to Mabilize the m~rri~ge and to encourage mar ital intimacy. Decau5e tht' dowry, ;IS th e property of the woman S lI~t al kin. wou ld ideally be transmitted to th e man 's childrell. th e man could become involved in the property intt'l"l'St<; of his wift"s family of origin. 5 [11 d :u5.ical Ath ens, the m~l e sphere of activity was predominantly tht' outdoor ~nd public one-the fields. the lawcourt<;, th e Agora, the coullcil, and the asse mbly. The woman \\l;I,S relegated to the indoors her chi ef functi on W;lS the m~naging of the oikill, th e ho u5e, lud as such her role was acknowledged as indisperu.able. 6 Marri~ges in Athens \\Ie re arranged: th e 5electio ll of a prospective husb.:r.nd for l woman w:u a matter of gTell concen! fo r her p~rents as she was supposed 10 marry a ma n of s.atisfactory statw ? Gen erally th e bride w:.I.S about fourl t:C'n years o f age, whereas her husband tended to be in his thirties an age difference Ih~t can be lttributed first to the importlnCe of Ihe dowry and second to debyed transmissio n of property from fath er to IoOn .8 • for th~ won"n" ",flu~nu on h~r huWnd.ni Venice;· 126-48. Also valu.bIe ....., the (t ITfJ o n ",OIkm Greec~ in J. O " tn.ch . ed .. 1 """..... in #tw..J (I'rinctto n. N J: I"'" "eton U n;"""';ty P, • 1986). and ~cially E. Fr~ . ...,.,,~ Pooitio" of"Women: Appe. ..nu and Rc-.:Jity:· ~2-52. Fr",d1 i~ t/l.;" ~ ~ dowry n",,' incl" de bnd. ' he flIO>( val" ed form o r produnl"" "".:Jth. on order to enlunC<" . he ......... u n·' pmi. ion. s.c.. :oho S. D. $;oLu"on~ .nl Procm.."97- I20. fo r W economic lUCCcK <JI the """""bold. P. Sm. C ...;, ind C llid>, 7J.( M""'~ t{ ,ftt Mtinj: .ncn.;on ' 0 ~ .• affina. Th..., l<><"iC1i ... of c.,......, do DOl ""...tlcl . r>C"kn' Athens;n evny ,,,,".. nee. bu. ! ,,'" .h~m I><-ft aa. " ",an; .0 " rwk .... and .he motMliO ... of the anci~nt AtMnia .... The 0I0UtCe-< '''ggclof how p. optity concerm unite the huwnd with his . ffill.... e u,.. """iollS in Xenophon cited in IxoLow. , lupeer 5. p. 1)0. The nloOlt recent di"' .... oon 0" ,,,,,tu l ~ion iJ Cohen. Low, StxwaIil)l 70 If.. who argue-< Wt 'JU'i.o.I co.tegori:u,Km co.n iliift; for cJampl~. IympoCi. N.Y.: CorneD Un;IIn"1i'Y P ...... 1968). 107: R . Sealey. IliMwn """ u- .... Qr...... J (C lupcl H iD: Unrvcnity of Nonh C arolina Pmo. 1990), 25;JUSt. 11WNtn. 43 If.; R . G..-bnd, T1tt c....~ II"" t{ l..i}t (lthan.. N.V.: Corneu U ni"""';'Y f'rns. 1990).217 If. 10 f<>r the >tI" diff.....,n..... '""" J USt. litontno, 15 I- 52: ror ,he .n~ntion to tM dowry. '""" Ixolow. pp. 116-20. for ' M de~ , .." .. n''';on of the ..... t~ to the 0011. on on f.. hen.nd "".... Ixolow. p. 86. Age d.lfcn:nra bcno."eeII spou .... Iu"" been DOled for Tuscany fiom u,.. thin eenth century on"..nI. w h ..... the r>!her W2I ...,luclant 10 Iu,.., hi. JOn ","rry . t '00 e"ty an IIIC ,"d be: thereby led '0 q"e:!.ion the ol
Ct,""....
em...
s.c..
c.m-..
I·"
pro
err
HOUSE H OLD H ... RMONY ... ND CO NfL I CT
71
Once a nu rr iage look pbce. it c~ated a strong and bsting bond. In itself. di\'Orce was an easy procedure: the husband merely dismissed his wife. while the woman. if initiating the divorce, had to present herself to the arc hon.'" The onlions, howevc:r. give little indication th~t divorce wa~ indeed conillio n. For in stance, in the eorpus of I ~e us approximately fifty marriages are recorded. but only ("m divorces are mentio ned. 1O This prob~bly does not refl ect the d ivorce nle of ancient "Ihens; because a ....'OIIIaIl·S divorce co uld lead to gossip abou t her behavior and thereby bring shame on he r. II thc reluctance of the ontors to discuss divorce may represent the normati\'e view. the social ideal. In I ~eus 6 the speaker. th e alleged adopted son of Euctelllon's SOli by a first wife, strengthem his cb im by hiding the fact that Eucteillon had divorced his first wife; 12 the obfuscation was mean t to wcakell the claillls of legilimacy of Euctemon's sons by a second m..:Irriage. Indeed. a look at the divorces recorded in I ~e us and elsewhere reveals that although th e husband could merel y dismi$S his wife. the wo man was nOI neces~ril y passive o r mute. I~ew, for one, was quite careful 10 portny a divorce ill acceptable terms. I) ls:Jeus 2.6 ff.. whic h describes a divorce initiated by an older man from his young wife. det;!il! how th e husband. Menedes. concerned th at his wife should produce children. approaches her brother with the suggeslioll that she should be divorced and remarried to someone who can sire offspring. The husband is not o nly (;Ireful to pnise the ....'OlIIan·s virtue and characler. but also, with th e brother, approaches his \vife to oblain her consent. The ....'Oman at first refuse-s but. reiuClan tly. wilh the prodding of both her brother and her husband. agl'ees 10 the divorce. 14 In another ontion. the young wife does not iea\'e
s.e... ror el<.ll1lple: ....<ey. F~ ...ily.
108-'J; .... R . W. H armon. TIlt Ln.. of A,1rm.c, vol. I (Oxford: Cbl""t"Tldon Pre.. 1%8), 38-44; PoITltTQy. C'.cJJwn. &1-65; I). M . Macl)o","eU. 7.,." t...- of am;,. At""" (Ithac:a. N . Y.: Cor~u U""....,.ry ]>mo, 1978), 88. 10 nu. of EIlCltnlOn fronl his fil'l' ..ife (Is. 6:ond DA",,;S, A PI; 563). :ond .hat of Mc" ..clcs fronl the Ipe:aker~ siMer (10. 2.6-8). Mn. e ...;.:ond 8><1.1 not" "'" IMrIe phenomenon for mnc....,,,th,,,,en_ tury Athem; al.hough nuU,fying I mlrrut!e "'"21 e .. y. the di"""", ,.u" _low bee...., the nnd to prod,," oII>prilll! ""'>led I ,non.Ilmi. for .he union; SA", C . .U And 1lW, M..JMt, 199.201 . II A. Snfilm. " Wi"""""l! and Falst Witncl4ing: Proving Citi... mhip .. ,d Kin ldemiry In rourlhCmtury ... t ........- in AtIom .... fdnrriry ",,1/ Civic '~. ed . .... fI.o<-gc-hoId :ond .... Snfuro (fuJ.inlQn': John. H opki .... UnM-niry 1_ . 1994). 16,}. 12 DMO$., API; 56}. Il TlH: 1OOowi"1! A'" .Iot di""",,,, mnI.i.....,d in .he 'ex,,; 1>1 .... Ptt. 24.S (l·encl.... wife); "'nd. 1.124 If. (c.ui.>S. KCond .nd Ih,m wivn); L)'J. 14.28 (Hipponicw lJ r. wife); II. 2.6 If. (Mcncclco' wife), 10. 6 ("'" ab<> ,..,. .. 10 . ~) (Eue le" ,,,,,,' fi .... ""';(e); Ixm . .loO-JI (0""'.,..·. _ct. d,_cOIim (.he Ipe.kt,·, wife) (,uggD.ed bu. not :acnully .u.ed in .he on.ion). For romplnn>n<'""kc I mention eridcs' wife agrttd to Iheir divorct • • nd .Iu. ~.icln IP"" Iot •• o moth ... nun. IS etnIoble (lh 24.S). ~
"""'I!
pr
em
72
C HAPT e R
J
he:r older husband. C iron, ll though their twO young $OIlS hn'!' died and there is tittle chance, given her husband's age, that they can have any more children (Is.
8.36). Although M antias divorced Plango. he con tinu ed his rela tionship with her and finaUy, after $Ome coercion from Plango. acknowledged the paternity of his roIlS by her. When DUias dismissed his th ird wife. the widow of Isc homachus, and deni ed his pate rnity of her ron. her kinsmen induced C:r.lIilS to reconsider; C.allias in the end sv."Ore to his paternity and in faCt too k Is.chomachus's widow back into his house. IS This is similar to the divorce of Phrastor of Aegilia from hi5 wife, who was, as it turned out, not a citizen but the cbughter of a prostitute. Nevt'rthdess, wh en Phrastor was iIIlnd he feared that he ~ dying. he reconciled himself with his pregnant ex-wife, allxit tempo",rily (fDem. 1 59.50 fr.). In another case, Protomachus, a poor nun. divorced his wife when he had the chance to marry a wealthy heiress. Beca use his first wife was also poor, and th erefore would haVl: had l difficult time remarrying, PTotomachus took it upon himself to ha\"e an acquaintance marry her (Dem. 57041 If.). This second marriage lasted until the husband 's de:nh . Finally. Onetor's sister registered a false divorce in an attcmpt to ~VI: her husband's property from confiscation (Dem. 30. and 3 1).'6 The genenl view o f the ontions. no doubt idealized. is that husband and wife: try to make a marriage work. T here may be some: dinrust o f the wife: It first. but when she: lxgins to bear children for the oikru a deep respect and trust de\"elops between spouses (Lys. 1.6. 14). which i5lnsed o n open communication (Lycurg. fro C 11 - 12). Likewi~. hu. bands :and w iva:are supposed to sen le: Iheir differences for the sake of the children ([Dem.14O.29). Certainly in myth and dnma this ideal pn:vails--the domestiCOlt.ion of wome n aUows for the ir incorpo"' tion into society as th e wi~-es of men. '7 On the ot her hand. ;tlthough so me of the lnciem so urces do admit that l husband an be romlmiclUy and 5eXUally intimate with his wife,'8 other sources consider it in poor taste to display too much affection fOT one's wife, indeed such behlvior can leld to gossip that the woman i. not th e TIIln's wife: but;J. hetle", (b . 3. 13- 14; see also Plm. Om. 4 .8-9)Y~ .5 On Ihe sordid deui!! or M1mia ... and Callia... divorces • .Iee I) .",es. APr: 264- 65 (D.lJw). J6H7 ~IW). ,. On btoth~rs and .lee btlow. chapR"f ~ . pp. 1 2J-2~ .
""nJ.
' 7 Just. II ~. 2.)2 .
'. 0. Cohen. "Th~ Soci.>I Con'cJ<1 of Adull
1990).163.
,. J. RotouLid. ,\k4iftoM """Ii"";"", tranS. L. G. Cochnllt (Oxrom: Hl>cIr:weU.
1988). 75. poinu OUII"'" :U'\On& the n>cdi~ rnoriliou. hu!oNnd', .xcns"'" ""'" for h" wif. ....... ,omidctffi adulIt""". Emocional .handon ........ wonc f. ulL w ithin "",.,i.age ,han ouUI and 1hW. M~, 195. The concern. u..-,..,ro..... of cw.;_ ci.u likt JUSI. If~. 103. 135 If.. and Cohen. "Soci.>I OJnle",," 163. l-I &x-lil)l 167-68.:u 10 whtlher Alhenian 'f"OUSCI V""" dOlt ~ reflect modern north Europe.".nd American nlues.
;n,.,..,...
pr
err
HO U SEHOLD
HARMONY AND
CONfL I C T
7J
Spouses do show gen uinee co ncern wheen th ee otheer is ill (Oem . 30.34. 50.6 1, 59.56) and in one case a husband instru cts his wifee to have their yet unborn son avenge thee husband's upco ming eexeecution at th e hands of political foes (Lys. 13 .42).20 Men were allowed extramarital sexual ~ct ivi ty, bu t they sho uld nOt bring thee concubin ee o r hetair.l into the house hold ou t of respect for their wiva ([Deem.] 40.9-10, 59.2 1-22). For th e wife. however. ~bsolute fidelity w.u the rul e, as lIlen had to be certain that th eir he irs ...."ere th eir own children. Furthermore. the children had to be true Ath enians in o rde r to parti ci pate in th e polis, thei r citizc nship defined by the Athen ian ci tize nship o f both pa~nts and the formality of the parents' uni on. 2 1 Conseq uentl y, the husband was obliged to divorce his adul terous wife (Lys. I , pauim), and she co uld suffer public humiliation and be barred &om the rel igious riru a15 of the polis.22 In his diatribe aga inst Demosth eenes, Aeschina was un ique in a$$trt ing thai Oelllosthen es pu t his wife in bed with his associate, C nosion (Acsc hin. 2. 149). Women we~ strongly discour.lged &om dispbying imprope r behavior (Is. 3.13- 14; H yp. fro0 9-10); and the ideal was for the husband to keep his wife in the house away fro m the eyes of other men .2..1 Also, if th e woman turned ou t to be ~ nonci tizeell passing as a citize n, by the fourth century thee nun was required to di\'OTCe he r and she co uld lose any dowry brought into the unio n ((Oem.] 59.5 1 fr.. 8 1-83). Although th e wom~n's duty nOI to sham e her husband is a recurring theme in the o ratio ns, and is a typical attitude of shame cultures. men as we ll were not supposed to sh ~m e th eir wives' by supporting measures o r approving of aClions detrimental 10 their wives' physical safety (Lycu rg. 1.1 - 2. 141 ; Lys. 12.69-70; Dein. 3.1) or by supporting measures Ihat would jeopardize their modesty ([Oem .] 59.1 10. 114). To do SO. it w.u feared, would encou rage wo men to abandon their modesty (IDem .] 59. 111- 12). Also, so as nOI to shame his wife. a man sho uld be responsi ble in his financial affairs (Oee m . 22.53). One ontioll tells of how a wife ddee nded thee honor o f he r late hU$band. The husband, th e speaker's fatheer, had been a....'2y on military scrvicee under Th rasybulus (Dem. 57.42) during which time the wol1llln hi red herse lf out as a wet nursc 10 Cleinias son of Cleidicus, the young child of an old and noblee family. Years bleer, afree r the deeath of her husba nd, th e wonun w.u obliged to deefeend her S«:obo b . 6.65. whttt i,,,~ u... hlUband ', duty .o pnform tM burial.,..,. for h" WIf". }, On ,h~ defini.ion of m"rr~. I « below. ch;opt~r 6, pp. 178ff. :JO
liS. 124- 2S; Harrison, /...tw. 1;3S-J6; 1'o",~fO)'. G<xIJt.u.. lIl-II3; ~.I<"y. Il b",.~ . 28-29; JIUt. 111>room. 68-70. Ao:Khin . 1.107 d "inu flUnr m~n a~ 'OO ;uh:un~d .0 admit .h"ir wi-...· odult"ry: S. Cok. "Grttk S.nctions Again .. s<-xual ....... ult:· Ct' 79 (198-4): 106; Coh"n. -Social Com"x.," 163•• rgu .... h..... un; ... do ...." duhny d .... ~d .h" p/rj/j~ \,.,. ""~n hu~"d . "d wife. Al.hough .... di.;orully cWoiciou h.voe beli ....-N Lys. I. which .utco .h;o. "'1>" is • IeoKr crin,,, .han sc-dl.lCtion . •his vinv .nd Lysi ..· 'rgum"nlS h.avoe bo-en ....:~"dy chal_ lenged; E. M . Hn ris, " Did Ih" Alh"ni .... "-"gal'll Sc-ducrion ... Wo...., Cr;m" rh;on R.pt'?- CQ
u
M.d~U. £., ....
.Iu. .Iu..
040 (1990): 370-n. %.1
Cok, - Gfttk Sanctiono.-
pr
em
7.
C HAPTI!R J
bte husb:.;md's citizenshi p, he r own citizenship :;;md that of her son , and one o f he r witnesses \\';IS the adult C leinias (Oem . 57.4(4).a. C lose cooperatio n and respect between spouses are refl ected in the active interest a husband and wife took in each other's property. The wife could not inherit from her husband except for any addi tions to her dowry he might nuke in th e event of hi5 early death and her sul»cqucnt remarriage. N evertheless. the wife kn ew th e financial dec:.ils of her husb:.nd's (lik(l$ to the point. particubrly after his dellth, of having managerial o;:ontrol of the eslate (Oem. 27.40. 29.40-48. 36 .14 If.. 55.24-25), zs eve n though so ns legally lIcquired control at thcir nujority and guardians were lI5S igned control of the estate during the so ns' minority. The orations ~qucntly attesllo the widow 's strenuous elforts to keep her husblind's estate intact against encroac hment by kinsm en or neighbors. 26 Such concern in o ne case: led a woman into a dispute with he r own father (ly1. 32. 10 If.) and in two other cases with her own son (Aesc h.in . 1.98-99; Oem. 36.1 7- 18). And in her husbllnd's lifetime a wife might try to guard her husband 's prope rty from o;:reditors (Oem . 30.4 If., 3 L10. 47.57-58), and was o;:ogniZ3nt of her husband's attem pts to pay olf debts (Oem. 47. 57-58). In somc Clises. however. if a wife or widow hlld minor sons. she could be at a legal diudvantage, literally dependent o n male kin or even no nkinsmen to prolect her and he r children.l 7 In Demosthenes 47. an or:ation concerned \vith a wife whose husband ....'15 aw:ay in th e Pcir:aeus, the husband's creditors bllrged into th e house whi le th e \vife was w ithin with her min or o;:hildren and a beloved freedwoman. T he creditors proceeded to ~ize the furniture, so me of w hio::h apparently belonged to the woman 's dowry, assaulted the ~edwonun. and seized the couple's son, thin king that he was a slave (57- 58). Surely th e woman tried to explain that th e boy w:as her so n, for this woman was not mut e, but vigorously defended furnishin gs she claimed to be items in her dowry and inform ed the creditors th at her husb~lld h~d deposited money fo r them ~t the bank. Surel y the boy himself cri ed OuI for his moth er. But the creditors did not re lease the boy until one of the neighbors. an ~dult m~le citizen. ~ccosted them and info rmed th em of the child's identity (6 1). This delibera te dismissal of th e wife's statement ........s re inforced by law: w hen th e speaker, th e husband in question. wem to the reli gio us interpreters (~fill) for ~d\,jo;:e on how to prosecute his o;:redilo rs , he \ \';IS told nOI [0 melll iOIl the as.saiianlS by name, liS his charges relied only on th e testimony of his wife and o;:hildren (69-70) . Info nnall y, th erefore. a wo man actively pursued the preservation of her marital oikos because. :IS is st~ted ~quelltly in th e SO Url:C$. marriage w:as 3 kind o f
_ I).",".
.. fur Ck",,~. .1 />1; 12- 15. n V. H untn, ·· Won .... , ~ Authortry in CIaWca! Au",,,s," EMC II (1989): 19-48: C. A. Cox. " ' ,,«$<, Inllerit.""" .,1<1 the Political Forum in fili h-Ccruu'Y Alhe..s.- Cj 85 (1989): ~5. "" V. H unter, "The Athentan Widow . nd Hn Kin," )n;>biliry. tee ibid .. 299.
w,,\ow,
pr
err
H OUSEHOLD
H ARMONY
AND
CO NFLI C T
75
fusio n of rn-o esUtes, tha t of her husband and that of her oileos of o ri gin (fo r exam ple, Is, 2.4-5; Oem . 27.5, 30. 12, 59.2- 3). Th is ....'aS not m erely rhetoric; the husband could be a vociferous defe nder of his wife 's clai ms to her father's eslale, should she be an heiress, o r to her brother's owe, sho uld he die without heirs (O e m . 43.3 If., 63 if.; b. 3.22 If.; 5.9 if.; 7.3; 8.4 1--42; 10. 18-20: I I A 1--42, 49).28 Funh ermo re, a wife could inAu e nce he r h usband either to adopt o ne of her killSm e n (O e m . 4 1.3 If.; Is. 2.7 fr.) or to ~nd one of the ir sons o r liria ~Hd .5orit'tr iH,Itt Anrim' MrJi' ........._ II twlJ, ed. II. HolpeTn ."d O. H obIOn (Sh~ffi~ld: Sh~ffi~1d Academic 1'reM. 1993). 103. ~ Finley. SLC, 79: W. Wyk. TIot Spffllo .. of1-... (Combndg< : Co",br~ Um",,,,ty I'rn>. 1'JO.4; N.,.,.. Vorl< ; /!.rno, 19?<J). 243; l. Canon. "Th~ AI~ni;m U~r CWO .r>
the o«cions on moth"".r>ns ;mol.
n>Olh~n
ar>.ushl~n below. pp. 99-1().4.
" fo< runhcr"'f=nc ... "'c Il. M . Setup<. Emnomit RigIoIl '!I' ll"""" i" Anriml C....... (Edmburgh; UnMnity of Edinburgh Press. 1979).76. 142--0 . nn. 26-27 . » Finley. SLC 21>64>7. n. 29; ...., ;>Iso H unln. ~ A\h~nia" Widow.- 307. n. 7. for t/w: .-.lues of t/w: do.o'fi.. giw11 10 "''ldows .
.... H um..... " Womrn ',
Authority.~
40.
pr
err
76
C H APTER l
to reemer Ath enian society after her fath er; political disgrace and exile and to be marr ied to l weal thy Athenian .~ In anoth er C1Ise. the speaker ugues that his mother's dowry, after the end of her first marr iage. would have been increased by her bf()[hers to ensure a proper second muriage for her. The importance of the dowry is the basis for the speaker's argumem that his father, Mantias. had not actually married PJango. M aneias's presumed first wife, but only intended to. Though the speaker is incorrect. it is significam that he bases his argument on the premise that Pbngo had brought no dowry, and, for that reason, M:uuias married the speakr's mother (IDem.] 40.19-27) . Altho ugh the dowry was valued in C1Ish, it freq uently consisted not juSt of c;LSh, but also of mOVOIble items-furniture. jewels. plated w.re and, perhaps, land (see below, p. 117), and could be amalg:un;lted with th e husb;llld 's ('Sute. Thus in his list ofhn father's property D emouhellCS included his mother's jewelry and gold-plated ob~cu (27.9-11). Although this was not productive 'A"(';llth, the prestige ;lssociated with these items allowed Demosthenes' mother a good deal of influ ence in discussions o n their use.;)) Anoth er or.ltion tells of a wife nuking 1~1lS to family mentben from, po!Sibly, her dowry, though this is lIot explicidy stated (Oem. 41 .9). In some ~ses, dotal .......:alth was so integra ted in the mari tal <Jikru that a w ife's dowry was confiscated to pay off her husband's debu (Is. 8.8-9; l ys. 19.32; Oem. 47.57-58), although w hether this practice wa$legally permitted is subject to debate.l6 In baeu$ 8 eiron ga''C his da ughter in m;lrriage to Nausim encs, but on the latter's death did IlOt receive his daughter's dowry back. presu",~bly bee;l use it had been expended (whe ther leg;illy o r not) to lII«t some debts incu rred by Nausimencs (8-9). As I noted above, in Delllosthencs 47.57-58 the speaker·s wife tried to ple;ld with her husband·s creditors not to co nfISCa te furniture that was part of her dowry. That the creditors ignored her may indicate thelr r.lJnCiousne$S, bu t there is the possibility-and this is strictly conjecmr»-that th~ suspected that the woman w.as deliberatdy lying in an attempt to save SOUle of her husband·s propc.ny. In Isaeus 10, the spc.aker;Ulother, according to the speaker, did not inherit her f.r.ther's ('St:lte as w;as her due as an heiress, but w:u gh"('n in ma rriage to a nonlcinsman with a dowry. Wh en the ,,,IOllun's husband protested to his wife's kinsmen about th eir disregard for h is wife's righu, they then thre;ltelled to initiate a divorce bel"w« n the two ;llId have her malT)' a dose ki nsman o f her father, in accordance with the Jaws gm~rning hein':$se$ (for wh ich. see below. p. 95). Although the speaker SUtes thaI his father could not bear th e emotio n;lI IOSj, the effect of the divorce would have been the .. For CIe<>boule', Nckgroulld. sec D.Yin, APF, 121-22 . .» H un"',. ··Women·, Au,,*-ity;· ~ 1: on 11K pl"e$lilPou< "ymbol.lvll of cath ;n dowTi.,. sec San. Cassi. and D.d., M.Mi11g, 81 . .16 Juv. H-......... , 1!2 f.: s.... v. Hum~r. I'IIMng AtIot.u; S«iM c...,ooI;" 'N A,rit t-. ...lI, 420-J2Q lI. C. (prinCeton, NJ : 1'T;ncerQlI Uniw:n.ity I"rno. 1994). 19 If.. for a diK-uooion of Ib~ dotal _>1m .. im.tgr:ui()l1 in.o 11K oonjujpl fund. Fo
.".. pr vem
H O USEHOLD HARM O N Y
AND
C O N FLI C T
77
forced retu rn of the dowry to the \\:oman's patrili ne, nOt an attract ive prospect for the husband who nuy wdl hom : bc-e n experiencing fmanci:l.1 diffi culties.l ? T h e binding effect of the dowry and its amalgamation into the husbands 0;1.0$ could, howe\'Cf, pro\"C dall~roUS to a wonu n, if gossip is at all trustworthy: the extremely large twen ty-talent dowry brough t by H ipparete led Alcibiadn. he r husband , to prevent he r physically fro m mi ng a di\lOrce with the arc hon « And .] 4.13 fr.; Plut. Ale. 8. 1-4). Although th e sources at times underp by ardent lore be[\reen husband and wife, they do emphasiU' the close cooperation between spouses which could result in the wife's detailed knowledge of he r husband's estate and his interest ill her natal oikos. C lose coopera tio n 1.\-'25 also necessary to emure that SOIlS inherited well and da ughten were do ....'Cred fi ttingly. Coopcntio n, therefore, was !»sic to a wonun's status, but he r status 'MIS situational, dependent o n nuny V1Ir iablcs, incl uding the length o f her residency in her husband's f1ikos, the weal th of her dowry, and the presence of ad ult males, preferably kinsm en, to protect her rightS.
FATHERS AND SONS, CURRENT RESEARC H
T he current trend in Jl$ychoa nalyti cal analyses o f fatherl son re lat iOll5hips in Weste rn society is to emphasize the distance of the fa ther from his fa mily, his ('mOlio nal separatio n from his children. and th e role of the mother as chief can:give r.J.8 The SC'p.;iralio n o f the Athenia n mal(' citize n from his oikf1s will be a concern in ('ha pter 5, but the studies th:u ha\'C shaped th(' following di'ICu'lSion are those that foc us on the interaction of mate ria.! and emotio nal conce rns, particularly in those soci('ti es in w hich ho nor and shame determine be havior. In his recent work on fat hen and sons ill Athe ns, Barry StnU'lS has argued that ex;llllpies from modern Greece are instructive. Among the pastoral Sarakawni of Epirus, for instance. thCTC is a great dea.! of tension ove r th e timing of transmissio n of property. In ancienc Athens, a.!tho ugh posclllon em transrniS!io n of property was the idea.!, ill fact sons could at least assUIll(' the managelll(' nt of the estate before the fathers de3th.J9 As in ancient Ath ens, $.;&raka w ni f.r.then and sons arc carefu l to prese nt thenuc:lvcs ill 3 Ull ified way. wi th the son co nstantly displaying respect fo r paternal au tho ri ty.4/) Behind this public unity, h~"Cr, the relatio nship betwe('11 fath er and SOli is delicately bala nced for th(' Sarakawni; in
tI'''''''
)' H ;' son, Ih~ ~.ur. was """.j,,ly j" debe IU ,"" 01.,,, (20) ."d d."ned ' 0 1\3"" mtagn' dowri,", '0 his .... ,,1'$ (25) . .. For ;ruur>Ce, s. H. C uh. A. G"",';n. and L. Gun~ eds .. Row.. 4"11 1lori, F.vtoi/ia (Hill><We: Th" AlUlytic ~ 19:89)0 M _ lamb. 1lw fiulo(r1 RiW, Crrm-C~/IwNl I'm,-i~ (H illotWe-: t..'"""'nct Erlb.>u", .-.....woes. t 987). '" p. Smu.. ~"'" Soou .... Aooritool Ar/Inou (f'rinc01on. N.J.: ....,n«ton Univen.ity'-""'" 1993). 67- 70. S« rollher the discu..oon below. p. 86. .... C2mpbtU, 160-61, 170-72.
H_.
pr
err
78
CHA PT E R
1
return for his son's respect. a father is fon;ed by social pressure to h~nd over man :lgenu"nt of th e estate to his dde$t son when the latter h:ls reached thirty; :lny failure to do so (ould le:.ad to th e publi(: airing of the resultant quarrel bemoeen f:lother :Iond son. Any physical or mental f~b1eness of th e fath er would also prompt the SOil to qucsti on th e older /Iun's authority.· t In o ther comm unities outside Greece. inheritance systenu in whi ch there iS:I delayed tr:msmissio n of property betray a mistrust o n the father's pari o f hil children-the father is uncen ain that his children. once they own the land and a house. will Clre for hilll properly.·2 In S('wtilcenth- and eigh tee mh-ccntury H aute- PI'O\'ence, illsolU in peasant and anis.anal families inhe rited shares of movabl es an d (:~h , but one son was selected to inherit tht: residence and the land of the father. Leg;.l.1 authority over the f.ath er'.s estate, howe\'t' r. did 1I0t enter imo effect until the f.a the r·s death. The inheriting SOil could not sell the est:lte. dispose of its WC'al th, or make a will until his father's death; only then could th e son legally own the property. Because o f such hte tralUllliuion of ownership. the inheriting 50n lived in the s.;Illll' house with his father and mother and brought a wife into th e rttidence. If the father :lIId SOli found th e si n' Jlio n intolerable and there was all agreemem on physical separation. such separation would deprive the son of any further r ight to inherit the chief estate ~ nd its residen ce. The father nill did lIot hand o\'er th e son's full shllre of the patrim011Y. a nlo\'oe that would make th e father's 1:(:0110lllic position too tenuous. In the end, physical breab rarely occurred despite tellsions that (ould ari!oe .. mo ng lIIembers of the hous.ehold, which could (Cluist of the inheriting 11011. h is wife, his p~n: n ts . and any unmarried Sibli ngs.·.} To what e:
FATHE R S AND SONS IN ANC IENT ATHENS: PU8U C UNITY
U,lrry StrauSS's recent book on the ideology of the fathcr-son reiatiOluhip argues that conflict between father and $On w:lS a socwand political wnstruct o f the Pcloponn ~ian \Var era. The ideal of the rebellious SOli. hO\.vever. w:lS quickly suppressed at the end of the wu afier Athens had mffered her dis;tstmus defea t.· 4 My purpose here will be different from that of Strauss: this chapter will take ,1 synchronic approach to the conflicts that developed from Ilutcrial interestS. T he focus here will be on how the ideal of fathcr-son cooperation WoIS undercut by tensio ns alld ri~ ' I t>id .. 161~:
U
1S7-.f19. R . l!.rlur ."d n. FI'}"", M\>.Oj><:' 1)1. PlO!!
l.conde Villa!!"."
J-rn'"
13 (I98$) : V . U A. Collomp, "Te"';ons. OiJo<:mio..... nd Ruf!
'11/
pr >rem
HOUSEHOLD
HARMO NY
AND
C ONfLI C T
79
valries betw«n tr.lI1sminer ;'Ind heir. Therefore. individuals who stood ou~ide this formal d~ of father and son--formal in the sense of politics and inherita ncecould have a good deal of influence over the legal heir and his eslate. Rath er than duplicate Smuu's admirable assemblage of sources, [ will ci te instances mostly from the orations that are meant merely 10 complement his discuuion. The Athenian male was constantly preoccupied wi th maintaining th e honor of his family membe rs-his pare nts and his siblings. The need 10 present a unified from between fath er and son was a key element to preserving one's ho nor. The ideal o f th e obedient son obeying his fa ther's injuctions and learning fro m the older man's memories is a stand1rd theme: in the: or;'lIions.4~ [n pu blic a fathe r, as his son's nearest adult male: agnate, could defend the son o n cha rges of homicide or bring his son's murderer to tr ial (Antiph. 3. 1; L}'5. 12.83). At the end of the fifth century, Andocides. returning from exile. decla res that he is without refUge in his ho me ciry because his father is dead and he has no broth ers (And. 1.148). Andocides actuall y had affines th rough his sister's marriage.46 but the stress hen:- in Andocides' rhetori c is o n male agrmic respo nsibilities in the lawcourts and political forum. In rurn. the son was supposed to obey his father while the latter \vas alke and preserve his me mory afte r he died (L}'5. 12.82--83. 13.42: Lye. 1.2. 136-37). The close li nk between father and son in terms of material inheritance was reflected in th e: language used 10 d .."SCribe political d isgr.tce and perso nality makeup. Fat hers bequeathed their char.tcter to their so ns. Demosthenes 54. descr ibing a dispute between two men that began over a hmltm, i, a co mparison betwee n the speaker's se rvi ces 10 the state and those of his fathe r, on the one hand. wi th the debauchery of Conon, wh ich ....'as inherited by his 5Ons, o n the o ther (47.7-8. 14 If.. 39. 44).47 AI50, sons were cenSUl"('d if they did not live up to th eir fath er's standards: as isocr.tlcs states, SO IlS could ill alford being worse than their fathers [1.72). This attitude takes a humorous turn in an Or:llOrical fragment where th e speaker. charging Demosthenes the orator with cOWllrdice. ded ares tha t Demosthenes did not even have a sword inherited from his own father---\!. pointed remark, as a la't,'e pa n of DemosthenC'$ Senior's estate WllS based o n his sword manufacturing (P. Ox),. 6.858 and comment ary). Further, it was assum ~d that a 5011 inhe rited his fa ther's attitude tOWll rd the state: therefort'o a son was judged by his father's political sunce (L~. 12.65-66: 26.4, 2 1) and by his m unificence to th e sute (Dem. 28.22. 54 .44; Antiph. 5.20. 74 If. la meti clJ.48 •• Ibid .. 72. 0<; Davin. API; 30. 2!>3-5~. OJ M . Golden. Otild"" ,."d OtildltoH iN a.wir'" Alht>u (Ibhuno~: Johns H opkins U,,,,,,, ... ty Prno. 1990). 101. for . 26.2 t. \..y>. 30.1. IV, .. miLor belidO in 1 modern G...,.,k conununity. "'" Ympben. H_,. 166-67 . .. H~.1D l>ein • .). 17 000 [And.l ~ •.).) >Ons""" not gJYen ~ c<>n«u>o ..... mply be<:ouo.e of .he many gno>t d«dI. of their f.nlOUS f• ....,..,.
pr
err
80
C HA PTER. l
MoreOV<'r, the $On'5 reputati on could be marred by his father's decept.ive behavior towards the deme or the polis (Oem. 57. 18 fr., 60; hoc. 16,1 fr.) and thl.l5 could be. along with his fathe r. charged with treason or illegal activity (Oe in. 1.62-63; l ys. 18. 1- 5, 20.1 fr.; Oem . 57,18 fr.: 58.1 fr.; lsoc, 16,1 fr,; "nd. 1.22 fr.); consequently, under the law the son inherited his f.ather's disfl' ~ ~ pololibiIity m.l i\ndocitcu,gr. D. M . Mx~U, AMokidn "'" 'M Ml"1tTia (Oxford: Clarendo" Ptno. 1%2), 110-71 . s.... mo Smu•. F.odorn. 187 If. "" Although !Joe""..." hU .pe«h ,.,'ne" to l)ftn.onicw. u.e!()Q of H ipponicus. ~ ~ WT" '''& to . non-Ath....un, the ontOf', 1<'J]" mtntS ",HC'Ct Athcnu.. .ni~ and bduvM>r. " Smu.., F.otlom, 77. l> R.,b,ion! bc1Wtt'r1 ApoIIodorus and DrinUs, ..............., do not """'" 10 ~ 1>«.. .mooch :ill "'" .i"",: $<"e ~Iow. du ptcr 4. p. 122. » The mend! a", _ . • , Tcncdo!;. For "'" role of rnonnMY 'W"anet .1 A
~
pr
en
H OUSEHOLD
HARM ONY AND
CON FLI C T
81
COllComir.mtly, a son inherited his fathe r$ cnem.ie$ so much so that in one ';::l$e a young man tri ed to shame an oppone nt by stating th at th eir fathers had never quarreled (Dem. 55.1 fr.). In Lysi:lS 14, the speaker is prose.;:uting th e younge r A1cibiade$ beousc: the fathers of both men were enemies: the 5pelku is arguing fo r Al.;:ibiades' pun ishm ent for his flther$ crimes (i bid .. 2, 16-17, 30-3 1) lnd ends the speech with l cltllogue of crimes committed by Akibil des'lllCestOrs (i bid. 39 If.). [ n lsocr.nts 16 the younger A1cibiades must defend himself agaimt :rJ.legatio lls of extortion by another of his father's enemies: rather than answer the charge directly, Alcibiades calls the roll of his father's impressive ancestors (\ fr.).~ This u nity between f;nh er and ron in the public sphere 'MlS ideally supposed to be reflected at th e priv.lte level. Common se nt iment acknowledged tha t dose affective ties should exist beno;een fat he r :l.Ild ron (Is. 7.14; Lys. 19.55), and any known case: of enmity was used against an individual's character (Lys. 14.26-27). R esponsibility 'MlS enforced by bw, wh ich pr()t«"ted bot h fa th er and SOil against egregious abuse: a son could n OI beat o r abuse his parenu at the risk of losing his civic righu (ati",ions could ctrt2inly fuel ~ prrnoe ,...crldnt • . " Hau ''''''. Lou! 1:77-78. ,. B. SmuSlo, ·'OiI:.>f / Po/U; Tow.mllll1ieory of AIh~nWi P.tenul lo:leoiogy 450-)99 a.c.,- in As· pm> .,AIIot";.." ftI. W. Connor tI 01 .• OMNI IJUHn~oo.w. 11 (Copenhagen: M uscum Tu ... OIltnum Prnl. 199(1). lOB. "Fot aunpln of obu.iv.o"""", K. 10.1- 2. 11.7-8; Dei". 2. 14. 18. GiYl"t\ tim .m on.on ""',.., not ...,lucUnt 10 .I/mdcr • riv:ll' fod>ct. \he virtu/J . bsC"nc:.- of c~ of ~~maI t.. Pet or abu"" is n:nwlt.ablt. 0".,.. 19.2lO wh<:,.., thw: i<. d ... rge duo:. nun p
nllL''''.,.
s....
s....
"
m
82
C HAPTER J
H ibth 1.14: Lys. fro6 [Gernet l).S8 If a fathe r had SOliS he \W$ required by law to bequeath his estate to them in equal portions. Only in the absence of sons could the estate devol\"e upon a da ugh ter.s9 Furth ermore, laws mandated th e respon· sible tl1l11sm issioll and U!>C of wealth: alt hough th e state frequently took large por· lio ns of a m:m's v.'ealth in the form of li turgies, a father could not squander his estate to the detrim em of his legitimate sons. Two laws, the graphi argias, ag;Jirut idleness. and the graplli pamuoias, ag;JillSt mental incapacity, Slated that a fathe r could be prose<:uted by his sons, o r by anyon e representing them. for misllla nagemelll of his estate.M) In turn. a son co uld not squander his patrimony on pain of forfeiting his civil rights (Aeschin. 1.28 fT.: lsoc. 12. 140). Because inheritance W:lS so concerned wi th legitimaC)', w hic h in turn depended on marriage. leg;Jlly, paternal authority W:lS supreme O\'er both th e production of legitimate heirs and their proper marriage. In the amphidromiCe that his SOli nurried properly and acth'ely arranged th e nutch (l ys. 19 .16: IDem. ) 40. 12; Is. 2.18 [adoptive father]). It was a nutter of ho no r. the refore. for father and son to appear united in the protectio n of th e property of their oikos. Fathers and sorn .....'ere fttq uently $Cell in co urt trying to pn:serve their property o r that of a kinsman (Is. 5.9. 9 ,3-4; Lys. 19. 1- 2; IOcm.!44.4Q-4I ). or the SOil could plead in COOTt to have property, w heth er in land, goods, o r money, returned to his dead father's estate (Is. fro 33; Lys. 17.3 ff.. 19. 1 ff.: O em. 27- 29. 38.1 ff.. 44.3-4, 49.1 fr. ). A closer look at sollle of these cases is instru ctive. In haeos 10. C yro nides, though adopted out of his fathe r's fina ncially en· so. R . Stroud. "G "",I; [noa 'p! IOOI: Theottorides .nd ,he A,hen;';'" Orpiu",," H~ 40 (197 1): 286-30 I..and np. 287. yO !.>tty. F~",;1y. 125: Madx """U . Lno! 92-93; J""'. It lornnr. 115-86. .0 H.rd..,,, . Ltw. 1 :~: Stn" ... 64 . ~, For ;"".tlcr. 1-1,....011 . Uoo: 1:70-7 1; MxUow"U. lAw. 91: Lacoey p"".ily. 11 1- 12: ]. K. [). vieo . •. A,h..".." C n ;kruh.p: T hr o..anl Gl'OIJp an.d 1M Ahr rnalives." C) ?l (1978): 109-10: SIn ...... F.t, Iltm. 64: GoIdrn . CltiUMoJ. 23-24.
"",10m.
pr
err
H OU S E H O LD
HARM O N Y
AN D
CONF LI C T
8)
cum bered dtUC, strOVe no t to let the oikos die out. W hen he sin,:d sons, he Iud them posth umously :.!.dopted in to his deceased f~the r's dUte. T hese :.!.doptions were co ntested by his sisters son, the spe~ker, who ....~ co ntinuing th e c~use of his father, Cyronides' sister's husba nd. The husband. w hile ~Iive. had claimed thaI his wife was an heiress 10 the estate of her father. 62 In Lysias 19, the speaker is in a predicament: when :.!.sking th e state 10 hand ove r to him his siste r's dowry from the confiSCa ted property o f his brot her-in law Aristopha nes, so n of Nicophemus, he does not wan t 10 portray himself or his f:.!.the r as rap;r.cio us: he therefore em phasizes Ihat his father, when COIltr:lcring his own marri:.!.ge as well :.!.s the nu.rri:.!.ge5 of his children. did not consider Ihe weal th bu t the ancestry of his prospective affines (8, 12 fr.). Furth ermore. his f:.!.ther's we.alth now being dem:.!.nded of the sute is of small consequence COI11p:.!.n,:d to the wealth devoted to the state by both f:.!.the r :.!.nd son (ibid.. 57 ff.). T he lengthy lawsuits over Oemosthenes' estate are by now falllo us and lIluch discusscd. 63 The emphasis here will be on :.!. son's attempts to uphold the illl:.!.~ of his fath er as an innocent victim of sc heming kinsmen and frie nds in o rder to justify the son's struggl e to reg:ain his paternal estate. Th ree oratio ns (DenlOSthelles 27-29) survive in w hich Demosthenes deuils the wealth in his fathe r's estate :l.Ild the te rms of the o lder mans will. All three carry the ~me theme: Demosthe nes the elder pu t his estale into the hands of men he trusted and w ho were.all present when he made his w ill. In th e w ill Demosth ell('$ th e Eider g:avr his widow in marriage to his siSler's ron, Aphobus, :.!. nd his five-year-old da ughte r to his broth ers son, Demo phon (Oem. 27 .4 ff., 55-57; 28.4 ff.; 29.47 fr. ). H e selected a th ird gua rdian for the esta te. an old fr iend and dcmesman. Therippides of Pae:.!.ni:.!.: " His intention." Oemosthenes insists. "~that if he j oi ned these men to me by still closer ties. they \vould look after my interests all the bett er because of this added bond of ki nship" (27.4-5). In th e end, Ihe guardians extorted the we;alt h, leaving Oemosthent'S only seventy minae from an estate of arou nd fourteen talents (27.6 ff.). All three or.ltions emphasize thaI this betrayal was sudden and unjustified.bO It is li kely. however, that Oemosthenes the elder did not entirely truSt the me n to w holll he willed guardianship of his estate. T he bequest may we ll ha\'e been an attempt to hide mu ch of Oemosth enes Senior's ('Sute from Ihe SUle to a\"Oid havi ng it encumbered to pay for the tn"ason of Oemosthenes Senior's father-inU In 'he prelim; .... ry u~nti""'..,,, or 'he c_ . ,h~ oreh<", nuy "..,11 iu".. ... dc-d ..... h ,he .pc~kC"1·. opportnlu. furcing dw: 'p<"'kC"f to d«1.>n: .iu. his rnonik!' IOn who Iud bft-n p<»,hurnowJy odoptod in ,o thc «Ute of Cynmidn' him fa,he,. Ari.. archu< I). In ",",,,,,,e this ..." ockll"",,·kdgt
Authority."'l9--48 . ... Golden. Otilillt<><>J. 52 .• rgues dut the ch<>i.;e of. friend migl1. Iu,,, ~wd "nprulkn •. It "'.... not .ocaUy uru:nQW1t fut IIonki",,,,,,,, '0 bo: ",I«t«l .. gw.nlitn<: I t t below. duptcr ~ . II. 26.
pr
em
84
C H APTER, l
law, Gylcn of Cenmeis. 6s D elllOSthC'nes admits that his fath er g:J."e large sums of money to Thnippidc:s and Demophon because, if they should pro...e to lx
dishonest, they would not be treated leniently by a jury (27.65). Also, ~ccording to /tphobus, D emosth enes Senio r kept four talents hidden in his house for his son and put his widow in cha~ of it; th is h idden wealth soon became a source of conflict between Aphobus and his intended wife, Cleoboule (27.52- 53; 29,46-47}.66 Tht' onlOr hotly dellies Aphobuss allegation, for it would have shown a poor face to Athenian lOCiety to portny his father as handing his estate, widow, and c hildren o\'er to men he did not mIst (27.55--57; 29.47 If,). R athe r. Demosthenes states that his father g;tV'l:: substantial sums of m oney to the guardi ans. but certainly nOf :dl his we:dth-he wo uld not have left his son destitute (27.44--45). The father's death played a piV'Otal role in the disputes that followed: after Demo~thenes the Elder's death his nephews reneged on their promises. and his children were stripped of protection until Demosthenc:s came of age.67 To sum up, the unity of hther and son was frequently described by the metap hor of in he rita nce: sons inherited their father's cluncter. his attitudes tow;l.rds the m.tt', his polidC3lleaningi. his friends and foes,:U well:u his csme. This public display of 100000lty justified a son's inheritance of his filther's esta te as well as his entry to the male public sphere. Yet despite these cOlUtant attempts to pormy a unified front in both the publi c and private sphe!'e$, the o ratio ns are riddled with references to conflict between fathers and sons, to whic h ,,"'I' now turn.
FRICTION BETWEEN FATHER AND SON The well -known scene in Plato's Euthyphm (4a If,) in which the c haracter by th e same flam e is informing SocratC$ of hi~ intent ion to prosecute his father is by now ~ cliche: ill philosophy, mythology, and tragedy futher/ w n conflict is a COIll ¥ mon th eme,l>8 Even in thc- orations, where the unity of the filth er and son is o bsessively displayed, th ere are indications that unity in the private sphere could be merely an ideal. Explicit statem"nts of hatred between father alld son are tare, though the famous Alcib iades was said to have hated his son (ly!. 14. 26--27). The emphasis in the wurces is rather on neglect, and fuilure to perform filial duti t:$ publicly and privately. Deinarchus tells of a son who did not care fot his fath er while the latter w;l.S in exile nor g;lve him a proper burial (2.8)--Qmissious that are men tioned with diupprov:d C'\.'Cn though the father w;l.S a criminal. Or a father, now dead. ""'Quid be a stern j ud~ if he knew his son, who had fled Athens, left behind the ancestral images to be mutilated by an invading enemy (Lyc. U I>Melo. A PF, 122: H unl .... ¥ \AA;)m~,,'s Authority." ~ I and n. 12 . .... tbid .. 43. 6' Ib;d., 42. ~mp/l:ui .... tN.l CIeobouIc .. cat< d .... M>nStra' ... ,h~ vulnc:nhility oIlhc wid<- no m.IlUr how deuilcd a will "'lgl" be fI' ~l h
'III
pr >rem
HO USE HOLD
HARM ONY
AND
CO NFLICT
85
1.136 f.); o r;l so n did nO( c;lre for the eld erly brother of his dead fa ther (Aesc hin. 1.102). A true son, one speake r states, although qwreling with his father while the latter was alive. should not slander him afte r his death ([Dem.1 40.46-47). Ap-propriately enough. the spea ker in Lysias 19 brags th;1.I he and his father never had a d ispule ( 19.55). An or::llorical &:agment Slales thlt Ihe re should be u ni ty bc~ocen l falher and his son and between the son and his grandfl the r (P. Lond. Uf. 140). Histo rians hlve before now noted that inheritance could be a source of suc h co nflict, although they hl \OC not focuse-d o n the oratio ns in det;! ii.!>'" What do these sou rces have to Sly? Firsl. although a fathe r was required by Ilw (0 leave his eSlate in eq ual shares to his so ns. th e sons did not ai ....oays inheri t the expected amount from the ir fath er (Lys. 20.32 if.. 24.6; lsocr. 8. 125-26, 15. 16 1): the r::IV 19es o f WllT. mOCT whic h a fathe r had littl e COntrol. could fea\oc an esute impove rished (Lys. 20.32 If.; lsocr. 15.161 ). Further. a v,oclith y mln, in order to be co nsid ered a good c iti zen. Wll5 expected to expe nd a gTel t d eal of his prope rty on liturgies. although l fl ther was certainly expected to lea\oc enough for his son·s nuintenance, preferably in the litull,>1cal class (Is. 11 .39; Lys. 19.9,57- 59,6 1--62; O em. 27.44-45, 28.22, 29.43--45). lsocr::ltes sm es that Pe ricles, beca use of his state services, did no t bequea th to his son as muc h as he himself had inhe rited fTom his flther (Isoc. 8. 125-26). Liturgies (;In p;utially e lq)bin the d epleted fortunes of othe r prominent Athenians: ischomac hus, Nicias, Callias 1II . and A1ci biadcs (Lys. 19.46-52).70 Also there was a fen d ut the son would dissiplte his flther's fortune. There is a tradition, the reliability of whi ch is unknown ,? ' Iha t Pericles and his so n qwrrded over th e son's u SC' of m o ney lnd the fllher's behavior. Pericles was a&:aid that his son spent 100 lIIuc h, and in turn , Pericles' son ~ms to ha\oc criticized his F..ther, spreading gossip that Pericles spent too muc h time wilh sophists (Plut. Pn. 36.2- 3).72 Hipponicus II, one of Ihe wealthiesl nlen in Greece. was said to ha\OC feared that his son Callias III would ruin his livelihood (And. 1.130-31). TIle th eme of a soo ·s squandering his patrimony l ppears elsewhere as we ll. Timarchus was notorious for having sold off all his inheritlnce to pay his gam bling debts (Aeschin. 1.9 7 If.), and when Demosthe nes sold some landed property of his fa th er. he tOO came under suspicion as a wastrel (Oein . 1.71 ).7.)
... J. Brrnlm.... ~The
Impon ....« or , .... M" ern.! Uncl~ .IId Gnndf...... r In Arc"'oc aOO ClI .... ol GIee« .oo Early Byurnium.~ ZPE SO (1983): 183. who ~",ph""' .. Ih~ .... lOIoonal.oo physical sc-pu>{ion of rathe .. and .011.: SI.."",. ··O,kosll'olis;' 115: GoItkn. Ot;/Jn-.I, 106. M GoIdrn . OilJhaoJ, 106: S"""",. "Oik<>
pr
err
86
C HAPT E R
}
Ahhough the law mandated tr.msmiuio n o f propeny at the father's death, at wh ich tillle the sons succeeded to th e property, the father's estate could be Illan ~ aged by his sons, and even divided alllong them. prior to his death. ArislOphanes' Wasps depicts the Struggles bern'Cen a frivolo us. incompelem falher and Ihe son who mUSI manage the est3te?~ From other sources we find that a father's estate could be divided up before his death and some control. if not total control. givcn to the sons. Such is the case in Demoslhenes 47.35-36, in which rwo brothe" live in !lc:parate residences with the one brother living with his pa~nts. Nevertheless. there vn.s the feeling that a man could not trust his sons with full nuna~mem. Lysias 19.36-37 declares thai. when a man divides hu inherited estate among his SOIlS for their use while he is alive:, he should keep a good amount for himself: in that way. a man who slill had wealth wou ld be: guaranteed care fiom his children, whereas the impoverished person (i.e., one who had rdinquuhc:d his wealth) would be depending upon his children. 7s 15aeus 6 illustrates that division o f .1II eslate befon: the father's death does not necessarily indicate a falher's desire to hand the nUIllgt'mem of that esUte over 10 his son. The ontion describes the quarrel between Euctemon and his son Philoctc:mon. when the former attempted before his death to bequeath part of his estate, a small farm. to Philoclemon's half~brother. Euctemon's son by a sec~ ond union (23-24). In the end, Euctemon won the argument by threatening to nurry a third time--implying that he would sire more sons and thereby divide the estate up even more (i bid.). It is not('1.l.'Orthy that the confl ict betv.'Cen Euctemon and Philoctelllon is made explicit only with Euctemon's increasing in ~ competence as a result of old age. at which time he began a relationship with a prostitute (18 If.). It is also significant that Philoctemon did not bring his father to court; in fact, the speaker, Philoctemon's adopted son. wailed to pfOSC1:ute Euctelllon 's youn~r sons only after the death of both Euctemon and Philoctemon (39 If.). There is also eviden ce of a falher who abandoned his chi ldren because of property concerns. DemosthenC$ 39 and 40 detail a series of quarrels between the sons of Mantia': Ooeotu, and his full broth er, P~mphilu, . on the om: hand, and their half~brothe r Mantitheus on th e other. 76 Although the details in the twO orations are deliberately confused. it appears that M an tias first married Plango. but then divorced her when she was pregnant with Ooeotus and at a time when her f~the r had become a SUle debtor. Mantias thell married Man ~ titheus's moth er but com.i nued his relationship with Plango. After the death of Manti~s's second wife, Plango gave: birt h to Boeotus's full brother Pamphilus; although Man tias at first refused to ac kn owledge his paternity of " lacey. F-oily. t28-29. " IbId.: M>c~U. Lmo, 92.
,.. On the f2nUly of M.nl;.,. ~ 0 • ..;.... APE:' 364--68:J. R"dh ...... "'\..>.
",(on ""'~
de L1~_
el .. port';" dons '" oo<;n.; .th';niennt;· "'",H.w 19 (1962): -4J-.6O; S. Humphr.-ys. "'Fundy Qwl.rrds:·JIIS 109 (1939): 182~5: Hun..... 1'
pro
err
HOUSEHOLD HARMON~ AND CONFLICT
87
Phngo 's tv.o sons, she nonethel ess tr ic ked him inlo sweu ing to it (39.3-4; 40, 10).77 By modern standards Mamias's rejection of his sons by I'bngo Ke llIS harsh, and indeed Boeorus inSliruu:d lawsuilS against Mamias whi ch finall y led to Plango's tri ck (40.8 ff.). But if Mantias had previously acknowledged the legitinucy of Boeotus, he would have been admittin g to the formality of the un ion. BecauK' Plango's father was a state debtor, Mantlas had not received a dowry from her father's estate and wo uld have run the risk, as Plango's husband, of being s.addled with at least some of th e debts of her paternal estate78--too mu ch responsibility for a man, who, even Mantitheus admitted, mishandl ed his fin.m cul affairs (39.25-26).7'1 For the s.ake of financ ial Kcurity. therefon:, Mantioas married a KCond woman Iiom a solid background and with a wealthy dowry on hand.1IO For that reason. he would not have U oeOfUS in his houK and established his line of descent through Mantitheus (40A. 12). When Boeotus contin ued to press his claim, Mant itheus appeal ed to the jurors' tnditional emotions by depicting Bocotus oas mt' bad son always quarrd ing openly with his fath er (39.25-26; 4OA9). Ht'. Mantitheus. \\165 the respectful and obediem son (40 A. 12). although. as Mantith eus himself admits. Mantioas continued to have n:lations with Pbnb"O while married to his second wife and lavished a great deal of wealth on her (40.8-9. 50-5 \ ). Indeed, Manmith eus's statement (40.46-47) mat tru eborn SOlIS qua!l'e\ with their famen whilt' tht' btter are alive lIIay indicate th e reality behind tilt' idealistic picture he painlS of himKIf. Finally. it is again typical behavi or. that. with the death of Mantias. his SOlIS take their qU.1lm:1 into the bwcourt: Boeotus, tried. agai nst Mant.itheus·s resistance, to ha\'e his own nam e changed to Mantitheus. th e name of Mantias's father. so that he, Boeotos. could dispby his link with his patriline. Also, Boeotus and Pa mphilus successfull y sued th eir half- brother fo r tv.'O-thirds o f Mantias's esute (40.2, 48-49). It is little ....,onder, then, that in Lysias 10 and 1\ th e speaker insislS th3t he did not murder his fath er aner his brother al. legediy received a larger portion of the CSUfe ( 10.1- 5: 11.1 - 2). To sum up briefly. th e an cient Athenian strove \'ery hard to present a un ited Iion t of himself and his famer: certainly. in public. fath er protected son and so n protected father in conflicts with political o r social rivals. In fact . the f3ther could wield such authority that feuds among his sons. his son's desce nOOn ts. or their colblenis erupted and we re aired in th e bwcourt5 onl y after his death. Tics beI'\\-een fath er and son could be strained. h(M.'ever. O\-'er property concerns, even though such quarrels we re: considered b~d form and th e forgivc neu of f~thers was a cultonl given (Oem . 25.88-89). Sons, for th eir part, were reluctant to admit that such arguments ('o'er occu rred and justified them only on th e grounds 77 For PUngo; crick. ~ S. Todd. "The Purpoo.e of EvMkn~ in Au..nian Milku >nd Todd. N-. J S-36. " D~'ies, /1 /' 1; }6S: Hun'phrq>, " F~n"ly Qua,,,,b." 182-33 and n. ... ,.. DMcs. A PF. 367--68 . .. For M>.n' i.. .. ~ond w,~. ~ ibid .. J19. 366.
CourtS.~
in Cutkd!\".
pr
err
88
C HAPTER
J
of incompetency. D~pite th ese arguments, sons in the or:ltiOIlS and historical soureo maimain ~n illl~ge of steadfast loy.tlty, a loyall)' that solidified the ir claims as he irs and as citizens. It wu such loyalty that lay at the basis o f relationship$ between younger men and older men who became substitute flther figme5 the adoptive fath er and the stepfather.
THE ADOPTIVE FATHER
In the classical en there were Slrict rules co ncerning adoption. Only a m.~n who had no legitimate sons could ~dopl . If the adopter had a d.:aughter, the adopted son had to marry her, a stipulation very closely linked to the epicler.lte, as we shall Stt in dealing with fathers and .tor. brother and SOn ConlCSt the adopt io n of the testator's ex-wife's brother. while the adoptee in his turn arguo that his devotion to his adoptive fathe r, an old friend of his natur:Ll father, w.l.S like that of a birth son. In Isaeu5 7 the speaker emphasizes th e deep emotio nal ties between his adoptive father, Apollodonls, ~nd his mother, who were matrili neal half-siblings,. These ti es developed bC'<:3Use ApolJodorus had been saved from the r.lpacity of his guardian, an agnate, by th e speaker's mother's fathe r, Apollodorus's stepfather. It is th e descemunts of this guardia n who are now cOlllesting the speaker's claim to ha~ been adopted by Apollodorw (17). This insistence o n emotio nal t i~ is perhaps a direct response to Athenian attitudes that adopted son. were not as close to their adoptive fathers as to those w ho had sired them.1I.} For their part kinsmen tr ied to use the force of the law ill their 3ttempts eithe r to be adopted into an estate or to wrest it from ano ther claimant (Is. 6.18 fr. ), but emotional ~ppeals ~re also IT:SQrted to so as to strengthen leg;al claims. II A ~o..,u..ry (0 Ull. b,,' _
u...:u (h~ >dopc~ could "'" ro:turn '0 Iu$ origi .... ";/ms un,il hi< ~ t"", f~the. ~ 100 .... of hi< own , Annph. Hl 0. Thttt bas bttn 100,11., dt-ba,., on whnhct the rc:spp~rd '0 C"o'<:ry type of ~ion. i~u. ....... ~. win, and poWtunlOUS: I b rruon. Lrw. I :85-8"7: d . Locey. F./mjly, 146. and L. Rubirwc-in. AdopfiMl i~ II( (;notwry At"",," (CopnIIur: MUStum Tuocuw,um I'lnI. 1993). 18. who ,,"e the rncrietion .. oII-cncompas&ing. .t:t H U"'~f. •·... gnatic Kin.hip.-I06 . .., Goldc.on. OildltooJ. 1H .
pr
err
HOUSEHOLD H ARMONY
AND
CON FLI C T
89
In lsaeus I sister's SOIlS of C leonym us. whose own f:ither told him they should inherit (4), h:ivc 10 :idmit th:it Cleonymus was:in enemy of their guudi:in. their fiather's brother. allho ugh C leonym us h:id ne\'e r h:id a confli ct wi th th em per se (9-11). This argument is used to obstruct the cb im of their riwh, nonkinsme n, who wert' :idopted in to Cleonymus's eslate by will and w ho in turn cb imed d ose :iffective t i" to the dece:ued (i bid .. 9- 10. 30-32).""' In other c;un kinsmen :iS d :iilJl:in ts co mpared their munifi ce nce to the sute with the mise rlin ess or crimin:ility of th e :idoptee {Is. 4.25-26. 5.37 ff.).6S
THE STEPFATHER
Beouse property intel't'Sts could have a din:-ci inftuence on interpersona.! n:-b tionships. our sources are divided :is 10 whether the stepfathe r was a benevolent o r ma.!evolent figurt'. Enellli:illy. if the stepfa ther was viC'.\."Cd:iS helping the stepson secu re his paterna.! inheritance o r the property of :inoth er kinsm.an , the Slepfath er was benign; if, on Ihe other hand. the stepfather some how imp-fiied the son from gelling his full sha rt' of the p:iternal est:ite. vicious quarrels could be made public. 86 Stepfathers ue :ittested :iS being close 10 their SlepsolU. Astyphilus W"lI$ brought up by his stepfathe r, his mother's seco nd husb:ind , C"Vrn tho ugh childrt'n '"'en:often left be hind by Ihe widow to l't'Sidc in the paternal oikos.!l7 Wh ile Astyphilus W"lIS a minor. his stepfath er lilled the b nd Astyphilus would inh erit :ind doubled its value. The stepfath er. by bringing Astyphilus along with his own son. Astyphilus's ha.!f-brother, to re ligious f"tiwls. publicly displayed unity with his Stepson. It was taken for gr.mled that in turn Astyphilm would ignon:- his agttates and adopt his half-brother. thereby bequeathing his estat e to him (Is. 9.3 ff.. 27-30).118 like\vise, one call infer thaI. beca use Ha gni:u II prt'ferred his matrilin ea.! h:ilf-brolh er :u heir, ""blions wert' probably d ose betv."Cen H :ign i:u II :ind his mother's second husband. In this pa rt icubr c:ue. Hagtl i:u's bequest precipitated a displlle :iltlong his agnates that would nOI be resolved fo r gencr:lliolU.89 .. H un ...... - Agna.ic KirWIip," t06. &$ H un...... -Gotsip,'" JU . .. I) . Nidoobo., n.. Do-stir Ufo of. M'~ Ory: 1' - " . 00;/4..... .miI ,/w F-oily in F.,."fft"nffl· Cmooy GMr, (Lincoln : Uni.......uty of N" bra, u 1',"" ]98$). 116. for th" ..."r.th...- .. an ambiguOUS figure. Although d«p aff"e<:. i.... i.. could exi" bn......,.,n "."c.. her and ,,<"]>Children. conlliC1 ...... nlUch more Likdy fO erupt bet......,.,n thel11 tlun b",wC'Cn blood tun. U«~_ Dr the ."uJI ... m pk or imun.cn pcruinin@: .0 ..... A.i><1tUn ...-pfather, no di<cuuion .. pgIfi<Jt Hmj'~tt:A" AtIsntiom f.w.i,..- Cat, M...-Y"'. wppl. " " (Lridc:n; Brill, 1976). 1 ]- D. [:un los cnuio of me: n:1>.>orWI,p bctwttn [)>od .. and his " ."c:nhu (h. 8.41}-42), ror which ..... ..... ><"C'Iion be\OW; p. 98. on inhc-rlling
pr
err
90
C HA PTER
J
So too. CaUi~s Ill. who was appo inted guardia n of hchomac hus's sons. :.tlso beC:lme thei~ stepf.lthe~: it was in his role :IS guardia n th~t he took the lessee3 of his mi nor stepsons' cstate to court. 90 lSOCr:lte3' adoption of h i~ wife's son by her previous marri:lgc implies ~tTQ ng trUSt between stcpf:.tther and stepson ([Plut.J M()r. 838a. 839b). a tnlSlreflected on a public level w hen both men cooper;ated in sever;al trierarchies.'11 On the other hanc!. whether fro m good inte nt ions O f bad. the stepfather could encroach on the stepson's cst:lte. DemosthenC! 58 tells of Polyeuctus, who \'>'as apparently in coUusion w ith the speaker's fathe r: the latter proposed a decree that would ultim:ndy have $e\'Cred I'olyeuctus' stepson from the ('State into whic h the boy had been adopted, that of his m:.tternoU gr.mdf:lther. TIle maneuver \\-'Ould then allow Po]yeuctus man:.tgcrioU control of th e estate to wh ich his wife, the boy', mother, would be the only heir (Dem. SS.30-3 J). H own-cr, given th e pos_ sibility that Polyeuctus might have been related to his wife's fa ther,:lS she was her f:.tther's heiress,9~ this particular conflict of interest migh t h:lVe led to the undermin ing of the boy's righu. The most famous $lcpfath er in our sources is Phormio, the ex-sl:.tve o f Pasio the banker. The latter, before his dea th , had acquired Athenian citizenship, :lnd Pho rmio himself won the hon or in b ter ye:.tI'$.",3 In his will Pasio :lssign ed gu arrlianship of his ('Sut e to Phormio :.tnd stipulated that his truste:d assistant Illarry his widO\o\·. Archi ppe. De:mosthenes 36 and 45. the former :.t defe:nse o f Phormio and the latte r :.t prosecution of one of his witnesses. de:tail the re:.trons why (>asio'~ cider son, ApoUodo rus, one: of the mo:;t litigio us individuals in the o r;ation!, came into conflict with Phormio ovc:r th e: latter's guudianship, Fil'$t, Phormio was give n manage:rioU control o f the ban k and was given guardianshi p of P;uio's estate, C'\'Cn though Apollodorus was an adult of around twenty-four ye:.tn of age. Apparendy l>asio did not truSt his dde:r son bec:luse of the: young lII:.tn'5 proflig:acy (36,7-8). Second. this profligacy prompted Phormio, as guard ian , to divide the estate: before: ApoUodorus'$ you nger bl'Q(he r Pasicles had reac hed hi! major ity: ApoUodorus' e:xpenditures from the undivided estate: necessi t,uc:d th e: mo\'C (36.8-9. 36). Third, Phormio and An: hippc:: h:.td {'\vo sons. who th e:n inhe:rited some: of their mother's POS$CSSiOIl5 which were taken from the: o ri gi nal estate of Pasio (36. 14. 45.28. 50.(0) . To obstruct these mane:uven, ApoUodorus contended that th e: wiU w;u a forgery: no fa ther with sons could write a will (Oem, 46. 15. 25). It is undeu whethe:r Apollodorus's a»ettion was correct: in the: fourth century men with legitimate: SOIlS are known to have made wills, particularly so :.tS to provide for the: "" Cox, ·· lnc~.~ H,
,)rot,
'" On.he adop:ion. I<'e l. Ger,,", t! ~ 4.0 .... Lt OM ~ (paris: Sirq. ]955) 129; D>viM. A I'F. 247 (or th~ list of lilU..giet. AI'F. 6-7; /0. the .ute. on ....,rnoa I<'e the $tt. ion c:b-uy 1xI<>w, p. 95. 9.) S« O.vi.... APF, 4JO. 436. for gnt>. uf ('i.iu ...... ip brtw<: .... 391 .nd 371 .mi POOrnlio' in 361 /0 ,
". ,>.,,;,...
P,oo',
H OUSE H OLD
H A RM ONY AND
CONFL I C T
91
needs of their widows :md unmarried dmghters.'.I4 Essentially ApoUodorus WOlS angry !>«ause he W:.J.ntcd to be treated as an Ath cni~n citizen whose rights were defined stri cdy by Athenian inherit:lIlce laws. POlSios inhl'rit:.J.nce m ·.lIcgies ~nd the marri~ge of his widow to his ex-slave, however, were cu~tomary pr,J:ctices in the banking '-''Orld (36 .28 fT.), ~ ,-,'Orld dominated by slaves ~nd metics. This was bOlSically the asicles WOIS the product of this union (45.35. 39.83-84). T he aCCU$;ltion WOIS nOt sim ply th e result of the wild y wh..., h .. r»<>lM. nurried PhornUo-. If 10, ,he will. I'aoio~ de>!h. and .... "'hippc .. m.or rUg<' .U O(cu. ",d within . "'"Y bo-icf..,.n ...r Ii"",. n • ..;.,. ( ...... jecIu"," Paoio·, dea,h to ~ O((U''''r ...... '92). 10. 33. n. 11, .g.... eo wi ...... ~ !bling ofthr rut .. th~ .,..,ar of Archippc ·. ftct .... p<>IIodorU<~ .... urn from .nocher trlcruehy, ami odm;u th.t \',.. ia .. will _ strictly ~.king ill~ ibid .• 13. -n . .... For 1M pncricto of ,he b
.b.<-n.
t6
Finley, Sl.C 21 .... 15. n. 59. On th~ l"""-~.
pr ¥em
92
C H APTER l
co uld tensions o r affective ties also be seen between fath ers and daughters, who were not the prefe rred heirs in slIccaslon law ?
FATHER/ DAUG HTER RELATI ONS HIPS
One $Cho b.r has rece ntly noted th at in Western society the h ther is the figure lISsociated with the co ntr.lct ing of marriages for women. " Woman" in th is context does not mean a mali's w ife, who sex ually belongs to him, no r his sister, w ho falls under the bestowal r ight:5 of her own father. bu t rather the nUll's daughter. Although th e exchange of the daughter is fund.;lIuen ta] to th e fornllltion of kinship struetures. which in turn form culture, the wom.m as dau ghter is least discussed in many prim:.lry $OU rt:e5 . The primary dyad is that of fat her and $On. and although in this dya d th e lin ki ng role of the mother is freque ntly ackn owledged . the fa ther-cbught er dyad is igno red . The one Illlljor exception to th is b d : of inteml t in the daughte r is Roman society where the father/ daughter reb tio nship was gi\"en cult\l r.U promi nence. Fath ers and daughters were espe<:ially d~, and while fa thers demanded defe rence .l.IId allegi:.lnce from their daughters, daughters in mrn looked to their fathers for procccrion .97 In contrast. although the Attic on tio ns depict the man as th e exch:.lnge r of his wife and siste r. the lack of informat ion on the father-d.:.iughte r re b tionship is str iking. fu for affective ties, th e o r::l tions tell us th at a father WlIS expected to gr ieve (o r the death o f his daughrer, and if he did not do so (or a prope r length of time he co uld bring sh ame on himsd( and could be depicted as a bad citizen incapable o f feeling much responsibility tOWlim th e polis (Aesch in. 3.77- 78).!u fo r th e d:& ughter. th ere is o nly o ne reference to her feelings: a !bughter commonly worri ed about her father's fate in battle (Lye. 1.40). In addition there iJ one reference to :.l !bughter's co ntribution fium her dowry to the fi11le r.U ~rvice for her fathe r (Dem . 4 1.11). Only in dnma is there any treatment o f affecti ve ti es; here father/ da ughter relatio nships are see n as close.1I8 Besides the few rrferencC$ 10 emotiom, the emphasis in the texts is rath er on the role of the fath er ;lS the !bughter's kyrias. As the defender of his daugh ter's virrue (A'~sdllll. 1.182-83; IDem. I 40.57, 59.65 if.),w the b ther gave h.is !bughtet" aWolly in marriage by the ~ of ftlgyr. the handing over o f one nUll's e Father', H ouse ~nd . .... ()aughter in Ie Tht: Sttuc'u"" 0( Wt'it~m CUItu"'1 1). .. gtn .....F.tt...... Itwfion.hip. in Do~· 1m IItUI Rulom, ed. L. E. Boooe and B. S, Flowo.n (Ihllimort: Johr>$ Hopkir>$ Unr. .. sit~ Pm.., 1989), 19-7 4. For Rom.n oocic:ty. i t t J. H .ucu. 1"....,..." -.I DoI!f~Im ;" R....... Sodttr: '1:--" -" rio< ,..:l ilrin«ron, NJ. : Prinet:ron UniverVty Prnf. 1984). """ 62-1 49 . ... Humpnrcyt.. .i "t~....,.. loxt -.I r" ('. -Itt (\.<:>ndon : Roolk dgto .nd K~gan ,....,. 1978), 202; Golden. Chih/hoH. 9+-97. M
99 I" [I)" ..,.) 59.6S If.. Sl~p"'n"'I'f"'I~.>
hit---lhc >ttitude. nOt 'he . c_
'III
pr
m
HOU SE HO LD
HARMO NY
AND
CONFL I C T
9J
to :mother nu n's son ([Oem.] 44.49; Oem. 40.57, 59.65 ff.).I 00 Dy cbssical tim es, the rile \\'<1$ illtegr.illy conne(:led with th e notion of legitinuC)' and citizenship. The fatheT ensured that his daughter nurried ~ rrust....,orthy nUll of her own St~ rus and of good repute. WI [n o ne instance, Hipponicus II is ponr.lyed as using poor j udgment in giving his daughler aw;ly to Alcibiades (lAnd.] 4.13; Plut. Alt. 8. 1-5) . but the latter's son cast the nutch in a positive light, stating that H ipponicus gave his daughter to ~ nU.n whose status was considered higher than that of the greatest citiRIU (boe. 16.3 1). Indeed. nurrying a daughter to a nun of bad repute could bring sham e upon the f~ther (H yp. Eux. 3 1). !u will be discussed in Ihe next chapter, ~Il intcgr.li pan of Ihe marriage negotiatio ns was the dowry. Anthropologists h~ve noted that the dowry is typ ic:illy present in the llurria~ trlrlS;lctions of plowagricultural societies when: women and their kin m:: competing for wealthy hU:lbands whose wealth is not being shared contempor.uJ(:ously with other wives. 102 In AthelU, the dowry was given to a daughte r so Ihat she could nurry a fitting hU:lb~nd (on brothers ~nd sisters, see below, pp. 116-20), but little is stated in the oratiOIU about discussions betv.'Cen father and daughter concerning her dowry. O ne exception is Lysias 32: Diogeiton gave his daughter in m arriage to his brother Diodotus: afler Diodotus's death , according to the terms of his will, his widow and daughter n:ceived substant ial dowries (a talent each with some ex{r.l cash go ing to Ihe widow). wh ile DiodotuSS tv.'O minor so ns ....'Cn: put under the guardianship of Diogciton (Lys. 32.4 fr.). It was not until Diogeiton embezzled the boys' estate (ibid .. 8-9. 15), paying his liturgies IYonl it. supporting comme rcial ventures (ibid., 24-25) and even taking some of th e cash from his daughters dowry for these expenses (ibid .. 8), th at the v.'OIIl~n assembled a group of kinsmen and friends and with the help of her son·in-law confronted her fathe r (ibid .. I II".. 10 ff,), In th is case, the woman, as ~ widow whose so n had JUSt re~c h ed his majo rity, was emering into contention with her own father who would have acted as her kyrios as wc:ll.ln he r accusati o n she claimed that her fa ther hadjeop~rdized her sons' inheritance fo r his own needs (ibid., II If.) and for the needs of the childtc:n by his second wife (ibid .. 17). Allho ugh the o utcome of this case is unknown. the dlUghler, so as to dalll~ge her father's reputation, might have dc:l iberatc:ly infla ted the value of her hus100 Sec aIoo HU T;... II. l..mo! I :3-9: Lac,,),. fim1ily, 105-6; M:oc[)oy,.yH, l..mo! 86-87. Sec C. P>.nn_ lOll, " Marriago and ,h~ M .. ried Woman in ... , .... ,,;;'" Law,~;n If........ ) H iJf«y tMJ "-""",, HiJ,.,..,. ed. S. Potnt"'-'Y (Cluptl Hill: Univ-rniry of N orth Dmliru Prno, L991), 48-72, for" r«tn, diKul,ion of nurriago and bdrodul , :oIthough I do •..,. al~ wi
IlOlUgru';C.
In. No<~ .M. in h . ..... 7.1 L Eupolio...n--d.o marry .ny of hit d.ugl11cn '0 ru, broo:hc", tOn .... _ a"", of. feud betweell the two n.en. Fo.. fllh ..... o .. ;n bc1rothing.n.d nurryins hit daugh, ... to • tM ~ W3J the reoul. of .he fathct-', ...."l!""1CnI. •"" Sec moM. =cndy S. G.ulin . "d J. lk>
pr
em
'4
C H APTE R J
band's estate. Furthermore. Diogei ton's guardia n~hip occu rred at the end of the fifth celli ury, wh en fortunes, especially those b:lS('d on commerce as was Diodotus's, were being Ion in the Pdoponnesian War. 1al Looking at the accusat io ns, \0,'1' m:ty be :tble to pinpoin t the source of the friction between fath er :tnd cb.ughter, The cb.ughte r seems to h:tve been Diogeiton's only child for $O me time ulll il Diogeiton rem:trri ed :tnd had children by his second wife. 104 Second. the father lost or spent one thou.und dlOlchmae from the dmvry bequeat hed to his daught er by her [:ttl' husb:tnd: the SU'dS w hich the speaker lays o n this point implies the daught ... r·s rese ntmen t. lOS The wom:tn 's concern ill Lysias 32 about her fa th ... r's beh:wior tow:ard his ma ternal glOl ndchildren was nOI, however, unwu lOlnted. to j udge from lsaeus 8, w here th e speaker', maternal gr;tndfalher, Ciron. prefe rred his $OIlS by his second marriage as his heirs. Even after the death of these sons, C iron's second wife and her broth er tr ied to keep control of th e estate from Ciron's daughte r's son with Ciro n s approval and with the help of h is agll:ttes :tfter his death (8.3 ff" 36 ff.).I06 Indeed, the stepmother is a pervasively disagreeable char;tcte r: her quarrels with he r husband's dlughten were a cliche (Is. 12.5), while her $Ons could thre:tt en th e inh eritance rights of her husband's SOilS by a previous marr iage (see below, pp. 112- 13). Altho ugh o ne can l.c:trcdy gener;tli:te from th ese tv."O en.mples, fathl' r/ dlughter relati onships could be tested by the 1IOlI1$missio n of property. The same may bt' true of rd aliolU between f:t ther and son-in- law: both men could work smoothly in performing public liturgies (AllIiph . 6. 12- 13). but a spealu:r could argue that his father and the latter's son-in-law we re not close (lys. 19. 18-1 9). :tnd relationships were stlOlim:d if the you nger man did not think his fa ther- inbw w;l$ protecting his property rights ({Dem .1 45.56).I07 If the righ ts of th e daughter and her children were so prec:trious, how would she fare if she \VCre the o nly hei r to her ralh er? Although th en: \VCre stri ct rules governing th e marriage of you ng heiresses. Atheniall$ freq uently disregarded them.
THE DAUGHTER WHO INHERITED Although Ath enian law preferred the downward devolution of property on to m:tles. that is, so ns of Ihe same father, som etimC$ no sons bUI onl y daughters ....'C're ,." 0.",.., API; 152- 5ol. I... [bid .• 151-52. 172.•Ut ... tMt .",ong th~ Sonbuani. although bre:och... of truIl ~nd reI"" C.mpbell, Of'«' bctwttn rn .... r <>r>d dauglu~r,.,...,., rare. t .....wpiciotl . M. th~ r•• h~r >linled 0 11 h .. daughtn", dowry W(MJ1d n:sul. in hn m.cnlJT1n". ,... On the precanou> kg;ol poloItlon o£ the daught~r. '" RubinStein. A""""",, , \02- 103. ,,,., Sec abo the ducu";on on reu,i.,...hips eMptn ~. p. 113. In [0em.1 ~9.66 T im_ o m ..... ' ...... ho h.ad comDCted. marriage ~""" hi. daughtcr arnl lphicra'." ..,n.1ud. ncve" .... ldO . • t "n. ti",c cMrgr-d Iphicnta WIth ntt;".
H_.,
..,..,ral
""low.
pr
err
H OUSE H O LD
HARM ON "
AND CON FLI C T
95
born o r left to th e- father. An tpikliros, in th e stric tC"St ~n~, \OI;lS a daughter who had no brothers and was unm arried at he r father's dea th , ,otI o r p.. rha ps she was married blll wi tho ut c hildren at he-r fath er's death. The-n: "..~re stri ct laws gove rnin g the tpikliros, :IS it was her SOli w ho wou ld car ry o n he r father's line. The heiress was required to m arry her father's closest ab'llate, preferably his eldC"St brotht'r, bu t in his absenct', another brother or brother's son, and in their absencr, a siste r', so n. The daughte r's SOIlS ,",",ould th en inherit her dead father's estale. In the event Ihat a m arried woma n had seve ra l sons and was married to a m all not adopted by her fathe r. o ne of the sons would be ado pted into the fa ther's ('State. 109 Th e- laws mainlaining and defi ning the- e-picle-rale were codified by Solon 011 his axOFlt!J, acco rding to P~ ud()- Ari5totle (At/r. pm, 9,2), and presumably tht')' stipulated that the heiress was to marry her dead father's next o f kin. The situalio n in whic h a daughter wi tho ut brothers was unma rried al the time of her father's death, hO\vever, is ra re in ou r sources (And. 1.1 17 fr.; O e m . 5704 1; Lys. frr. 23. 26[?] [Th l). " 0 N o rmally the father. before his death, wo uld full y realiu that the
io ,h~ c),";c diocumon of th~ ltTi, • ...-gubtions and ,h~ rulTOW
dchni'ion of the rpiklinn. '0'> On tht' 10..." reguL.. ing the rpider>te. ICe L. Ik.u,hC1 . Hj, ,,,,.. Jw d"';t pri1ll J;IIIS'" ,."...b1jqw ! >tipllb.iono or JOcial .nilUn.. n' falh ....... bocquent/y rmumcd and 1«fflI to have simi , hikJrt,,, (D ....... AI'r; \ 5\ ). 11lOn the law anlJ!IlCS. ~i"" the &
.g.-.."'"
pr
em
96
C H APTE R )
or au empted to. withom being adopted into it (Is. 8. 1 fr.: l OA ff. lthe spe:.tkerl). This buer lIlovt' meant the termiwtion of the maternal grandfa ther's o;klJ$ as such and iu amalgllmation with the heir's own patrimony. I I . Also. if the hei r's f:.l lher had no t been an agJl3 te o f his maternal grandfather. the testator's estate would then de\"Olve o nto:.tn individu:.tl w ho did no t belong to that te5utor's patriline: such a mm.T could be hotly con tested by the testator's agnates.1 IS Certainty in th e case in wh ich :.I. wonun had been marr ied to a nonkinsnu n . her son w ho was adopted into her f:.tlher·s esl;!le would 1101 be her f:.tlhe r·s agnate. Hov.'Cver. when Ihe tesuto r :.tdopted a husb:.tnd for his o« A.henian,1ud driJd'~11 or adop<ed then•. ,,' h. 8.1 If. is a cle;lr(uc. h . 7_J()-;}2 dtpicu. smer who did.1Ot Iu.... t.er son Idopccd into her brothni .,...te, .herdry "'nrun,.. ing h.to "'...... "6 Gcr ....... "'La Io, .~ 131 If.; R ubinstein. Ad",""". 98 99. I " T M-opompUi. Tn....,pompu,' .on. :utod his .on', .on heLd on to thc cot.t~ of the brother of Thcopon.pUl·, wifc. Di~ U', adoption of'.-ugn>tc reouJled in . th...e-gencmion,~ .. did .h~ adoption of Archiades of his ,i"c,', daugl"er' son: sec 1)~v>cs. A PI; 85-86 (l'hcopo .on Clcon.:utod the Iancr' son Iud all bftn adopted into another ....... II. Although f'o/yr"u<:tw., ckrnc is giYrn '" Thria in the rrutnUICr ipc:s. the msco.ny in the Agon of a dcdiC"alion 10 I)ro>C1cr.nd CoK by ~c,U$ ofTeithr.u.. his daugh, ..... . nd her husband Spu_ dUo of Aphidru . k a,," lmle doub< that Po/ytucn,,' dtmc: mUll be clungtd '0 T";,hr.u.. For th~ dcd_ iCIlion,"'" T. L. Shear. '.Tho: Campaign of 19.36." Hnptri~ 6 (1937): 341-42. and th~ .........dation! in SEC 17.83 giv;ng SpudW', dcmc. For 'he prob;lbility ,ha, Spudi>o; "'.... nQt adoptrd. sec H .... ri_ oon.. u.., I: 152: Rubinstein. 56. argun that .n adopter eould not ."nuL .n adoption. despite th~ ck.. "a'eme m in I)cmotthenco 41 ,h.. PoIyeuctm did c:a.:tly ,ha,. Rubinot<'UI fceb t/u. ,his c- ""'" c>n.>k in the....:n:wy cyck in the third centu ry: B. D. Merin. "'Athenian Archons ~7/H8n B.c..- His";" 26 (1977), 16.J-6..1, 176. discuslion of Spum.. .nd o...-hencs .4[ . """ C. A. Coo<, '-n.~ N.n, .. of Adop<=: Som~ p..,..... pognphinl Afit'flhough u:' ZPE 107 (1995): 249-54.
11*"'......
Fo,.
pr'
err
1I 0USIO H OlD
liAR,I"IONY AND
C ONFLI CT
97
tio n eigh teen years later records a Spudias of Aphidna (SEC 25,106.7). If Spuelias o f Tc:ithns is a direct descendant of the actor in D emosthenes 4 1, then the impliCOltion is that a line of descendants from th e founh -cenrury Spudi.u w:u adopted into Polyeuctus's estate for a century and a half. The Spudias of SEC 25. 106.7 is intriguing. He could be a nu:mber of a collatnal branch o r he could be idem i.:al with Spudias o f Teithr.lS; in that case, the third-century Splldias wou ld have Idi a SOil in Teithr.lS and returned to Aphidna. This reconstruction is. of coune, speculative, but if it is ::It :rJI accurate, it gives us a good ide::. why these people were so litigious: marriage to an he iress would give the victor in these squabbles added wealth that could be retained by himself :lIld his descendants for gcner.uiolls. The hand of an heiress was well \\Iorth fighting for, even though the moment of transmission was filled with tensions and concerns ()\.ocr whether th e daughter had received her full share (Dem. 4 1.17). Gern et, in his , rudy o f the epiderate in 1921, t20 renw-ked o n the instability of the institution, altho ugh he did no t elaborate (I n the reasoll5 for this. First, :IS just discll$Sed, :rJthough the father co uld attempt to marry his daughter to a dose agnate, it could happen that she was married to an outsider. Second. agn.1tes \llere not ahv:l)" available (lr willing to marry the (potential) heims. Third, an heiress was at the merc:y o f her male rdatives' willingn ess to comply with the law, and although there were strict laws overseen by the arc:oon protecting the heiress from abuse, illeg:rJ mac hinations appear in the claims to the heiress, o r indecd in :woiding claims to her. Pseudo-D emosthenes 44 reb tes how Arc hiades refused to nurry h is broth er's only d~ughter and child; thc brother was fort'cd thcn to give 1m wughter ill marriage to an outsider ( 10). Nei th er M antith eus son of Mantias no r ApoUod orm son of Pasio wanted their daughte~ to marry their brothe" ([ oem.J 40.5 f[" 45.75).1 l1 At times the woman herself would not marry her father's agrutcs h«:.1Iu$C she was already married (Is. 10.19-20), In lsaeus 6 one o f the daughte~ of Euctemon was considered .11 possible he in':$ of her father's kinsman. Androcles, only afier sh e w:u widowed (Is. 6 .46, 58).122 CompliCOltions resulted when agnates ...."C re neither available nor willing to claim the hand of an hei~s. ln one case, a nonkinsman tried to claim an heiress's hand (Lys. fro 23 ITh J). Epilycus's tv.'O iliIughters, true t'pikliroi ~t their father's dcalh, were cbimcd by their fathers sister's so ns because Epilycus had no broth ers. However, o ne of the cousins, Leagros II. was allegedly bribed by h is broth erin -law Calli.u IlIIO drop his d :aim 5() that Calli"s's 5()I!, a more distant kinsman, (ould put in his claim (And. 1. 117_21).IV Frorn th e prolr.lcted confl icts among the Bousclidae, Sositheus alleged th.1lt he was adjudicated Phylomache II .u her no
s« .boYe. n<><e 109.
111 A~..:nW1y $hudo:lc..,.t II the thoughl of his tbugtllers rn.urying Phormio; """ by Atchippc:. ApoUodorus'. tn.<><:ri silk ~ aNum
98
C II -, P TEII. )
nearest kinsman altho ugh he w..I.S only her second cousin (father's father's brother's daugh ter's Kin-IDem.] 43.55),124 nO! a true agnate. and there were agm tes doser in line. Sosith eus's claim sho uld not be uken at fa ce value: despi te his daim of adjudication. his wife's father was d ea rly alive at the time of th e marriage and therefore no adjudicat ion was w..I.rr.lmed. Second . a5 Sositheus decbres, no close agmte \vallled to lIIarry Phylomache 11 : in Theopompus's case (43.55) he \vas already marri ed and probably unwilling to divorce. Furthermore. the legi timacy of Phylonuche's fathe r's mother. Phylomache I. was questioned (is. 11.8-10; [De111.143.49).125 Other C:lSC$ anat 10 individ uals simply ignoring the bw, although kinsmen who did so could be reported to the archon (rislll1gdill kllleosros) and punished. in extreme cases. with confISCation of their <'Sute (b . 3 .46-47, 62).126 Moreover. th ere w..I.S no penalty for the prosecutor or info rmant should he lose his case. In Isae us 10, if the speaker is at all reliable. although his lIIother \vas an heiress after her brother's adoption OUI o f the patem.al esute (4 If.), she was not nurried to a kinsman. The bws may ha\'e been ignored in this case, however, because the paternal estate was insolvent (ibid., 15).127 Indeed, the law recognized that kinsmen would not wish to nUTry a poor heiress (of the thetic class). though they were required to dower the woman. 128 In th is co ntext it is ,""oorth repeating that Gyl on. a state debtor whose estate w..I.S confiscated, gave his tv.oo inheriting daughten in marriage to nonkinsnlen. l29 lsae us 8 tells us that within the deode 420--410 or shortly after.vard (8.40 ff.),I:>O Diocles. the brother-in-law of C iron. had himself adopted i11l0 his stepfath er's estate. According to law. however, D iodes w..I.S the very person the stepfather could not ~dopt. The law staled that if the testator Iud daugh ten. the adoptee had to marry one. Diodes' stepfather had wughten who v.'ere Diodes' hOlllometric sisten. and who m. therefore. by bw D iodes could no t marry. 1)1 We have 110 idea whether Diodes forcibly usu rped the rights of his homometric sisten, as the speaker daimed, or whether his stepf~ther willingly adopled him dur ing his lifetime so as to assure himself of a male heir. In any case. the daughten violen tly defended their lost status a5 potential ~ileliroi, to the point that o ne husband \v,u killed. ~pparently by Diodes, du ring the co nftict (Is. 8.40 ff.).1J2 For the fourth ce ntury. Isaeus 31)3 tells of an ~dopted son. Endius, ~ sisler's "'!itc also ibid .. SO. '2S ThOl1lpoon. 0. H"K"i« Hgc '0 • OOn>Of>a"ic. "'" a homo",,,,.ic. sister ...... allowed: H..-roon. LIw. 1:22 . 1)2 Sn-11ulhrin, If. 6 fo ••nothn ",~...,nct.o Ibt.M.h for th<1r property. • ).) ~ (,""Is W •• he """.;on ;, one of tucu,; u.e. works.: I-..~ 276-n. Weven dlla i, '0 389: R. F. W"""". ,_ : a.~ ~pIoy ....d s«w1 Hi"",), (Pari>: MOOJIOII. 19(9). 16.
,ho.
u-..
pr
err
tlO OS Ja H Ol..D
tl ARMONY AND
CONFl..I C T
\19
son to the adopter Pyrrhu$, who did not marry hi:. adoptive fathers da ughter, Phile. Rath er, Endiu5 marrifiJ her o ff to a Ilonkinslllan, becau$C, accordin g to the speaker (Endius's brother), Phile was illegit imate, the issue of her fath er by an lit /aim. Though there is wme strong evidence to qu estion the allega tio n o f illegi timacy (b . 3.26-30. 32- 34). Endiu$ was ull willing to marry Phile ba:ause he r mother had a bad reputation (ibid., 10 ff.) lind th ere may have been a COIIsiderable age difference betwee n Endiu$ lind Phile. U 4 Consequently, ;t WoII$ d ifficul t for Phile to acq uire her lath ers estate for her children, or for one of th em (ibid., 55). The cases above hav-c shown how th e patri lineal bias in claims to inheriting daughtel"$ was ign ored because agtUtic ki n refused to marry the (potential) heiress or because th e father nUirried her to an outsider. T he adoption o f an T iklirru could also undermin e the agnatic bias. In the 390s Hagnias adoptfiJ hu niece, perhaps the da ugh ter of his homo metr ic broth er. although this reb tiondrip i! no t cenain. us Hagnias's ki nsma n, Srn todcs. who had only o ne son, al1~"Cd one of his daughten to be adopted by her m.aternal uncle (Is. 11.41 ).!l6 wh ile Apollodo rus had adopted his homometric sister as heircsJ, n ipub ting that she marry a Eumolpid. a non kimman (Is. 7-9). ! l 7 Although it was rare to adopt :I wo ma n :IS heiress, the move allowed the adopter to marry her to someone upo n who m h e WoIInted his estate to d~l ve. In th is cas.:. the groom could manage the adopter 's csta te w hile 1eg;..lly re ma ining a m ember o f his naN n l oikos. 138 T his type of adoption presUlIles a d ose. tTUsting rebc ionshi p between Ihe birth and ~doptiv-c fat hen . The fa lhe r/ daughter re lat ioTlSh ip, as d escr ibed by th e on ti ons. was amb ivalent. There are indi cat io ns of affective t ies, bur the o n t ions alw depict the fath er as a stern aut hor itarian w ho could Sl im o n his dau ghter'S dowry o r even chen hC": r descendan t"; of their rights to inh erit . Nor W:1oS th e daughter's pasi. tiOl} as heiress seClI l"C , despite lefYil std ctllres. O ften re lying on kinsmen who did nOI necesurily wan! to marry her bu t wh o did wa nt h er fat her's property retained in the pau iline. th e heiress could be married to an o utside r, and when her children claimed her f:l.lher's CSUle. they could face th e oppositio n of his patdline.
MOTHERS AND SONS
Mu ch of the discussio n of this type of relationshi p i! based o n Virginil H un ter's studies of the w idow in Athens, I l9 in partic ular of he r role :IS a mother o f so ns.
r-w. 310. 322. •» T"hi$ it ,ht u...:..y<JlThompfO'" , :>00 Wyse,
lOr which ","," dUp'tt
I . ~.
PI'- 7-6.
u . U~"t, Sl...tin. 94; O ... ieo., APt; 84; TI.o",poon. Dt I I"" ,·,otl lnrtlj,..." 12, , 31 Thompson. n", H~ HnnIi,.",. 12- 13, 1)1 Ibid., 12 r. ,,. H un..... , . 'No<,..... ,.• Amhori.y: 39-18; ~A,htnian W~." 29 1- 3t 1.
"
m
100
C H APTEl R
l
T he or:l.tions commonly acknowledge that the mother/ son relationship was d ose and affective. A SOil was not rductam to teU th e j ury that while on trierarchic service, he was dC'v.lStated to learn that his mother lay dying in Athens (I Dem.] 50.60). o r a mother could become hysterical when he r son wa5 wounded in:a br:l.wl (lDem. 154.9. 20). Another spe:aker is concerned that ifhe is exiled his mo ther will live in poverty (Lys. 7 .4 1), a common plel in a defendants :argument for acquinal. '40 In Lysias 1 a mother may even be cognizant of her son's relationship with a married \\'Oman (20). The sons in Antiphon I steadfastly main tain their mother's innocence when she was pl'OSC'cuted for poisoning their f.ather ( 1.4 ff. ), although they seem, according to the speaker, to have difficulty in proving it. Mothers, li ke falhers, could also inform their SOil! o f an individual's lncestry. infor mation passed on by their sons 10 th e lawcourts ([Dem .1 57.37). Any rift between mother and son was perceived as Ihe rt':$ult of the son's personal and civic irresponsibility: bc:ause the l:aw, :attributed to Solo n, protected bot h mothers and fathers from abuse by thei r child ren, any allegation against :m individual of abuse un derlined th:a! pt:l"$Qn's baseness :u an Athenian citizen. Timarch us, who h:..d squandered his patrimony :and pr05tituted hil1UClf, thereby depriving himself o f the right to the franchise. also allegedly deni ed a proper bur ial to his mother (Aeschin. 1.9S-99). D icaeogenc:s III . who "robbed" his adoptive father's sisters of their share of their broth er's estate and who was miserly wilh liturgical services. was anath ema to his mother (b. 5.39). In L~ias 31 the speaker. who is prose<;uting Philon for coW;trdice, treason. and robbery in Philon', scrutiny for public offict', relates that Philon'. mother refused to let her 5011 bury her. bu t pve the ta~k to a nonkin$man (20-21}--a brutal insult, as it waS:II son', duty to bury his moth er.'·' The implicatio n is t lut the son '$ misdeeds must have been truly terrible. because a mo the r o rdinaril y forgives most inj uries dOllc to her out of love for her children (ibid., 22). In the SOUTCC$ outs.ide th e or.ltions a mother's love is a conmlon theme. I .. ", Just :IS the ontors stress the public unity between father :and $On, the public and priv:ue support a moth er gave her children was her sym!x,1 of honor--hcre defmed in terms of her Atheni:an ancc:stry and her conduct. Discussions on modern Greek cultu res have nOted the deeply affectionate ties belv:eell moth en and sons; sons must protect the honor of their mo ther, and she in turn maintains the honor of her mar it:ll family through h er modest conduct . Such conduct is frequently defined in terms of sexual:..ct ivity.l43 I.n classical Athens, sons weT\" sure not to o ffend th e pri v:ll te space o f the mother--they defended her against ina.ilJIwoJ. 100. ,. , Hunter. ~ Atheniln Widow." JOI ; ··Won........ Authority." 46 ."d n. 44 . ,., Golden. o'iW....,.,. 97- 98. fur rrfrttncn.nd for. dilo<....oon 01 Philon '~. ,. ) c.mpbeU. H_,. 169-70; M. H.m;,k!. 1M I"I>tnc> .>! thn:~u. .4o)GQIdcn.
.to..,.
pr va",
H OUSE H OLD
HARMONY
AND
C ONFLICT
t Ot
truders in the ho useho ld (Dem . 21.78-79, 120-21) o r they did nOI bring a hl'flIim to live ill the household Ollt o f respecl for both 1Il00her and wife ({Dem.1 59.21- 22). If Ihere \vere attacks againSI an individual's female kin, Ihese alu ck$ were dim::ted against the individual himself by a political or social rival. O ft en the women referred to remained nameless;14~ in facl, sons ideally ....-e n:' nOI 10 Illention Ihe names of th eir own mOlhers in court (IDem. 1 45 .27).1~5 Demosthenes IislS the common types of sland er hurled al women: th ey were unchaste, or th ey smuggled in a changeling to pass for th eir child, or they were nOI citizens. AlthQugh Demoslhenes hasl ily adds Ihat men who stOOp to such lies and insullS are themselves despicable (Dem. 22.61 ), he nevertheless seems to ha\'e used th em himself. Thus, he charged Ihat Aesc hines' nlOlher had beha\'ed improperly in he r fim ction as a cult priestess: and in n:sponse Aeschines chargt'd that Demosthen es' malernal gr.mdmolher was nOl Athenian, in Slark conlr.lSt to Aeschi nes' own citizen mOlher {Aesc hin. 2. 148).146 Indeed , slander ing the mOlher's citizenship WlIS vc-ry commo n because female citize nship WlIS difficult to p~. Women's names were nOi emen:'d in iislS of eitzens. and eve n tho ugh witnesses ""'ere present at the girl's birth and her nlarriage. suc h testimony co uld be refuted.147 In th e priv,lIe or.lIio ns, the un ity between mOlher and son w:u espeeially ob-vious in the ir cb ims to and imere5lS in twO. so metimes three, oikol: the ;)i/Ws o f Ihe woman's husband, that of he r natal kin, and, if th e wo man remarr ied, that of he r second marriage. Much of the woman's role as wife and her interest in her husmnd's property h15 been disc ussed above: for instance, th e widow represented in Lysi15 32 as well as Demosth enes' own mother were women who knew the details of their husmnd's estates and had th eir scm defend that esm e, O nly when a son perce ived Ihat his 1Il00her ....;as obslrucling his chances to acquire his filii sha re of Ihe paternal esule, o r to use that estate as he saw fit (Aeschin. 1.98-99), did confliclS arise. Such was the case with Apollodo rus and his mother. leading to his cb im that she had had an affair with Phormio prio r to the death o f Apollodorus'$ fath er, Pasio. Approprialely enough, this is th e o nly recorded instance of a son 's slandering hi$ mother. and Apollodo rus WM M~n,ion«l: E.;qu~nr ~nd Women', N>snn," CQ 27 (1977) : 3:U--JO; _ >bo Coo:. 3-4 ("" the ..... of ,J,,,d.... as. political "'''>pOn. I... Coo:. Ktncal,- 37 .nd n. I I. 10> H un,c.-, "Gossi p.- 317- 18.
-t"".,..,-
pr
em
102
C HAPT E R J
of his mother's SO il by a fonner marr iage. H;lgnias II preferred his hOlllometric brothers as his heirs, while Archippe·s attempt:! to have her children by Phormio inh erit her dowry given to her by Pasio met with no 0ppO!iition from Pasicies, though Apollodorus successrully opposed her wishes.'·' A chief concern for the son was the mo ther's dowry. Inextricably bound up with his honor and hers, it was ;l ~ element in formalizing a marriage, and therefore ffiablishing the legi timacy o f a woman's children. 1.9 The spea ker in Is.ae us 8 w;u forced to explain why his moth er was remarried with a s.rrull dowry, since: small dowri es could caSI suspicion on th e nature o f Ihe ullion (7-8). 150 The spe;lker ill Lysias 19 goes to great lengths to explai n why h is fath er married his mo ther without a dowry-his f.tther g:Jve greater importanee to he r linea~ thall to her WC"alth (1 4- 15). Furthermo re. as stated above. the dowry was absorbed into the conjugal rund ;lnd th erefore th e SOl) could use th e wealt h and inherit it. l S I N evertheless. dotal property ~lo ngcd to the woman's natal j)ilws, so the son would be quite carerul to protect the dowry from confiscat io n (Oem . 42.27,53.28-29). Because the dowry was th e mother's material link to her patriline, her son would be very interested in protecting her inheritance r ight3, should she suddenly find herself eligible to inherit. that is. if the male heit1 in her patriline had di ed leaving her 35 hei ress 10 her father or brother. even if. as noted above, these claims could be opposed. Frequen tly such inheritance IOQk the for m of adoption, the woman's son being adopted into her fath('r'§ o r brother·s estate. At other tim es, how~·\'er. the son inherited :lIS the closest in lille; his mother·s brot her had no male agnates so that heirs were sough t through th e line of the deceased's sister. The son, in other words, defended his moth er's right to inherit as a fem.ale agllate; the~ is 110 c:ue ill which a SOli is defending his moth er's right, ;lltd thus his r igh t. to inherit property strictly through the mother's matriline. A son , th erefore. could not inherit an estate thro ugh his mmher's moth er or even hu mot her's sister. 152 Qne of th e most ironic statements in the private o rat io!» deals with the individuars interest in the property of his lIl;ltrilineal kill . Sosilheus. (he speaker of Pk'udo- Demosthenes 43. was not a Bouselid (1) his falher 's side but only o n his , .. HIlrMa. " Ath.cni..n Widow;· 308. n . 2 I . o .~
Ibid., JOI; JU$l. 1"1"'-", H - 45, 70-75 r...... ditc...uon of 'he dowry. I .. ' Wyse. ' - 594.
~mr~i~ ...
tMI mar .... gc-
"'~
a ··bundlco of riglll'~; I « :abo
,~,
H lItMer. - AcM-nun Widow: 301. ,!l 1'0< the o.seo of .dopIion into a ..-h~r" Cuha, est:ok. oce I•. 10.4. 7 (C)'I"Onldcs); Dem. 42.21; Dcm. 43. 11 - 15; Dem. 5-8'»-31; t~ in whitt. 1M- role of adoption is c>Of ocacN: h. 3.55: 8. r-'m: Ii. 10., patoim (ilie '!'<'.ker). For inn. ,..;es QUt.o.Jc of ontioon; Rubinmin. A~, SII. Fo< ,he adoption of. wom.n ·uon into the tsme of her brocher. ~ bdow, eh'pler 4. pp. 125-28. T hrtt is nO indiN<;on ,..hefM~ CM 'P".kn in It,"" 3 is pbn" i"l!: '0"" odoptN incu l>yTmu,',.,._ Cale. as his brocha had bttn. 01 whelM.- M- would simply inM.-h il. for the inheritance of PJ-n of a motha.lnmher' esUIe. wichouc .dopeio" . ..,., I•. 5. 11: 1 . 19. 31 . In the lalter as<: doe ... me WOn",n is arguing 'he right of her son to inhm the """e of M.hroth ... •• son.
me.
r.....
r,m..-.
pro vem
H OUSE H OLD
HARM ON Y
AND
C ONF L I CT
103
mother'l. He had married a Bouselid. Phy lo lllache II, and had hit son adopted into his wife's father's estate ill the hopes o f having that son adjudged the estate of the 8 0uselid H agulas II . Thus ~ith em s~nt much time and energy in securing and laying cbim 10 property belonging to an agnate of his wif~ and mother. In his speech. ho .....ever, Sositheus st renuously dde nds his claim by impugning his rival Macartatus fo r Ihe latter's uru",erving intel"C1t in matrilineal property (MaCllrtatuS had been adopted into his mother's broth er's esl:l.te).I~') Although fa thers and .sons could conRict. there is rarely any indication that the mother and son collaborated agaimt the fa th er. In only one case, when the &ther is perceived as spending tOO much of his time and his weal th o n a lIuilirn, do a woman and her sons talee him to tasle fo r his behavior (15. 6.21). The implication here is that the woman was justified in \'Oicing her concern to h~r husband for his misuse of wealth. since it would ultimately threaten the inh eritance of thcir sons. Once abso rbed into the mar ital ilikos, a mother could ha\'C a good deal of inRu ence, resorting to either husband o r son as spolee:unan in th e lawcourts. l54 By contnst, th e relationship bct....'een mother and daughter is neely 5C:en in our sources because this particular linle. was !lot ~';\SCnt i.a1 in an inheritanct' sy$tem that enforced transmissio n of property among males.
MOTH£R.S AND DAUGHTERS
One or the most inrorm~ five o r.lt ioru on mothers ~ud daughters is Demosthen es 41 , which deals with inheriting cbughters. The oration reveals a great deal of cooperation bernocen the mother and her t'.YO d~ughteN--t he lIlother's brother ~t first was adopted into the father's eState and married to o nl.': of the daugh ters. E"l.':n on th e di\'Orce of the woman's brother from her daughter. relations betwee n mother :md daughter were close, as this w ugllter seelllS to have taleen her mother in after th e death of the father (3 fr.), ISS Also. the mother continued th roughout her life to make ~mall private loans to the husbands of both daughters, and it appears that 011 her duth. th e mothe r left her doul wealth 10 her da ughters and thd r husbands (ibid., 'J-11). This interest of the mother and daughter in the older woman's dowry is evident in a second case, th at of Demosthenes' mother, Cleobouk. Ckobouk had brought into her marriage a dowry o f fifty min:le. consisting o f jewelry and plated objects, items that appear to have been gi" en to he r from her own mother's dowry (Aeschin. 3. 172 f.). However, AphobllS, Cleoboule's intended second huslnnd. embezzled the dowry when he took over guardialuhip of the elder .Sj
D~.
-""'.
A/'F. 90: 8~ •. Sn.JI4 75. fQr Sooitlw:usi in •.....". in nut.;li .....1 ~nJ ""on!
women·,
1501 For privue ;nAu~nce ;11 d .. putes. "'" HUlK",". f'oIiri'W A.Itt .... 53. III Hunlt"I". - AtItcnI.>n Widow;· 309. n. 2,l.
"
m
104
C HAPTER l
D emosthenes' ('Stllte. Funhermore, the ontor hinuelf WlIS being pressured on h is nujority to expend money on stllte services. lS6 Therefore the natement in Demouhem:t 28.20-2 1 may not be pu re rhetori c: the on tor \VoIS chllrged by his mother to ensure thllt he receive co mpenSlltion for his sister's dowry when he sued Aphobut. T he mothe r, faced wi th the encumbered ('Stlte o f her late husband. WlIS concer ned that an adequate dowry be provided to her daughter so the latter could marry ,,",'C ll. Otherwise. a woman, alt hough divo rced from he r hlub:md, could collahor.lte with her daughters by her ex- husband to ensure thlt they gained access to some of his property on hi5 de:,lth (Is. 6.40): or ;II mother could look to a !bughter's husband to protect her sons from the ir lbusi~ gulrdiln (Lys. 32.9-1 0); lnd it was the sign of bad chlracter for a nun to embezzle his mother-in-law', weal th (Oem. 45.70). T he one case in w hich mother and !bughter appear at odds, the cue in which Chrysilll al.legedJy stoic: her dau ghter's husbl nd, \Vol! the product of considerable rhetorical embellishment.151 To sum up the discussion on dom enic reb tionships, th e law emphll!i:ted the downwa rd tnnsmission of property from male to male. W ith that succession bias in mind. nur riage strategies were fo rmed . E\'CII in the case of an inh eriting daughter. the ;lssumption \VoIS tha t m e \Vol! to provide her f.tther'! est;r,te with a male heir. Al though the wonun lIS wife or mother could have a great deal of managerial control over a nun's estate. the bw did iu best to limit actual ownenhip of substantial property over gene rati ons of women. A \\{Qnun could expren l very active interest in property of her patriline, fo r instance, but interest did nO{ necessarily guarantee access or ownenhip. At the same time, however, the legal em phasis o n downward tra nsmission resulted in ambivalent rduionships between the f.l ther and his children, particula rly his 110m, so that the woman ;IS moth er could be seen ~s su pportive ;lind usually nonth reltening. Thus there was con Aict in the very dyad, flth er and son, tlllt lay at the heart of the ~gnllic bias in inheritance law. It W;lS a conAict thll WlI! never really resolved and continued into the next ~neration of inheriting siblings, the brothen, while sisters were o ften very close to thei r brothen. I"; fur Apbobus, nl,btz:tkmo:nl of C1c<>bouIe's wry. ~ Hunter. H ~n" Auth<:Jr;ty.~ 41; on De........m.:,.".. ""ina t1rg."w in .n ..tiHm ch>~ to ~rl'OI'm I rrlom",hy: I)~, APF, 135 and clupo:", 6. ""low I" 196. con frm.do. In ea.. ~ I ....,..,~ 4245 .
P" vem
_______ c
HAP T E R
• _ _ _ _ _ __
Sibling Relationships
TIlE BREAKDOWN :n times of th~ fathr r-son rdatiomhip was :t breakdown of the formal genealogy. o r the genealogy recogn ized .md protected by inherit:lllce law. According to that bw proper!)' w.n transmitted downw:.l.rd. ideally from ;,m older male to a }'QllOger one. Precisely beca use this WlS the preferred form o f transmission, fOlther lind SOil (ould argue over the moment of tQ.lIsm issioll and the 2Il10Ullt of property involved. Just :.IS fathers and sons could argue, s.o tOO nulC' heirs. or brothers, could become rivals ove r property. As we will see, this rival ry could extend along the line of agn atic k:in. so that m istrust among agnates was very much a reality. Within this contex t of rivalry n:latiOllship$ :1.I11011g mcmben of the 10$ [arnw genealogy should be c;uJllincd. Included in this Jess formal genealogy are sisters and maternal kin. those individuals who wen: nm prefer red hein in inherit:mce law. [n recent yean there has been a proliferation of histo rical studies o f medi ev;al and early modern European hou~holds and the effects of tr.IInsmissio n pnctices on familial relationships. T hese studi~ suggest that in countries such as Fr:l.nce, Germany, and Engla nd, it was cwtontary in some:' regioJU-u$uilly among the upper classes to bequeath th e bulk of th e estate to one loOn, lIl05t otten the eldest; where:as in othe:'r regions of th e !ame country, or in othe r classes, the estate was divided anl0ng seve...l, if not ail, children. Even within these areas and groups, lOCal customs varied or changed over time; str ict impartibility o r pntibility was not ;always pr:l.ctic:ed. In South ern Europe. partibility was th e noml, as it was in dusic;al Athens. but fo r nwes ;alo ne. !u regards women, on the other hand, in areas of pmibility. afte r receiving a dowry of cash, mOYolblC$, or land (dep<'nding on local custom or th e social c.Iw), could either be excluded from any fu rther inh eriunce of the paternal estate, or could inherit along with thei r brothers, at times receiving an eq ual dure and sometimes a lener o ne. O f particular interest for the present discussion are th e INdies done on centr.U and north Italy of th e R cnaiM:m c(' ('ta where a daugh ter's dowry ensured the honor of th e bride's family. proclaimed the social SlaWs of the couple. defi ned th e legitimacy of the union and symbolized the young wonun ', virtue. A daugh ter's d()l.\.'ty was probably not equal to the shares of in_ heritance received by her brothers and df('ctively denied her further righa of inheritance in the patenw t'!iute. Likewise, in clwical Athens, the dowry was a prt mortnn inheritance which was crucial for making a good mar riage but w hich tended not to be equal to the \\-"Calth inherited by a young WQnlall's brothers.
"III
pr
JT
106
C H APTE R 4
Ouuide of R ena issance Italy, in both partible and impartihle systems. the vo"On13n 's dowry afte r marriage could be bound inextricabl y to th e conjug2l fund. but at tim es the husband had little say o,'e r the dowry, parti cula rly if it took th e form of land. As. with Athem the wife w:l!; only a tempor.1ry member of her hus~ bands house, taking the dowry wi th her to her o riginal home on termina tion of her marr iage. k; for sibli ng reb tionships, ill the n e:u where uni gelliture w:l!; the norm. relations be tween the inheriting son and his noninher iting brothers ".o uld natur.1l1y be tense. but in pntible systems temio ns could ar ise as wdl. and they ce rtainly arose in ancient Athe,'s. [n regions where Ilules and females inherited equally. brot hers-in- law became the focal point: they could cooper.1tc in agrkulwr.1l or building acti vi ties or in feuds with third parties who th reatened the ir pro~rty. Vel rebtiom could be competitive. wi th conflict between brothers and th eir married sisters. I Tile present chapter h:as been influenced by anthropological studies of prese nt, H . M«Iid, .nd O. s,,~.n. " ]",= and Emotion ~ in Inln<J' ""d &nOli.... «I. MedJck .. oJ s..be~n (c"l11bndg0 Stn:W Eu""",."" J.-L. Fbndrin. Fmrtilln: n. ........ "",i· _. u x",,/i,1 dJIU i'4MmM S«iJd (P.ris: H.chMIC. 1'T16). 75-79: E. uRoy Laduric. " F.mily SIruc~ lurn .nd ]nhcrnanet C Ullom, in Six,cC1l1h-Ctnrury frona." in """,il)' 4M /nlonil4ltf«: R .."" So<Wty iN li N''''' Eu~ I Z~ 1800, «I. J. Goody.}. Think...nd E. I~ n.ompoon (Cambridge: c"",brldgc Uni,'ef1'ty I're:!.. 1976). 37-70: l. Ucrlrnc.-. " Inhcriuncc. land TC11urc and Pc.wm family Strucw",: A German R cgional Co"'P'''-'''''''~ ibid .• 11-9S; J. P. Coopc.-. " ""ltcr.>s of Inhcri'~"'e . nd Settlcmcnt by G", .. undowncn from tIM: f i!iccnth 10 11M: EigtllC<:I1Ih u,1I".-i...... ibid .• 215-21 . For p>n,bk <)"ter'" '" IOU,h 1.. ly. .." 0. Kendon«l by 'hc hal,." elil e aftc.- the mid-six'ecnth ( C11,ury in { ' YO!" of imputibi)iry.... h;';h in turn ~b>n_ done! 1>0.....,. or IT'''OI6aOion of the ",fe~ original family. ..", D. s..bc.n•.• AsJ>«,. of KinslUp Bclu.-iour and 1''''P'' "y in Wn ..... n Europe: 1200--1800." in Goody. Third, .nd "ThomJ>$On. ''llmily lind I"Ioni''''''''. ]01-11; R . Whc.,on. "Affin_ 'ry and I>csa:", in s.....e",ccmh_Omury Bordeaux ." in Fmrti/y ""d Srxllllliry IN Fmtrh His'rcu. 1980). 124: A. M acfar_ lan<. "'4" "IE' 4"d Len iN E.rgItt"d, M<>oItJ cf RqlPdwtiott. 1JOO-1840 (Oxford: B.. il BbckwcD. 1986). "2:74. 287 . for m,,,,nal Ie"""" in illlpanible ')"Ielll'. see s..lIt.II. " AspectS." ]01)-101: A. CoUomp. "Tcn,ions. Di_ruin.... . ,1(/ R uptmn imide the: F11IIiIy in Sc-YI:ntcC1"h_ and E,gb<e<:n'h_Cc",u ry H.Ule-I'ro>."nct." in M cdick and s"bean. In'...... 16(;0.-68: Kerner ."d Uretldl. M A.w..", ...:· 101)-10 I. fu r """",nal leouioll '" putibl<- 1)"Irnt!. _ R . M. Smi 'h. "f.nti!i... and TIKi, u nd in 111 AlT. of ""nib!c Inhe.-iunce : ludgra.",. Sufrolk 126().... l l20 ... in Lc",d. Ki..u.ip 4" d Lift C,.d•. «I. R. M . Smilh (N ..... Yorio:: C 'lllbrulgc Un;""";ry P...... 1984). 191-92. On ...lations bcnoU11 ~in_[.,w._ n W. s"bean. " Young Bees in.n Empty H i,",,: R ebtio ... ~"'""n Brotbrn-in-1.2w in . Sou th ",an Vitug.. Around 1800:' in M «Iick ."d &tbean. Inr.... '. 111-86.
,..,..,,,«1
W,"
Ri,...u
ecr..
pro
err
S IB l.ING R E l.ATI ONS HI PS
t07
cby Greece. There are va riations from region to region. between the mainland and the islands, and among the var ious occupations, farming, pastoralism, and fish ing;2 our study focuses on those: agrarian systems that s~ either eq ual inheritance by all siblings or a preference for sons. The two ....,orlds, moc ~r~bilili", .... e P. Sont c...ia and C. ll..u. Tlot Mal-i"l ""..... iobnd f.rrn ...... nd fisherm .. n Il"1It'Imil propeny .0 .heir chil· dren in di/fe,..,m "">Y'. Th .. fishcrm~n. for in.calKe .... nd 10 ~mph ..izt .h~ daugl"~r'. dowry.o the dctrimen. of the 1OrU. l E. Friedl. V... jJik~: A Vill~ i~ M"",,", c.-.. (N ...... Vork: Rrnciurl and Wi .... on . 1962). 6-4-65 . • Ibid .• 63; J. C. Pcri"iany.•. HonOtlr and Stu"", in • Cyp"'" HighW>d Viu.g.:;· in mt4 s.o.-t: Tlot ""_ cial T.....i.,n and Inheroperty in G...... k Cypriot Marriogr Slnltg.",," .\ I~n 17 (1982): M3-i»; Friedl. CampbeD •• nd H~Ld C"Soci>I Tension') diJcuso ~Iies in which 'M dowry is the .,nly shan: of the inhtrir:ancc ,Ju, the dauglue< IN";""'" Friedl .... '" «i. (6501 ditcuoscs how ~;u-o: the ul.i ..... e priority. San. C ...;' and u.w. ~ ........." .....1. oltl>ough fur ,,"'" wonK" in nilKlCC"nth. cenuuy Athens the <:\<:M."T)' """ equ.>l '0 .heir broche<'s inhc. iunc... the women of Ihe upp<1" c ..... (.,kl, ...",) lended to Ju", <:\<:M."fies whose: WOrth did ,.." equ.>l the inh .... iw,« of Iheir broth ..... The Ict>
H_.
pr
err
108
C HAPTER.
4
Of particutar rdnr.llllCe to th e ancient lituation. in whi ch the daughter was ckm-ef'C'd and married before her brothers were adult, are the modern comm u ~ nit;es wh ere the dlughtcr is dowef'C'd ideally before th e death of th e household head :md the divisio n of the property of her natal ho uschold. 6 The dowry, always linked to m.ale honor,7 stimulates concern for the woman's welfare and he r proper marriage., and reinforees strong ties between brothers and sisters. S In many mode rn communities, and in an cient Athens, as v,,'e will see, this concern results in a tendcney for ~isters to marry earlier than their brothers.'} Especially interesting an: those communities that allow a female 10 inherit her sha re of the paternal prope rty o nly through the dowry. As in the ancient case:, thi! form of inheritan ce prevents conflicts between brothers-in-law beca use the h usband has absolutely no claim to the property of his wifes natal househo ld. In other Greek .societi es, however, where a m:uried wom.an shares in Ihe pnrimony along with her bro thers, there i5a tendency toward conflict be~'eell the brother and th e si$~ ter's husband. 10 The purpose hen: is to investigate how sibling relationships in classical Athens were molded by concerns for Ihe p:uc-rnal property, and whethe r suc h rela ti on ~ ships adhered to or defi ed the pnriline..l bias of Athenian in heritance law. 1 1 The primary focus will be on the orations, although other sources, such as histo rical biographies. will be comidc-f'C'd as much as poM:i ble. All so urces are, unfo rtunuely. biased toward th e .... th enian elite and, although infornuti~ .. bout rdatiom between broth ers :md bet"wc.:n brothers and sisters, they say Yl:ry little about rda~ tions between sisters.
TIES BETWEEN BROTHERS !u wit h f3thers .. nd sons, the public dispby of unity between brothers w.as im~
portant (relations bef',\/ttn half~brothers wil1 be discussed separately) . ....ffection did exut between brothen ; such sen timents were deeply entre nched in the Athenian desire to s;a~ face and to preserve ones honor and falnili;d property. .... brother's death or th e prospeCt o f his death was s;aid to be a sorrowful occasio n Th~
no""'"
aU lOOn notc II ... , although by t!w mid~n;nattndl (tnnny:ill Clib/ings by Uw 'auld in~ .....;\ tqUally. brorhm lfequcntly urgo:d thetT oiot", no< '0 <:bim.,.,y of the p" . ..n.al P'OP"" y OU'~ Ii<X of their dowries~, 63) . • Fr;«Il. V.osiIi"". S\I-6O; ~mpOdl. HMoow~ 18lj...89; H~nfrlJ, "Social T...siQn," 96. , Fri«ll. i1t, MM:i'lJ, 174-1$. 9 CampOdl.II_~ 82; t,o;.os., "Ch.nll"." 512; H nrl.ld. "l)owry."2JO;San. CaW', "Propth )l." 644.6S0. ,0 Henfeld. MSoci11Tmsioo."9S-97. ,. M .di<:k .r>d Sabe-.n, intl"Odoc. ion IQ /nl(PtjI, 13, pusumt
pr vem
S IBLI NG R ii L ... T I ONSHIPS
109
for his brothers (Lys. 2.71-72; Aeschin. 2.179). A brother was expected to a\"e nge any injury done to a brother (Is. fro9; Lys. fr. 75 [Th!). or avenge his brother's death (l ys. 12. 17 If.. 13.4 1-42; Antiphon 6.20-21; [Dem.1 58.28-29). The reputatioll of a man \v.Ili frequently bound up w ith the reputation and activities of his brother (l ys. 18.1 If.. 20.28-29; Aeschin . 1.63-64).12 Consequently brothers worked together not only in the political sp here (Aeschi n. 1.71; IDem. 1 25.55). but also in business deals ([Oem. 1 35.6} and in performing liturgies el ys. \8.20-21; boc. \8.60). Brothers could also cooperate with each other in their disputes with third parties, whClher ~ulting from belli~;erent name-calling or from competitiveness in contesll (Oem. 21.62; 54.3 If.. 14 If.). Private conflicll oli:en resu lted from the desire to retrieve property ov."Cd to a brother, to protect the brother's property as:linst confiKation, or to embezzle the property of a third individua.l (Oem. 21.78; 29.3. 15 If.; 47 .45 If.. 62 If.; 53.6 If.. 55.2). I1rothers could also ....,ork togethe r to nu.intain or acquire the property of a kinsman . either an agnate or:ll cognate (Is. 1.1 If.. 4.1-3. fr. 4; [Dem.[ 43.7). or to try to hold on to property belonging 10 the patemai es tOile wh ich was threate ned with C01lfiscation (l ys. 17.2 If.) or was in dange r of being embeuled by a greedy gua rd ian (Oem . 38.1-2: l ys. 32. 1- 2. 9-10. 20). What was the private world. however. behind this unity?
PATERNAL PROPERTY: CONFUCTS BETWEEN BROTHERS
As we saw. Athenian inheriuncc law placed highest priority on the inheriunce
of th e puernal estate by som of the $.ame father. In the absence of som, daugh ters of the !.ame father inherited. and in their absence. kin of the patriline were preferred to those of the nutr iline. 13 Although the bulk of th e estate w.u ideally leli: W Illale- heirs and divided eq ually amon g the m .l~ :.1.1 timn, when SO ilS in herited. nther than split up the estate. they shared it jointly (Is. 2.28 fr.; [De1l1.1 44. 10 fr.; l ys. 32.4; Aeschin . 1. 102).15 A son's concew for his own inheritance from the paternal esute. hov."Cver. co uld lead him into conflicts. sometimn violem. with his brother. $ocrates' well known reprimand of Chaerecr.ltes ~nd his urging the biter to consider his brother o f greate r V:llue (han his own possessions (Xen. 2.3.1 If.) signifin only too clearly that the Athenians generall y acknowledged where thc source of
""m..
11 m ilio s. C.
Hurnph~.
""K.Jnsh,p l'all.,.m;n tM
Alh~n ... n
Courts: ' GRBS 27 (1986): 73 fr. u .... It. W. H~"";ton. 'IM Lau'!fArJonu. vol. 1 (Oxford: C~., l~. 1%8). lJ0--49:..-.: "lOS< rt<:rntly, R . J...... Ii"""" i~ Ar""""~ t..v ...J Ufo (london : R.:tu~. 1989), 8}-10-l. H W. K. Lx,"),. T1tt , ..",ily i~ CI.un<.d c...... (lth.c•. N.¥. : CorneU Un"... n ,ry Pm<. 1%8), 125, D. M. MxDowrU. TN u.w i~ CLwi<#l A •.v... (ltluc•. N.Y.: Corn~1I Un ........ ry I'rns. 11178). \J2-1l3; for 1m: p:.uriline>l bi.u in Alh~"ia" 0« E. Ka .. b<-lias. " La 'u~enslon .rh ,~ ...."".n droil ."ique:· Sl""j , .... (1982): 41-63;J...... 110-... 89 If. " m ilio Oml . S7.1 II, 29. for pa''''ruJ und" ,,'1.0 held On '0 u.n. ncpt--·, P.ol'"' ly.
"w.
pr
err
110
C H A PT ER 4
fr.atern:.al friction lay.16 In lueus 9, two brothers, Thudippus :.and Euthycratcs, quarreled over the division of land, :.I confronution which led to Euthycr.ltes' death at th e hands o fThudipp\ls; Emhyc r:n es instructed his son to carry on the feud wi th TllIldlPPUS'S descc: ncbnts (16- 17). In luem 2. two broth ers quatn-Ied over Ih.' attempt o f o ne o f them to sell part o f the paternal estate, which w.IS shu edjointly, and give Ihe money to :.ln orphan under his guardianship (28 ff.). 17 In Lysias 10, an elder brother bec:.Ime guardi:.lll of Ihe younger Olle and there· fore had control over the estate. bu t. according to Ihe speaker, ....,ould not hand over the you ngt:r brother's half when the lalter reached his m:.ljority (4- 5). T his situatio n It.-d the younge r brother to wish nlefillly that his f:.alher were stiU alive, implying thai the f:.lt hcr would havc resolved thc conRict.18 And in Lysias 16.10 th e speaker assertS that he :.a llowed :.a 1:.I'b~r portion of the cst:.lte to go to his brother so as to :.Ivoid :.I co nR icl. ApoUodorus"s feud with Phormio, the gua rdian of his father'!; estate. h:.ls :.II· re:.ldy been noted. though th e role of his broth er, l':.Isicles. in these disputes needs $Gme discuss io n. From Pseudo·Demosth ellC"$ 45 we find th:.ll Apollodorus fell Out with his younger brother oyer t hl." inhe riu nce of their f:nher"s C"$tate. tile property o f the wealthy hanker l':.I5io. The dispute reached such :.l pitch th:.lt Apol. lodorus claimed in court that his brother w:lS illegitimate, the son of his father's slave assista nt Phorm io (83-8 4). In !Urn, Apollodorus's enelllies claimed that he W:.IS defr:l uding his brother o f p:.lrt of the patern:.ll csute (Dem. 36.36-37). T hat ApoJlodorus's charge of illegitilmcy was illdeed slanderous is indicated in another, earli" r sp"ech dcli ...... "'d by ApollodoTUs in which he is dependent upon hi5 broth er's testimony regarding a lO:.ln conducted by their father (IDem.149.42-43); no mention of th ... brother's illegitimacy is made here. It is little wonder. the n, given the an imosity belween tlle two brothers, th~t ApoUodorus did not ghoe one o f his daughters. a potential heiress, to his brother l'asiclC"$ in marriage. We c:.l n also infer from Pseudo·J)elllosthencs 44 that two broth ers, M eidylidcs :.Ind Archiadcs, had quarreled owr the paternal estate. Mdd ylidcs had offered his o nly child, :.In heiress daughter, in marriage 10 his brother Archiades ( 10).19 The imended marriage alliance, as w ith ~ny form of kinshi p endog.ullY through th e patri line. was mea nt to consolidate the two oikoi.:!O For e:rumple, in l.ysias 32.4 tv.'O brothers shared Ihe paternal estate; one brother married the only child of the other, a daughter. and became gu:.lrdian of :.III of his brother's fortun e, in· eluding even that put of it that had accrued $Cp:.ar:ltdy from the inheriled we:.llth M . Gokkn. CltdJ,", ~OUI C/uUJoo".J,~ 0Jwi<4/ A,/orns (lWtuno""John< Hopk,,,, U",VttS1ty I't=. 19'.(0), I 19. " Uc«y. n."i/y. 126. II Humphrry. (" Kin.rup .... ttO"m\.," 75) ,,-iu..,UI e>Cp!m:;Lt;on dcd.n'"S Wf . ~ fWD hroth<-r! ""'IT ·'p>.nlo.t.pboorhon', !lOll. Ih... the tn.>r _ 'l1ge would h ...", .... ulted In • divino" of lhe ...... (10). t.
Sl lllI NG
RBlAT I ON S HI P S
II I
(4-5). In Pse udo--Demonhenes 44. however, Archiades nOI o nly refused to marry his brother's dau gh ter, but even in his lifetime adopted the grandson of the ir ~ is ler. The :ldoption :l.ng~red Mddylide'$, :Iud il splil up Ih ~ joint t"S1:l.le. (IDem.] 44. 19-20,46).21 H oweve r, M eidylides even tua lly ;lgll!ed to the ~doprion and was persuaded by rebti yt"S n0110 prosccule his sister's grandson. Arc hiades' e'$tal~ renl:lined in Ihe gr;mdson '$ line for thll!e genen tions (ibid .. 18 fr.). [n Ihis ClSe, ;I sister's desce ndants, if nOi rh e sisrer herself. helped OUI her brorher, bur by $0 doing incum:d rhe wrath o f her olher brother. O th er orat ions show th:lt a sister, or her dt'"SCe nda nts. might aClually :Illy with one of her brot hers ag;r.insr :luOI her one. Pseudo-Dernosthe nes 25.55.79 points OUI th:lt ArislOgd ton's brorher prosecu ted him for the m:lnner in whic h Aristogeito n contracted :I Illuri:lge for thei r ute rine h:llf-siste r.n The conflict ....';IS pu t aside, temponri ly in :l.lllikeli hoo note". Such ,n m ...... I1."«' pn<:uc". hoY...... ","" "Id M y the .... >don! Athr.lUII "">'''''' <>f.,.......r dt,~"O". n Th~ Grt"<"k (25.S)) ' U I" Ii.., Aru,og<1.on IOld hiuu'gc': Wi".....,. m Cbwc>l A........,'· HiJ,MY ~nd A"'h~ I [1985J: 338) contcrKh Armog<1.o n .nd h" brothc-r "''''~ h>lf""bb"gs. ,h"", i< no tvldtn«' for .h". [IT fx •.• he " n\1",' .UI .. du., they ......,~ ,wins (25.73-79). Standud plQ!oOpognphk al >(\IdlC> "'".... I.... '" •• full .iblmgs: For iruu<>«'. Kin::hnu. PA . In5 + 5863_ ~ H unt
"'t.
<"$I.''''
.Iu,
to",..
pr
err
112
C H APTE R .
In O(h~r o ruions. :1II individu;r.l who served :IS a gu;r.rdian was ch;r.rged either wi th mismanagt'mem or with depriving hiJ brothers son o r dmghter o f his or h"r sha re of;r.n in h .. rinnce from either the p;r.tern:ll t$t::ue o r the estau: of:l 0l31e af;n:u e (b. 7.8. II; 10.4-6. 11.51T.• 36 IT. ; L}'$. 32. 1-10; Oem. 38.23).1~ In fact. in t ....-o of these ClIIse$ (b . 7.8. 10.4-(6) kinship e nd~my was thwarted :IS a ~uJt of the alleged mism.;magelllelll :lnd consequent disputes. In one oration (At:s(;hin. 1.102) ;r. m;r.n i$ accused of abusing his patern:t.l uncl~: T im;r.rdlUJ is charged with depriving his fa ther's brothe r Arignotus. a blind man. of his right to a,s,i$t;,mcc from the joint e-sr;r.te bequeathed to both Arignows and his brothe r Ari~du5. th~ fathe r ofT imuch us. St~ph a nus is abo accused o f depriving his fathe rs brother of his house (Oem. 45.70).25 In contrast to these quurds betwtcn bmtllen ;r.nd by extension ~,"",",en the t~{ ... tor·s chiklren ;r.nd th"ir fathtr's brother. wc h a\~ only one certain ClII5C ill whi ch the n;r.tura l brother of a wonlln. he r ute rine brother. was cri ticized fo r his b'l.lardianship of her chikl (Is. 8.40-42).16 In o th er wo rds. tensiolu be~'een brodlers could extend to their chil_ dren. On the o th~ r hand. dou- ties between childre.n and a mn~rn;r.l uncl~ n'_ fleel the tics bet\vt"'ell cross-iiblings. to be diseussed shortly. Thus quarrels ~r the est:I tc hetw«n full brothers an d berw«:n brothe r ::md bro lhers de$;e nd;r.IlIS could be viciou$; those between homo patric ha lf-brot he" were practically b'"Uarantecd ~cause of the broth~n' unwillingness to sh;r.re the p:ltern;r.l we;r.lth. In one case. this animosity reached in te rn at io n;r.l proportions. Boco tu! was a rri ~ nd of;r. foreign tyr.lIl t. Oammys of M ytilcne, who wa!;r. ~r sonal cnemy o f IJowtus's half-broth er Mantitllew (I D em.] 40.)7). An individw.l might ehal\.>e his half-brother with being the produce of an inform,,1 un ion between thei r father and another woman. or the son of a non-Athenian mot her, Of with beillg supposititious, which ....-ould cn::ate a presUlllption that he was the son of;r.n ali" n (Dem. 39.4. 40.8-13; Is. 6.1 - 26). Any of these eh;r.rges. if upheld. would deprive the half-brother of his ri ght to inherit. Philoctelllon and his sisten ;r.!lied to keep their h;r.lf-brothers from inhe riting PhiloclcIllon's esUtt (h. 6.5 fr.) . DUistntus and Olympiodorus (wifc's broth cr) were in collusion to cxclude CalJistr;mus homo pau ic h;r.lf-brother from recei\'ing any sha« of a kin$-nun's estate (IOem. 1 48.20 IT.: rcbtionship of killSIU;r.1I is uns~cifu:d). Finally. then' is one oration in whic h two sets of h;r.lf-brothcl"$ ;r.rguc: (7\"Cr whether thei r f... th ers second wif~ poison~ him (AlIliphon 1.\- 13). Conflict between 110llIopatric brothers. especially O\It'r inheritance. was so uken for granted th;r.t in ~n ~xc~ption;r.l ( -as(' where a nun defended his half-brother ag:.inu ch3rges of I< s.,~
0110).13 ....."'".... - Tht Impon.u>« 0( .h~ M'I<:O', ... I Undc ~nd Gnndi"ab... CbMiul GI~'~e an•.! Early DYUM.unl.- ZPE 50 (1983): In . 182.
In An:ha ... and
., tbid .. 182.
A.,iIc...rn,,,,... who _ wed by hi. ward! tOr "w.. """"g<.n=l in Ilcn",",hc""", 38.....~ thrir nlQth..,·, bm!h~,. tM ontion """,,·M.., .u.es A.rioIa« h_ m ..... r<:bt~n.tup'O .h~ \><:trI. In r..". >f'f'OinlJ"'...." "",IIiM .b~ r>mily .....,.., 'KIf un«>tlbno,,: H~_ "" AI.h<>ugb 1)>Vt
,""".LIN<
1:99-1 0 1: f.-hd >owdI. I..... , 93.
pr vem
SIBLING R EL ATIONSH I PS
113
alien d tiunship. the m:m dedared : " But as fo r myself. no lIlan would conside r me so insane as to lie under oath for this Illan [his half-brother] j usl so that r ...."Ould share my patr imony wilh more heirs (Is. 12.4)." 17 On the other hand, rIlatrilin<'al half-brolhers ( o uld no t inherit from each o ther if the t est~tor h~d living agtl3tes, yet as discussed ~bo\oc (on mothers ~nd sons. pp. 10 1- 2 ) , the homo llletric brother did try ~t times to gain control of his h~lf brother's esute, with th e btter's ~ ppTQ\l':lL The ~nt ip~thy between full ~Ild h Olllop~ (fic brothers can. ironically, be further iIl ustnted by ~ brief ex~mi n3ti on o f the reb tionships bet"..een sisters. Although the ontiolls are no t very info rlll~ti\'e about th ese, il is cle~r that sisters could be allies. In the quarrels over Demos[henes' 1:'5 [3[e. Demoslhenes' mother's sister. Philia. WJ5 concern ed about [he fa ll' of both D emosth enes' mother and her ch ildren. if th e actions of Phi1i~ 's husb~nd ~re any indicatio n: at one poin t durin g the quarrels wit h Ihe guard ians, Phili~'s husband. Demochares. remonstr.ll ed with Aphobus and was b ier a witne5$ fo r DemOSlhenes inl he bller's b wsuit 3b>:linsllhe gu~rdi~1l5 (Oem. 27. 14-15). This loyalty WJ5 followed by [he marriag1: of D emos[henes' siSler to the so n of Philia by Delllochares,28 In anothe r case. sisters' sons could combine forces to unde r mine the inheritance of anolher first co usin. th e adopted son of Iheir mOlhers' brother. AfieTW<' funher ~"",,,,pk. ~ I! Oxy. 253!1; U DAvies. API! 1 ~ 1-42,
H umph~ ... Kms/up." 7$-7{•.
pr
em
It ..
C H APTE R
4
Th us far. then. heirs quarI'd among themselves. and th ese co nflicts can be transmitted to thei r descenda nts. We will now see w hat rakes pbce beruleen siblings w ho an: nOl riv-ils.
TlES BETWEEN BROTHERS AND SISTERS
Bonds between siblings of opposite sexes. whether full o r half. were ge nerall y wry snong. In fact, one sc hola r has suggested that because young girls and women were segregaled $0 strictly from males who did not belong to thei r iru mediate family, intense bonding natunlly developed berween cross-siblings.29 Or.ltors used all the ir resources 10 im"Oke pi ty for a sister·s bereavement. when she was deprived of he r brothe r by deat h in battl e (Lys. 13.45-46: Lycurg. 1.40: H yp. Bp;t. 27) or by murder (Lys. fro22 [Thl). Brothers and sisters were also co ncerned with eac h o thers' honor. The or.l tiolls state th~ t the brother (eith er full Of half) and his $OIlS weTC expected to protect his sister from sexual abuse, frolll charges o f alie n citi:1!cnshi p30 or fro m verb~1 abuse frequently laced wi th sex ual in nu endo (Dem. 2 1.78-79. 24.202- 3. 25.55. 57.38-39: H yp. Lye. 4 ff: Lys. 3.29).31 In turn. a sister lnd her husba nd could defend her brother from chlrges of 31ien citi:1!enshi p (Dem. 57.43, 68; Is. 12.5).32 Sources othe r th~ n (he orations, moreover, testify to close $OCi~1 and political alliarlce-s be rween cross-si blings. For ilUtlrlce, supposed abuse o f sisters was an illlpon~m ilem in hoslile gossi p concerni ng Ihe politiCians Chnon :,m d A1cibi~des: both eimoll and his sister Elpinice and Alcibiades' daughte r and $On were accused o f incestuous rdarions. 33 Furthermore, Plutarc h Slates Iha t when C imon wu charged with bribery by his riv;a] Pericles, e imon's sister Elpinice in tervened and intlll t" nCed Pericles to drop th e chalb"CS (Ptr. 10.4-5). Elp iuice bter denounced Pericles' military ~ctio/lS ~n d contrasted th em with those o f her brother (ibid., 28.4-5). Although th e veracity of these stories is unce rtain,J~ nevertheless, whe n Cimon was threatened with ostracism , a \"Oter wrote on his ostra ko n that whe n he left Athem he should take Elpinicc with hi m.35 [n ~dditio n . the faci that Elpinice was buried wi th members of her origi nal family (Plu t. Cim. P. Walcot. "'Ron.. n"c loo." ar>d T rue Lo-,,,." A ",s,x 11:1 (t 937): $-33. '" A1,~", 0. n",,-A,hcm.ru on cI. ...al Ath~M could not produce "ffipnng considered to be:A.hcman e1ll""". (H ... mon. Lnv, 1:2S-26: Lacey. t:.. ... jly. 100-10 1). )0 Fo. p....,J.uo,cal ",hem, IoU IJ. M. La,·dlc, ··The N.tun- o ( ~j, pV.,.d>O$· Insult to H .m>Q<\,os:· AJI> 107 (1986): 32.3-28. l. S« oho I! /"",/. 81. A (r.lgn>eoll poss,bly of 1 _ which .ppc..... o be:- conc .... .bou •• he ch,ld"", of CIC4 .. bl",go provodo,'I': .... imony 10. u eh other. The /ngonen. rtuy oho men';"" .he colub<>t;ltlon btN.ttn homo"'",";c h.tIf-b.."hClt. II Eupoll> IT. 208 (Kock) _ 1'1" ,. Ci .... 15.3: FG,II", 107 F~ (S,es,mbrut"'): "'hoi.. ",.ISt. 3. 446 l"
"w
(D'OO.): lAnd.) 4.33: Suda <.v.
Ki ...",,;
Ly..
1 ~ .28.
41.
,. D.v' .... AI't; 303-1 . .. J. HoU.doy. ·· Mcdl!"" on A.h"ns 504-180 lI.e.:· G>R 25 (1978): 186.
pro
err
S IB I,.ING
R E LATI ONS HIP S
11 5
4.2) ;md no t with her fam ily of nurri"'i;e,36 suggests th ... t there w;n a real bond berv.'ecn siblings here, which w.u the source for further embellishments. Like· wise, whell Hippurt ..... th . . wife of Alci bi ... des . ... ttempt . . d to di vorce her husb... nd. she sought rduge ... t her brother's ho use. but \Y;I.S forced by her hmband to re· IUrnlO his house ([And.] 4.14 : Plut . A/c. 8. 1- 5). Indeed. Alcibiades allegedl )' at· tempted to :usassinate Callias, H ipp... rete s brother. 10 gain control of the latters esme (]And.1 4. 15). for if C ... llias had died childless, his esute would have d . . \/Olved upon Hipparcte. leaving Ald hiadl"$ in m ... nagerial control. In the short term Caliias ....'aS po ....,'erless against Alcibiadcs' right as ... husba nd, but ("\·el1lu:l.II)'. not long after Hipparete's death. hr had the s.atisfaction of seeing Alcibiad<."$ ... c· ("used of profaning the Eleusinian M ysteries. the very rites overseen by Callias as a chief priest, and forced to f!('e Athens. 3 7 To return to the or.ltions, :I. major concern for the broth er \1I;I.S the m ... terial welfan:: of his sister. The or.lIor Demosthen es States that the chief aim in con· tracting a marr:1ge for a siner or daughter is to b..jve her th e gre:u est amoun t of security (Oem . 30.21). Therefo re, when Demonhenes' own sister w.u defnuded o f her dowry by her gu... rdi:l.lti. Delllosthent"S in his !3wsuit :l.gainst the guardians l... mellted that his sister \\/Ould not be able to lIl... rry well (Oem . 27.61. 28.2 1). Also, ... brother could be concern ed for his sisters childlessness after marriage, and at th e instigation of her husband and wi th thl' consent of th e sister, :l.gree to his sisters divorce. T he latter 111ight make sure to rerurn the dowry 10 th:l.l th e wo man could te lmrry (Is. 2.4 fr.). Another source reveals a brolhers :l.nxiety about the confiscation of a widowed sister's dowry along with her l~te h usband'~ property: the dowry was needed to provi de for his siSler and her children (l ys. 19.32- 33). Theomnestus w.u e... ger to prosecute the polilic...1 riv.al of his sister's husb:l.nd afte r th e riv.al had persuaded the people to impose a fifteen-talent fine o n the husband. In his speech Theomnenus declares his concern for his sisler's welfare and for lha. of one of her daughters who, he S2yS, nl:l.)' nm be ... ble to be dowered ([Delli.1 59.7-8,12); hence he was ... iding his brother- in·bw in prosecuting the ri1l;l.1. An· other or.ltion informs us th~t :I. \....o lll:l.n \~ divorced by her husband beC:l.USC: she could no t provide a dowry from her fathers illlpo'n 1'>1'1. 198), 111- 12. for ~:ampln of nuniet! "'''''~" wnh Ihnr or;gin2ll
.uhi;tllP·
.",,"'1", .....
n On
301 Ibid.. 366.
pr
em
116
C HA I'TE R
~
l3y e:x tension, the:refor<.". relations bctv.'ct:1l ~n individual and his mothers brother could Ix- ve:ry close: w exceptions will ~ discussed furth er below. Charmides, Alldocidc:s' patr mne~l cross-co us.ill, W3S re~red by his mother's hrother.lt.ndocidcs' father, and ....'OtI his contiwm in prison during the: affair of the: mutilation of th e hcrms (And. lAS-50).'*<) Both Andocides ~lId Aesc hincs spoke: with pride of thci r m~tc:rnal uncles (And. 3.29: Aeschin. 2.78): Andocides' admiration was equaled only by his in trrest in marrying h is uncle's heiress ~nd thc:n:by acqui ring managerial control of his unclc:'s estate (1.120 ff.). [II other orations, a mothe:r's brothe:r often appears as a Vlluable: ally in legal battles (Is. 3.26,30, 7 1: 12.5--6).·' [n bac:us [ t\'JQ brothers were reared by the:i r nutnn:u unde:. Clc:onymus. despite the Jailers quarreJ with the: boys' paternal uncle. Dc:iniu, and perhaps with their father (1 ff.). Emotional embellishments -aside. the sources reveal ~ broth rr's concern for his sisters .....d(an: 31 and after marriage. cOllcern (or her children. and con~rn particularly (or the dowry which originally ~tongffl to the wonun s patern al estate:. Although utcrine half-siblings could not m~rry, hOlllOP3tric h:llf-siblings. offipring of the QIllC patriline. could do SO.~2 T his mari tal str:lt~gy refle:cts concern (or immediate sibling control over the paternal property.
BROTHERS, SISTERS, AND DOWRIES Dowri~.,.
l1Wl1tiont'd in the oratiOn! wen:'. of course. provided by dite f.uniliC1. Givers o f dowries ~ppearing in Allie descriptions ....-eTC prob~bly also prosperous. Athough smaller ~ll1ounts than those mentioned in the orations appea r in inscriptiol1$lisring properry mortg.:.ged for dowTies, the amounts ciled there m ay .... I}",,,,,,,.,,.. ·· r",po.u,,,,,.~ 17J...4!6. WH an impona'" t . .1y .. udy 0" lh~ role uf Ihe mOl.her" Imxh .....hhou",., 8mumcr hi1l1loClf .drniu (114). hii d~ .. ,..ion i, inco",plete. N.......nhdn•• I}""n_ 111er I"" ",me uoeful bibliograpt.y (\ n, ". 2) of (bIOi. m..ti", by """"I .nthropologist> on th~ "'.' 'e,n.>I unck. for A,h"", one 00",.,' ditcotlnt d<,,~phi,,", Giwn ~ diffc","ce in >gnI of "'...... ,ug<" ''''" II..... ' .rKl woon~n an i"divid""lwouk! """'" likely h ...., "utem.1 WKI", <0 dcp<"nd on ,\un l'-"cr~1 .. ,,boo >gal1lSl ~ ........ ~ o{homo",nr;< ub/ing!; "")' ..'" luw I:>«n .an in(~ ••1:00:.0. Spln •• lOr imt:lncc.•no...'Cd honlOnldTic lihIing 1112fnag.,. 8«.. _ " "'n""" , .. Splru co,,1J in"",, .., ",,,I) .Ill mo:n. tilt ""'.....S" of hoo'_ ..... ric .iblings al\oo.Yed the P'OPC"Y from d... t-ibli"IP' ",.JOili.... '0 bo: (ombined with the n utCS fiorn twO diffnntt p;>lrili1>a. Thi, con,bincd Pror<"'f)' .kvol....-d On 'h<" childrno of Ihc ",..ricd "bIin)D. 00 e<:hnic.!Iy. prop_ mon: in111 ..... iAlc. For lhe- mar ..agc ... «ern in Sp,ana, Ott S. Hook.....,,,. ·· Inl>criu.n<:<". M ..... tU\;<" and l)..mO!><>phy: ~.ivo upon ,he SUC«:sl .. nd 1)«1int of CbHiral Sp.art.:" i.. QdjuuJ Sp.u .... ·,.~tI.n~ &lri..J 1-1<7 s..a- cd. A. (Norn,.n: Un;wnity of Qkl.aho<'''' I'rns. 19l!8). 11 1 IT. and p.artkuiuty 9Z.
,Iu, .•
""",,n
"
m
SI8L I NG
RELAT I ONSHIPS
11 7
1I0t «,Aeet Ihe entire :1.II10UIII;43 henee, it is ulls.:l.fe 10 assume Ihat the- insc riptions reAeet the pnetices of poo«,r people. [n any case, the Athen ian oikos, which was always conce-rnc:d wi th the de\"Olmion of property, practised an extTCme form of male in he-ritOi nce by excluding daughters from any share besides the dowry. Brothers shared equally in the paternal est:lte, while daughters were given a dowry as a pre-mortem inheritance. The dowry, consistiu!; of cash or real esu te and m()V;jble items v:alued in cash, was meam to uke care of a ,","Oman's needs in her marital oikos alld to consolidate the tks berween her childrrll and her natal oikos. Apart from this, a ...."Oman had no furthe r material cbim o n the pate rn al estate, if she had brothers who th emselves had SOIlS. ~~ Furthermore, the daugh ter's doul wc:llith never seems to ha~ been equal to the wc-alth inherite-d by :lilly one broth er. T:.r.ble 3~s co mpares known v:alues of dite estates with known dot:lll outbys: dowr ies from th ese esutes III.'ver excc-edc-d one-third of the estates value and r:arel y exceeded olle--fifth.0f6The largest percent:llge of we-alth devoted to:ll dowry co mes from o ne of the smallest eslJtes in th e- o r:atiom (Is. 8.7-8): from an estate of approxim:.r.teiy o ne and a half talen ts. eiron dowered his daugh ter with twenty-five minae o r about 28 percent of the estat e's v:alue. He then g;.lve he r in a second marriage with a smaller dowry of ten minac or 11 pc-rcem of the esu te. l3ecause a one-and-:lI-half- t:.r. lent estate \V;IS well below the income of \\-"ealthier families who were required to perform stlte services (three to four ul... U M. Sch.",. "'-it Rill", of ll !>mm ,n A"""" Cft<"(t (Ed,nburgh: U ",,..,n,,y of Edmburgh I'~. 1979}.lI.pprndu:
I.
... !-t.). Wolff. - Ma,.uS" Law and F.nuJy O~"on lJ1 ArIClCfl' A.hnt<,.. Tn>J,/w 2 ( 19-4~): 62: H . L<-vy. ·· Jnh~.i.ancr .nd Dowry '" Ct., u nJ A.h~n ••~ '" M ni""""","",, S«;nr: EJJ.rs ,~ .w S«i..J A"'It~ of ,lot M,d;'""'tINn. ~d. J. l'''t- Rive .. (1' ....: Mouton. 1%). 141 : H.. l"'*"I 1:.5-60. I »-32; lx~. /;'",i/y. lC/'J-l0: & ...",. /::' ,",.-it. 23. 74-8 • . R . (hbo,nc. 0.--: 710t Du. ""'"1"~"'Aniu (Combti¥' C.mbodgt- Univen,ty 1~ 1985). 1)7 .....<:0 ,Lt..l.ond " "30 not "","nully givn1 ... dowry.:o.nd tLt., " .. 'mp" Kin,'·;o..""" ofFt.ffti/y H~''''11 '' (1989): .306. n. ) . (OO" iUnhn though .. on tlus wu~. AJ H umer ,101: .... oome homo ",....,al tha. womm could Imdcd t'1OJ><"T1Y. though the ,,"',., arc not o;k.wng wuh dowries ~r..,. ~s The t.bIe II Nscd on L c "."',. -rhe AtM11I.n Up~r CWO .o,1d .h.. N ...... Comedy," TA I~ 106 (1976): 55. who """~..". ",dud... the OOwer"'g of two ......... by thri, bro uble 3. Funt..""",,,,. c_ ..... \ dun the ...... e III l)')l:U 19 >t fi"" T1>e ons"u[ <"$U"'. W o n: p.lymen .. to tM ....c . ...,...~ ........ wor.h around th,rtcen t..tc'", (1)."'.... AI't; 2(0). 1 .1m _U ""'..... of.he llOX _ CUl1l", u"" of figum In mnqu,ty. p•.m cuLuiy I!',..,n tLt.t md,vwiw.b Ic,o.dc-d.O Iud.. the r"l1 , .. Iuc of thCII hd",,". "hiptn 6. pp. 168-70). 0" the olhc, h.nd. thno figum mu" c"h~r .. and ~ rill ..... M<-: ,1M! UlUnlmQUS ''''p,",ion g1Wtl by the sourc ... is t"'t A tbughtn ,,.,..,..,, ,"",,-cd _ahh <"<1",,1 fO duo of .ny 0Ik 00" • ... for OIl' purpoocs. 1 t.ok ... - 60 ,,,,,u ...
".."n.
,,,,m
voJ".,
.*". .
.,ta,,, (..,.,
pr
err
118
C H A PT E R
•
TABLE 3 Doo:a1 Outlays for DlIugh(~rs lind Sillen
D<>t,,/ 0."£1}' 011 PMnr, of
EsM~
NUlNbtroj 11&...rn ",f/o
I'a/Uf
Dou.. ~
N"ffliNr oJj Brol/onf
32.(.
15 1:11
I d>ughler
2
I tolL
Denl.27.4. 28.15-16
14 ul.
t dlUghtcr
1
2
b. 5.5. 26
13 uJ.
" si$l:,.,n
1
.0 min, exh
5.1
Lp.19. L6f.
]J
2 wugJlIel"S
1
-I()
min. each
5. 1
~1.7-8
'"
I d':lUgtner
2
25 min. 10 min.
30 [:II.
I sille'
2
1 QI. 20 min
:ZOO 131.
I
1
20laL
Simm" L~.
15.
1)'-111. 29.48.
tlll.
DoW o.'//ay
ES'.llt 1:~luc
6.6 14.3
1;1.1,
27.7 11.1
" .4
31.6-')
And. " . 1,}; Plul . .... It. 8
10.0
cnts minimum).~7 Ciron w.u giving a b rge dowry relative to his mClIm to sc· cu re 11 suitable marriage for his daughter, ..11 A Ltrgcr number o f the f:lmil ie:s in th e ublc lud d l:ltcs r:mging from thirtt'<':n 10 6ftl"t':n 1-;llents with each da ughte r o r si5l:er recdving anyw here from 5 ~n;:ent to 1" percenl of the cst;!!,,'S .....ealth. One: of the: ~althiC$l. men in the or.l.tions. Om~tor. worth around thirty t:.l.ient$, ~'t:red his sister with one t:llent :l.nd twenty min:l.e.:I. vc ry Jubstmri:l.! dowry but only 4.4 perccnt o f his own \lIC:l.l th (Delli. 29.48, 31.6-9).49 In f:let, beeau$C Onetor lud:l. brotht:r,Y1 Onctor's thirty tale nt.~ llIay have b.:cn h i~ ~hare of th t: paternal estate, which could han" been worth as Illuch a~ twi ce th at amou nt before the WllS inhe rited. If so. the dowry would have been wonh only 2.2 pen::ent o f the v:.Jue of Ih", origin.al est:lt"'$. T he brgat known dowry in Ath",nian history, twenty talents. wu given to H ippuete th e d:r.ughtt'r of H ipponicus, w ho W3$ worth around t'.\.'O hundred l.aients, upon her ma rria ge- to Alcibiades. H ipparelc thus rettin"d 10 percent of he r F.ather's wealth, wi th the mlt going to hcr brother Calli;lli (plut. Ale:, 8.1-5; IAnd.1 4.13; ., tm~n.. , I/'F, lOt ..•. .. Ikcl"", Cuon Ju.l.".......... b)l1 J«:Ooo nun. (t.. 8.7-a). hio d.>lIghld. w .... ZII PU"", of Ius ot.>l~·' v.oJuc. , ' nlOOt on~-th,nJ. COlO" '""'1' d.,... to th<' dum or ~><" ollus 001'''. H""",","",. 'he One , 00 • lulf .,1<.".. i. , h(-ligun' "''''..,.-d f....'" ~ ... .oJ P' Of'<"'fY of .he ~nd Ciron .!SO I..... Oil U,apcciliffl."'OUIl' of 01' \0>'1 (I).viCl. A PI; J 14) . •~ On Onn.,..·, " ....>lth .,ul l"" liu of .he dowry,...., ibid .. ~ :!J; Sclupl.. ~, 711. ... O.".i... .A I'li 423.
""".<:)' ",,,
""le.
,.
m
S I BL I NG
R ELAT I ONS HIP S
11 9
lsoc. 16.3 1).51 Thus.llthough iue us t t .39 states thu l father should endow his daughters .......:Illnd tha t his w n W6!i not IC"SS wealthy from what remained. most di te fath ers ensured Ihe greater wealth of their sons. The practice of givi ng l smaller dowry to Ihe sisler in cllssical Athens W."IS also followed by the highest social class. the ark/umlts, in At hens in the early ninetee nlh ee mury. ln both eases. smaller dowri e-s allowed for patrili neal tr.lll5ll1ission of prope rty among main and let women marry endogamously w ithin thei r status group.52 E~n though a WOllla n did not in heril equally with h ... r brolhers, a great d ... al of attemi on W35 directed to the dowry. Broth ers we n: concemed about the rt"CO\Try of th e dowry afler terminltion of the sister's mlrrilge (Lys. 19.32-33). or ensured that she was n:marricd w ilh a dowry equal in value 10 the one initl lly $l!t lside by th e father for hl'r fi rs t IlIlrrilg'" (Oem . 29.48 + 30.7 + 31.6-9: 40.6-7). In nlOSt casn. the fa ther SCI aside the dowry. o r all t""mpted to. befon: his deat h.53 Demoslhcnes th e dde-r We-Ill so far as 10 lIIah· l will beq ueathing tWO tale-nts of his fourteen - tal ent estate to his fi\"e-year-old daughter and specificall y sm ing who m she W2S 10 marry (Dem. 27.5: 28. 15-16. 19: 29.43-45). Histor ians have known for yc-ars th at the dowry. whic h llwOlYS re mai ned the proper!)' of the ....."Oman·s original a;kas, $l!r"ed 10 prevem the " "Omln from being separatcd from the pnem l l CUll(". This u n (erta iniy be seen in Athenia n laws that mandated the n:tu rn of Ihe dowry 10 the ....."Oman's nOital fami ly o n the dissolution o f he r marriage by dealh o r divorce.54 Th t"" dowry could. it is lrue. be estinu ted as part of th e husband 's wt""llth (Dem. 27.4, 9-11: 42.27) aud be induded in the co nfiscat io n of his property by private ( redilOn o r by th e stlte. 55 " tbid .• 19. 260. Incidenl~Uy. Ih~ ' p<". k..,. In I........ 3 (4<)-51 ) In .. 10 p"""" Ih~ ,1I~gilOm.'1' of I'yrrhu,', .~ by lu,ing ,rut.he w.u g"..,n. vt'ry ""ill doo.o.ry. l~n "''''~. from th~ ...Ut~. How· twf , I'yrrin,,' ..... ~ ...... ,,""nh .bout thr« .:lkn,,: h .. o.no...,II. ·· U...... M .. luhcni.n Citi.cn<.~ CQ Z6 (1916): 89-91: P. J. Rhodes' .... po11«": - U>l1 snndf.. her ~nod h .. own f.. he •. and Phanupp ..... "".lth w.u .... i....... cd •• fooJ. and .Iulf .. knu; hence h" n..,.enul gnndf.. h..,. ,,,•• worth ..,,,,,,,,,h.ll ... Ih,,, I .... ' >I"o,"II. Th""'fort: .• he: doo.o.ry of f>Iutontpp ... ·• nlOthe. w:o< ","Orth;[ u rge I"'l"C<:nug.: of hc, (. ,he'·' eo"'e. How.:"" •• b«.UK l'h...."PI'''' h.d ~ .dop nu· I~nw gnndf.th .... ·• nt:I,.e. l'hMtuppu, ·. nlO,he. w.u an he"e:.. and "".hout bn>w: ' SO. 5}: Lorry. " l"hcrtl>n<"c:' 141 ; H • ..,..,,,. Lrw. 1:55.-60: Scrups. w · _ir, 81-83:1".... lI Mnt, 72- 73 . s, On hu~nds and ",~....,.. 1<"10 .bo.oc. c .... pctr 3. Pp. 7~ . 76.
.0
uw••
pr
em
120
C H "PT 5 R •
~ p:J.r{
from this case. Detnosthcncs declared. a dowry was the wonun's property. ;md that by giving a dowry. a brothe r made the ...."Oman's husb:and his kinsman (30.12: see also Is. 2.4-5). That the dowry belonged to the WQman's nanl f:ullily is dearly dcmonstnted by th e dowry giy,:n to a shter of Di(;;lcogenc::s II . The \\IOlmn was dov.'t'red with a city house instead of cash (Is. 5.26-27}.S6 an d she and her hmband took up residence there. In the eourse of surveying the property of Oie.:acogcllcs ll . his adopti ve solll)icaeogcncs III dermnded and rect"iv\"d the house back. Although the dov,.ry was nevcr leg;&Uy required, it wu ;t social oblig;&tion:57 nOt only could a marriage be ws~ct wit hout it, but also the prestige of the f;tm ily depended 011 a good match made through a substantial dowry. S!! The ontions n:veal that dowries were needed to ;attract prestigious husbands (l Y$. 19. 1~ 16 ; fl)em.I40.6), w hile th e giving of a brgc dowry 'Mi$ an indication of a f;tmily's b'OOrl su nding and that o f its affines (Oem. 39.32- 33, 40.20-22). 13m
TIES BETWEEN BROTHERS-IN-LAW
lk s.idcs the disparity in the amount of th e .,ik"J's wealth inhe rited by sisters and brothers. there Won another differe nce ~rween them which also reflected m:lrriage: str~tegy: ;11 llIany cases, the chughter Ilurried bt:fore in sollle caleS well before her brother of comparable ~gc. In D~v; es·s listing alone. there ~re eighteen ;I l~tances in whic h the brother nurricd ~fter his sister, o r sisters. ~s op~ to six in whi ch roughly COlltem poran t'Qu5 lIu.rriagcs occurnxtS'J Of the f~lIIi~
Wo,-.c. 1-.... ·HI>; 1)"".<,>. APr: 1#; o.binn". 0.- 241. n. 30. ,7 1-1~ITlIOn .l""I ~H'I: f inky. SLC, 79: Mlo:;[)oo.o"1:n. Low, 87; Karahel;,... ··S"..;....w.,u:· !'o~. ~ t..«y. I;"";~
109... 10. H M.ny ..,f d~ pnng: D.rvics. API; 3()-JI (Andocide> IV .. ><'" "'.... ; nom I... " ... !'oj; 1!'>2-!'ol {- Lys.. l 2.lJ.-lOj; t9-l If. (- IDen'.1~4 .lJ.- tO): 200-201 (ty .. 1?1!'>-16, u .. ~.;..C' m:" "e.....". A l'f: 2.)U (- h . 9.29) lOr • ,bllghfc" t...;nll betrod,.,.j o!Uo< h ... bmlhn. ""'jon..,.; Ih .... n no indication of Ihe broIher"s h. ving ",,,.ied; 2Sf>.-57 (B ipponicu,U and ~ pos!iblc IIJ ,,~, I)~ APr: 30 "'~ III) da ..gllln- ~.Id .....): 93 (I).tIWMIDIUS"ssot, and do .."".",,): lOO-20 t (_ l yt. 19. 1!'>-16.;1 bro: M~" "lid ~"'~" i" l<;1i ...:· a.lfr" l.l [19814121: 91)........... """h"" "'''" who doed ,,; "gJ~ bu. who h..d nur.in! Thi' is con)...:lul'>l; lox....... t~xl in.1l C3In ....'" ollly that ,""'" "'~" din! d>ik!...... >I,d ,""'" or<: "'.. ~.I<..,. of "'.... oed men dYUlI!: ...... hou. ;,w., {I~ 6 .l-7. for ex:u"pI~j . In o,,~ of
rro."
be"".
'* -. Oi,'"
'''rn''''....
(ei"''''' ....
s-
'i...,....
pr
vern
SI BLI NG
R E L AT I ONSHI P S
121
lies in the ontio ns not listL-d by O~vies, regisll· r. thl' re ~re six mort> illSU rl(:CS of bter Ill~rr i~ges for brothers (Lycurg. 1.17 fT.: Is. 2.3 fT.: Lys. 3.29 fT.: Oem. 41.3, 48.53 fT.: Lys. fro43 [Thl), and there is o nl y o ne explicit rt>ference to a brother's Ill~rryi ng tx-fort> his sister (Is. I 0.5-6). S i~'1l ifi c~nt ly. in this buer case. that of Cyronides. the pate~n~1 esUle w.u probably insolvent (ibid .. 15). Earlier age of marriage of women ~nd bter age of marriage for men was th e no rm for ancient Athem. This pattcfrl o f Illarria~~ is genc nlly known as the Med iterr.lnean type and is evident not j ust in Ath ens but in th e 1~ ler !iOCiety of the l\.onlan empire. 60 In Alhens, Ihere were sever.ll reawos for this practice. O ne of them WlIS thai property tr.losfer occurred ideally at the death of a m :I.Il·S fa ther. alld it nude sense for a man to postpone marriage until he had control. if no t actual ownership, of his paternal estate. As a conseq uence. thert> WlIS often a large 82P in age between fathe r and son and be twee n husband :lIld wife.61 In the lalter si matio n a young wife. as in Xenophon's (Hroumuicu" would ideally be under th e tutelage of her husband, receiving b'l.lidance from him on house hold management while bearing his children. In addit io n, the earlier lIlarriab~ of a sister would secure a beneficial alliance for the woman's natal family, and in particular for a later- ma rrying brolher. Amo ng the political familics. for insunce, before Epilycus th e Philaid married. he and his fa ther g:l\'e Epilycus's sisters in marriage to some of the mOSI powerful poli ti cians of th e d.:Jy: the great Sfrluigos Gb uco n of Ce r.lrneis, the son of I'erides. alld Ihe father of Andocidl'S th e Or.ltor. These alliances brought the family out of political obscurity.62 In Lys ias 19 . 15-16. olle of the speaker's sisters marr ied her first cousin well before her brother's first marria~'('; the nurriab'"' consolidated the kin group an( r the cousin's political disg r.lcc (see aoo\·e. p. 24). Al though Andocidcs' siste r was m~rried by 415. Andocides remained unmarried at th e end of the ce ntury. During this tirll e he vied wi lh his mother's sister's son, Leagros II. for the hand of his unde's (mother's brot her's) d.:Jughter, an ryikliros. In fact, l.eagros himself had remained unm.ur ied some t\\.'C nly years after the nurriage of his own sister to Calli:u Ill . the wn of H ipponicus [I. one of the wealthiest Atheni.ans o f his d.:Jy alld a priesl of the CerycC$, a prominent priestly d an overseeing the rites in the Eleusinia n Mysterics (And. 1. 11 7 ff.).63 Furthermore, Leagros relinq uished his daim to the heircs~ o n behalf o f his brother- iulaw C al1i:u 111 . nuchinations which brought both lIIen illto direct conflict with Andocides. The riv:r.lry rt>ached Ihe political forum when Callias Ill . in an at.~ .•
cases. tholt ofHagnils II. it II urlCmarn whether he ,,"-e" Iud asme •. for rhe con.lenuml ...... l.ti.,....,ip 01" th~ ~.wIph;.u whom H.gll~ 11 .doptcd. ...., dj.c""'on .ba.T. duptcr 1. p. 8 . ... fo r RDman lOCiely...... R . Salk •• "'Men. Age at Muriag<' and II> Conl<'qucrKn in Ihe RDm~n family:' CP 82 (1987): 21 ~)4. 6. On this pc,m .... n rn Athens and ito con>cqucncn ...... 11. St"'''''. r.. rhm _J Soru IN Ar.r.n.s (Princeton. N.J.: .'Tineeton U"I''Cnily l'mo. 1993). 67- 70. '" I)m.... API; 296-97. 6J Om.... API; 30. 91. 254 11'.. 297. fo, Andocidn and hi! kin gmup.
pr
err
122
C Ii APTER
4
tem pt to ex tri C3te Andoddes (rom th e claimant pool. ch:ifl,>ed him with prof.,,ution ~t the end of the fifth century ~nd :ltccmpted to hav~ Andocidcs put to (bth for the- alleged c rime (And. 1. 110-21 ). T he Sll";Itcgy of the c:~rlier nurri~~ of sist.. rs w:u no t rcstrkted to these poli tic;ally powerful. fifth-cen rury f~nJ..ilics. It was noted e~rlier how ~ neighbor often b..came: ",n ~ffine-, oftell ;l.~ ~ n:sult of the earlier m.uri agc of l1 i$ sister. Although PJ.ato nt'vt'T nl3rriffi , his siste r's Illarr i~gc allowed him co ally with a landed neighbor. thereby co nsolidating tvwo lande
c.s [but, 4.\0, ~ 37-33 . ... l'I ,,"'ph~". "Kimlup n If.. tends to ,htnk 01.., ben"", .n ,,,dOvidlO,1 ,,"3t ...ocd "I"'n by 'ht prt>s«",ion ht """ MC ,.iIy ,gai,.u 'ht defend"'t. n ", ex-brothe ••in. l>.... On.-tor (I)"",. JOJ. >nd Ti", .....h...... ,,~th h;, bn:>OlI. L.a.: I: IOs--6. II. ~.) F"nh ..... ",""'. in Ath~ ... " ..... co'TSlr,i"ed 10 IIi"" tC1Iimony ""'". ,h.",.. of p" nilh"""" (Mul)oy,·dL law! 243). !f ~ "imn, dOd not " .jJh to '''..,.IT to the " 'riurN by.I>< 1U:ip'" (ibiJ .. 2-43). h~ ,,,ulJ uk.: ... o.>tb dt..-bim' ns .he f - . ,,·hieh os H"mph"')" .dmits. cou ld ",.. ke hir" loot foolilh or possibly k...., hin. open .0 • eM'!;" of perj ... y: "Suna! Rd...i ....... 321 . For ",;,.,u Inul"ng lToou pcojuintiff" and ... ~te. s...: "ow A. Sca(""", "Witnm inj\: and Fohe WiUleSlillg: I'rov;lIg Ci"!"ml"p'OO Kin ""ntiry.n Fo""h-Cc",tu'Y Athcn..:· '" Allo... '; .. /*,,';'I' -4 C'·''''/~, cd. A. Oo.-gchold 1,1(\ A. (I1 ..!ti,,,on:::Joh,,. HopkillJ U"Nnoity I'rcos. 1 99~). 170-lI0.
1'."",,,,:'
"'If
wi,,,,,....
p
.Iu. '"
h''''
Sc.r"",
pr vem
HOL[NG
R ELAT [ ONS HI P S
12l
cial tra ns.actions with the daughte r's S('cond husband, Spudias, the quarrel be· IV.'een the familk"S may have been patched up. T he wealthy esute prompted the speaker in Lysias 32 to defen d the property of his wife's unmarried bro[heT$ against the alleged misappropriation of the ~"State by their maternal grandfather (1 fT., 20, 28). Trusl between brolhers·in·Jaw is clearly evident in LycuJt,'lls 1 w here Leocrates. who had a concubine but apparently no wife (17). married hu twO sistel"' rn Amynlas and Timochare$ of Acha rnac (ibid. , 21- 23). Afier the de~ feat of th e Athenians at Chaeronea, Leocra lt'"S went into S('lf·exile to Rhodes and the n to M ..gara (ibid .. 21). While in Megara he sold his ~"Si ate 10 one brotherin· \aw, Amyntas, who in turn sold lilt" sbves 10 Leocr.ltes· other brother· in·law. T imocharo (ibid .. 22- 23). Leocr.llcs seems to have ovmed the same slaves again on his relurn to Athens (ibid. , 30 fr.): he was asked 10 hand o\'er his slaves for in· terrog.ltion und er torture aboul his departure from Athens. Logic \\/Quld dkt:.ne that the slaves in question were those who helped him 10 pack his belongings into a boot and leave Athens secretly (ibid .• 17)---the \'ery slaves bought by his affincs. Therefore. the implication hefe is that Leocratcs' property .... 'as bought by his brothers-in·law for safekeeping during his sojourn.'" Finally, in Pseudo· DemQSlhenes 47 Theophemus us~"S his brother and a kedestis (in- law) to help him confiscate property 10 settle a debt (9 fr. ). Because Theophem us was not married (ibid .. 38), the ked~ris !\lay have been the husband of a sisler.1i8 Collusion is 3g:lin evident in other Or.ltiolU, although in them then: is no in· format io n as [0 whethe r a brother married after his sister. Onetor married his sister firsl to Til1locrales and ga\"e he r 3\\'ay w ith 3 dowry of one talent and tWl"nty minae. Onetor then instig:lled a dh'OTCe between till" two. and in coll usion with TimOCr.ltcs did not hand the dowry over 10 Aphobus. his sister's second husband (DelJl, 30.7 fT,). Rather, Aphobus secu~d. or hypothccate(i, his fum and a home in Oneto r's name for the dowry he had never been gi\'en. Dotal hypothecalion was the securing of property eq ual in value [0 the dowry; tht" property in ques· tion was secured should th e rerum of Ihe dowry o n th~' dissolution of the marriab"" be necessary. If the doul property itself w;as not returned, the hypothecated property was seil:ed by the woman's n:l.ul kin."') 8 0th moves. the absence of dotal 67 H umphreys, "K"..h lp," n~'8. f~cl. \h., l>«~u ... T ,,"od......... "n ... of l """r:u", h .... hen-IIl · t.w. adminw in (OUn !I... t h~ bought th~ .t.,..... !to,,, Lc-ocmn' orhcr ~ffin.:, ...",ynw,1I"'o<:h . ..... ".,.. dtlibc.,,,dy an:odung lcocn,n. 1·1...........,'. TimO<"Iu ..... could ",..,11 h...., b«n • ho."I~ ..... un .....: l Y""rgus .nticip>l'" (1.20) th .. ",m~ of th~ wn,,~ h~ ",-.11 nU upon .• mong [hem TUlIoclu...... .... ,U n'" k "'11""'" ,e«ify, Othe"""",,. , he 'e«"",,,,y of, ,.,.ni"lI. ...," ...... could b.-, "",,,,pOI,,ic") x t, ' witneSS', publle dect.r:uion of who.<- ,ide he ~ on: S. Todd. "The l'u,rc-c of E>-idcnce In "',h ... lU"" c;.,,,,u." In r,:"",... , Ess"}'l j~ A'/otrt...." Lnv, Pu/UItJ .uoJ Sou",~. r.o F;nley. SLC. 4-1-52; I·!armon. LIoot 1 :2 g~-86.
m<""',
pr
err
124
CHAPTER.
tra nsaction an d the hypothecation o f Ihe farm, were m:meU\'C'fS to save both thl' dotal and landed property whl'n Aphobus lost {he law'S uit broughl agairm him by Demosthcm."S and was threatened wi th confiscation (D em. 30.26, 31.1 -7). Nei ther was Onetors sister pass ive in th ese machinations: she and her brother rt'gistered a false' divorce with the arc hon so that Onetor could seize the hypotheuted farm when Aphobus fled Athens 10 csc:r.pe furth er prosecution (30.26 fr.), Demosth enes ac knowledged that both Onetor and his sister v..'Cre actively in\"Oh'ed in the machinations to gain control of his, Demosthenes', estate (31.1 1- 12), Other omtions reveal the cncl'O:lchment of a wife's brother on he r husband's estate, with. it seents, the testator's appl'OV3l. Diocles was said to have maintained his hold on eiron's estate by encouraging his sister, eiron's second wife, 10 stay in the house: of e iron even after he r sons by hi m had died. Furthermore, Diocles backed the claim o f eirons <Jdrlplrid{Jljj (brother's son) 10 C iron's esute against th e claim of the son of e iron 's daughter by a frrst marriage (Is. 8.3 ff., 36 ff,).7U T he complexities of brother-sisler Ii" and brother-in-law relations are clearly evident ill lsaeus 9. where Euthycratcs was killed by his brother. Thudippus. As he lay dying EUlhycr.lles charged his sister's husballd to keep T hudippuss descendants from his, EuthycTatcs' . estate (19-20). Astyphilus, Euthycrates' son, may have defied his fa ther's orders and adopted one of his paternal uncles deSCl'mb nts. The I'xecutor of Astyphilus's will was his mother's brother, who in turn conflicted with Astyphilus's uterinl' half-brother; Ihe latter had anticipated inheriting rutyphilus's I'SI~le (ibid .. I If., 18 ff.) ?' This is olle of the rare insunccs of a public disputl' bctv.'t'en nl'phew ~nd m~tt'rnal un clr. There are o ther instances of a brother-in-law's protecting a tcslator's will: in Lysias 13.2,41, where a ,","Oman was married to her first cousin, he r brother w itnessed her husband's will and W ... Km .... rp,.. n. n Wysc. I........, t76; lh.""phrry>, ,."... ;/y, 8.
pr
err
Copyrighted Material
S IB LI NG RELAT I O N S HI P S
125
won th e w hole estate' for himself afte'r a series of suits against (he ot her rebtives (ibid ., 25- 31). Olympiodurus'~ victory led his brothe r-in-law Call1stratus to berate hi m fo r abandoning his sister an d her da ughter and devoting h ~ extra \vealt h to his concubine (ibid., 53), thereby equa ti ng a qu ar rel between affi nes wi th the abandOlmJeIlt of a sister's needs. In othe r words. collusion broke down w hen th e two affincs beca me rivals for the same estate, as also happe ned when the sta tesman Alcibiades all egedly tried to assassinate his brother-m-law C allias to gain control of his property. T he sources for both the politicall y pro minent and the private families reveal. thcn, a clear tendency for trusti ng n:lationship5 between brothers-in-law. It is difficult to generalize the reasons for a breakdown of this trust, but certainly the fact that two affines were vying for the same estatt: or encroac hmg 011 each othl' r's property could preCipitate J feud. Co uld a marital alliance endure a feud betwcen affines? The sources are not \'cry infonnJtive?4 In Demosth enes 41 .3 fT. the ora~ cion docs lIot state why Polyeuctus quarreled with his w&' 's brother but only that til!."" quarrel resulted in a divorce henveen Polyeuctlls1i daughter and the bro ther-in-law, not bet\....een Polyeuctu s and his wi fe. On the other ha nd, in the case of Alci bl Jdct, hIS wife 's attempt to divorel' him on the gro unds of sexual pro miscuity was contemporaneous With his disput~ With her bro ther Callias (l An d. I 4.14, Plut. Air. 8.1-5). The obvious impilca tion of this trus t between brothers-in- law is the concern for the s i~te r 's wel fare and h~ r marriab'C, and more often than not her early marriage to " tru~ted ally. ThiS trust is reflected in yet another inheritance practice. that of adop tion.
ADOPT ION A thenian law stipula ted that if a mall had no helTS, his estate \\lOuld devolve UpOIl his brothers and their dt!S(l' ndants; in the absence of tht'Se the SJster and her descendan l~ had the right to inherit. 75 Therefore, in Isaeus 1.4-5 the testatOr 'was instructed by his father to leave the estat~ to the testator's sister and her d~endants. In ls.aeus 3 Pyrrhuss sister. through her son the spea ker, attempted to inherit his es t~t<· after the deat h of her other son Endius. w ho had heen adopt~d by f'yrrhus. T he move was co ntested by Pyrrhus's da ugh ter. who claimed to be legitimate, a clall11 denied by Pyrrhus's sister and he r son but defended by the daughter's mothe r"~ brother (8 ff.) and by th e brothers of f>yrrh us's mother (ib id .. 26, 7 1). In any case, the law permitted the hei rless man to ado pt who mever he wished JS hei r so that hIS "iko5 would no t be extinguished. 76 In most C3SL'S the adoptee ,. S<-~. S. IAxon. "Th~ M.rr1.ge AUI"1<"~ In lhe Rorn.n Ebte:")"'/m~1 c:f F~",ily H,,/o,), 10 (1985)' 370. for. l In Ro m." """,e,), ,uch CO"tll~1 W
Copyrighted Malerial
t 26
C H A P TIl R
4
wu adult 50 that the focus of adopti on was on the needs of th e adopter: 10 carry on his oikos and to provide him with fu ture heirs. n Ho ....-.:ver. as Loui!) Gernet pointed O UI in a study o ri ginally published in 1920. the nujom;- c ' ado ptions conce rned the man's adoptio n of deKclld;m ts throu gh th e fema!t: lin e-,711 either tha t o f the sistt'f or that of the Illother. Of thirty -one instances of adopti or:.79 {en cert::li nly imuh'c the adoption of a SOil o r descend:lllt o f the tcsc;::1.(':'(·s ,i,ter or his fl ther'$ siste r.so Sisters ~rt' under a great obligation to provide an adopte1.(or th ei r brother and wen' StH:rely criticized if they could not. or woul d nOl. do SO.'H [n one c a~. Phi[octem on. whose two brothers hld died, rdiC'd on hi" two marri ed sisters to ensurt' that his estate had an ado pted heir. One o f the sisters, IIle wife of Chal'l"\.'lS. had only one- daughte-f, but the o ther sister had olle of he r sons adoph'd into he-r brother's estate. In the meantime the wife of Chaerels and C haerc~ himself were entrusted with PhiloctemOll's will stipulating lhl' adopl ion (Is. 6.5-7). In another o ration. the speaker admits publicly that his w ife persuadl.'d him to have one of their SOI11 adopted into the estate of her two d<."";I.d brothers (Is. 11.49). In th(' same oration. the wife of the speaker's brother, in_ 5tead of having he r only SOli adopted illlo her brother's l"5tate. had one of he r daughters adopted (ibid .• 41 -42). These cases. it could be argued. simply revell the sistl'r's right to inh("rit he r brothers .:state after all her bmth("rs are d~d: in Is. 11.41-42 the spe~ker sta t<.""S that the adoption of the \'IOUl ~ n 's cbughter reinforced the W Olllllll'S ~bility to inhe rit h<.T brother's c:ilate ~Jld her huslnnd's ability to manage it-1I2 In o ther cues. however. indiv iduals ,\1\'1"\.' chosen w ho ~re nOl: T1
t . Il"bl""~i,,. A."",,,,,,, ,II W Ctm..".. Arfwtc.< (Cup""lU{;<"fl;: MUK"\I1n Tuoculallum I,.,..".. 1')93).
13.22. TIl< follOWing.'" i"" " ,cn in '...... ""h . n inf.", "toy Ito~ M~" >dopu-d: IJ. 5.6-7: 11.11 fr.• 41; IIx",.) 43.12, 58.31. mol I""I'I'~. [IXcn.l and I)...~n. A''F. 86. ,~ C.n-nn. ,),,,;, rl <Mill .1.1 ... '" OM ""'""""" (I'..;.: Shy. 1955). 121-19. cop. 12'J-} 1. ,.. G<-t" ...., lis! of .odopcio". (ibid .. 129) i. "OW .,,~....-dope.o", (A~. 1 I 7- 25); for (, .... of .h<w ...... ",Lo,;oll.b;" """"","I adoperd'u", .fw,y Ito,... ,,'" b<-n....dudetl in .t.., .~ dtsc:uto the csc.,~ of X"nth,ppw of En:h .. (nIOlOO'. fa .......) (APt; 172). s..:oh.> V. H u"'~" ~ Agn.o .. ~ KIII,h,p in A.h,-.,.." ~.•" d A ............ F...mily Pr.aMN:c;: h . 1..."lica"Ot"I> fur W..men:· '" ,..... , H>I;M ""J &tit,.,;" IIv A .......... MNi,,,",,,,,,,,,,, lliofid. ed. U. Hal ...... " .nd I). H ob..,,, (Sb"ffi"W: ShclT,<1d Acodemie l'rds. 19'))). 1~. 117- 111• .... IJ. 1. pH>'m: 3. 1 (oon of • ';"n); 5.6-7 (.he \On or g .... "'oon of • f.,het' ........; <0« 1)'~l"', APt; l4H6. 476-77): 6.4 fr. ('h~ "''' of • .."c.); 7.9 (01 ... adopioll ..... h.lf-.isl: ... ond . hen 00 ....1);: I t. ~ I (.he d.iU!;h.C' of" dw",', ,k><;"'.....".). I" h. 11. ~9 .bu'I'<, til<" ~,0t1 of" .....",uni 101' inro hn b",,""'·....... e "toy h ...... Men"", """">pI '0 block. ~bI< chin, from> ( ol1.>,naI '0 01 ... C>-
un
"'e (W. E.~ ... Ilr ~ H.,di.ou: ANAI""""" ,1fItnj"'II«Cut, M,..--ynr. ... ppI.~4 (1.<-;. dm: 0 ..11. 19"76).5H) . ~,
H un" •. "AgnatIC K,,,,.hip," t07
.
" son ... .kho.e ...0 .... he<"rty .In.nI,.-.,d. S= "'... , ~.:"n"y H ",".... "-'3lUCie K,n ... 'p.··\{)I).... lfI. "'ho . o:guco ,t.. " 'om",, "'";1.1 fplklhus '0 ...... bro
.h.a,
"'i'P"'"' fur "",h "
,~<"W.
pr vem
Copyrighted Material
S I BL I NG
RE LA T I O N SHIP S
127
a dikct li ne to inher it (Is. 7.9, fT. 4; [Dem .1 4.... 19, 46); In Pseu do- Dem~ thents 44.19, 46. Archiades adopted his Sisters da ughtcr"s son. whilr in h aeus 7.9 tht" testator chose his uterine half-sisler and th r n he r son as ado ptee-; in a ddiberate attempt to exclude all living lIlale agna tcs. in the latter case, the woman's namral father had aIded her half-brother Apollodorus in preve nt ing Apollodorus' .Ignates from em benling th e est3te (ibid., 6 tI). In gratitude. Apollodorus later used his wealth to recover his stepfather's mso lvent estate (ibid. , 9) . T herefore, the ado ption sohdified the lrust between th e two oikoi and (ollsolidated thei r we alth. Outside the t':'1\ (3st'5 of adoption through a SIster Of father's sister, there are two lllstann'S of the adoption of a wife's o r ex-wife 's brother into the estate of her husband (Is. 2.1 4; Delll. 4 1.J); in Olll' case (Is. 2. 14, 21) the ado ption thwarted the sucn'ssion ngh ts of the deceased's brother and the latt('r's so n. T hen:fore . in twelve ont of thirty-one instances of adoption (owr J third of the cases) brothersister tics playa domi nant role In the proviSIOn of heirs to the testator. On the othe r hand, in ti ve Instances OUt of the thirty-one we have a ma le agnate through the llld ic li ne adopted, or attempting to be adopted.8J In om' of thcse instances, Isaeus 10. Cyronidcs had Originally been adopted by his maternal grJndfat her. th at i~. out of his pat.:-m al rsta te. to which he should theref o re have had no claim (4.7 f.). T he l'stJte's insolve ncy, howeve r, aUowed him nOI only to m arry IllS father's brother's d:tught er, but also. with the help of his Wife's brothr r. to pmchasc the estate and reestablish it in his father's name. By posthumous adoption Cyronides introduced his natural sons as the estate's hell's (Ibid .. 6 If.). These ma_ neuvers \ven' challenged by the son of Cyro nldes' sister, who laid claim to th e eSI.1\,' as the son or an heiress (Ibid.. 4-5, 12 ff.).B4 ThIS is one of three instances in whIch a nephew openly opposed the K llons of his maternal unde. Su(h conflICts er uptcd whell th e testator did nOl adopt a dlrec l descend~ll t of his sister. Disputes betv-ecn broth er and sis"'r, or betwee n th eir descendants, migh t dt·velop J S a result of the dt'sire fo r more property or the wish to reestablish succession li nks wit h the origi nal pa ternal (>i~'os. In l$;jeus 5 Ihc sisters of Dicaeogenes 11 and their sons qu arreled with Dicaeogcm:s Irs adopted heir, D lcaeogenes II I. T he latter was not a di rect desce ndam of the sis_ ters. but rather the son or grandson of tht'" sister of Dlcaeogenes 1I"~ father. 8!> In oth':-T words. Dicaeogenes II's Jttach mem to the mari tal family of his father's SISter conAicted With thl' strong alfachment of hi.~ own sisters and their sons to the women's paternal estate. Eve n here, however, throughout the d ispute the spea ker. the son of one of Dicaeogenes J[ '~ sisters. W":1'1 careful not to lay th e blame at his uncI!.- 's feet, but ra ther at those of the adopted son \1 fr.). In
' .' Is. 6.36. ·H (!WO broth,." p""!l1."',ou,ly ",\opted "'to Ihelr f.lhn" <">1""; b. 10 6 (two broth,'" po.lhulllou.I)· uIoptcd mto .hclr p.,",nal g,~ndf.thcr:' <">,.(~) . and 1. \I.!. r"Or. "",.. ble " xlh ~xarn· r!e ...... 1<. 7 9 .mJ D,v, ... APT; ~5-47. m wh,ch The" rbul", u .doplro by Ih" son of T hr"YRlccko. Th" root< of ,he men', " .. n~. n..,y .uggest .gn.IK b n<>1 ,'nla'"
.. Wyse. 1~..." " 649-52. . .. D.v,e<.API ; HS . "7&-77
Copyrighted Malerial
128
C H APTE R
4
filially. th ere i5 tht un:ptionaJ cast of D iodes. who .......s a rival 10 his uterine half-sim:rs:H a cbjmam to their EuhtT's estate. Diodes' assertion that he had been adopted by his stepfather indicates that the latte r had no nanll'lli $Oil (Is. 8 .4H 1). T he adoption, however. was underhanded at best, illegal u worst, becaust' Diod .., as adoptee w:H required by bw w marry one of his Mcpf.lthe r·s heiresses; thL'st' WQ'UCll. howeve r. were Diodc:s' homomttrie sisten. and marriagt'1 ~ ~en uterine siblings were foroidd en. 1I6 Furtherm ore, beCOlU~ the 5Inen h;l
CONCLUSIONS
Our in\'<'Stig:ation of sibling relationships has shown an importan t side-dTect of th e agnatic bias in inheritance law: it ofien made male heirs ri""is 50 that men looked to kinsmen through female lilies as allies. T he complexities o f sibling reIa tiOllJhips resulted from struggles for the acq uisition of property and wc:alth. which led to alliances, realliances. and misalliances. In Athe-IIS. brother could oft.." coopel'llte publicly with broth .. r in political struggles or socul confl ich in which ;I third party threatened the property o f on .. brother or thc patern~1 esI~tc of S<"Ver.ai brother.;. Wh en the time came to inherit. however, succession laws and practic.- could oft~n pit brother against brother, or brot her ag:ainst brothe r's child. As brothers becaill .. riV3is. they Nrned their att ention to the wc:lfare of sisters. Urotherly eoneenlS o ften focused on whether or not the sister w:as dowe-fC'd adequate ly. l3C'C3uk the dowry "''liS aiw.ly5 considered the prope rty of tht:' WOlll;lU'S original (lilt,,$, and hold to rt'utrn with th e siste r 011 the terminatiOIl o f her lIl:lrrillgt', a broth~ r .nade surt' that his widowed or divorced sme-r wou ld R'turn to his hou!o/,' with an intact dowry. The care dt'VOted to th~ dowry and the contr.lc:ting of a suitable- marriage: for the siner \\It'nt hand in hand with a brother's concern for th e prestige of his original flllllily. which \Y;lJ rdnforced by ties with tnmworlhy allies. Ikcaus<: the 5Ister ideally had littk cbim to the palern~1 <'S late outside- the dowry. frequently she w;r,s not a riV31 to he r brother. ;l1ld as such she and her husband could work with he r brother in a trusting relationship for tht bene-fit of her C'state of origin or that of her brother. In o ther words. in her role as f..male: agnate. IhC' woman \Y;lJ const:mtly concerned about her o ri ginal "il..,.! and its property. Th~ interests wh ich focused away fTom th .. male .. Stt ,ne '\1X'1."",,,,' of "'''Croll''!!: .bu.ghf<'n. ch.pler ). """"". p. '18. w-p,... , _ 621 ; H.rmoll. 1.-11 1:22: 0 ....1<1. A/IF, )1). Thil illft1'prtUlion i. ro'I<"'Y W ,lui: of J. Kar"" .... '"'" E,..klnou (Ad'cII<: "' ,p. . 1912). 22 1 (.... h~'" Dioo;IM iI w .........:..)' coliN AndrokJ ... ). '" ~t.... i.o". J"""I 1:11- 12.
pr' vem
S I8L I NG
RIlL"T I ONS IlIP S
129
agnate are again evident in th e institution of adoption: a sister was socially prt:ssured into providing heirs for her decC'ase-d brother's estate, whi le brothers often sought adoptees through a sister's line, On the other hand, if a u'st'llor had not chosen his sister's ron as heir. ~uabbling could erupt between the siSler's ron alld Ihe adoplee. Hence. trUSt broke down when brolher and sister, o r more typically th e-ir descendants, beollle riv:als for Ihe original paternal esUI.. : COllllllon illlerests between broth .. r and siSler ""'ere liable 10 su rvive only ill Iheir gelleralion. No syslem was perfecl. npecially nOI for Ihe litigious families of Athetu. Iron ically, howC'\'er. a legal system thJI emp hasized the mal .. aClUall y promoted the role o f th .. wo m'lIl in th .. prn.crv:at io n of the paternal and/ or frate rnal .:slate: a sister and he r brother worked together to protect her dotal properl)'. or. in order to protect her broth .. rS est.. te. she could ally with him againSI another brother. It was the tiC' bt"tv.·C'en brother and sister that could prove essential in the lIlachinations o f the typic..1 affi uen t Athenian, who constantly strove 10 make o ther Athcnians less ""'ealthy Ihan hill\self. The same type of relations between siblings as ...."e have seen from the or:l.lions and historical sources may also be- found in fifth-celllury tra gedy. most notably in Antigone. In the play we see feuding brothers who haVC" actually killed each other, .. nd Ant igone's devotion to her dead broth er Polynekes is sUiking. She willingly dies for her chance to bury Polyncices properly and she willingly gin.""S up any chalice for nurriage and children. As noted by one scholar. the play sets up a conflict bc:t,"veell twO types of f~l]]ilies, the blood family and the family of llla rriage.88 Antigone's de\'Olioll to her brother reflects fifih -century att imdes and ....,ould not have seemed l·xc .... ssi\·e 10 the audit""nce of he r e relations among d\(, v:arious members of the fami ly: male kin wt""re at odds. while femalt"" kin \\"ere usua lly suppo rl ive of Illale kin . It ....,ould be inacCUl":lte. however, to lea'·e the discu$Sion o f the oikM wi lh the nuclear family. For this ruardly gives any idt""a of th e com plexity of the oikos, despite the insistenel.' of th e an cient sources th~t l~ws defined that unit in ternu of the nuclea r famil y. We now mrn 10 an examination of how the boundaries of the (tik(ts incl uded both kinsmen outside of Ihe nuclear family .. nd nonk insmt""lI. among whom could be incl uded the kind of individual legally disqualified from inheriunce righ ts . .. M . N~u~rg. " How Like • Wonun : An"gun~·. InconsIStency:' CQ 40 (I9'JO): 6tJ,..(,1 .
pr
err
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ C H AP T E R
5 _ _ _ _ _ _ __
What Was an O ikas?
IN THE OPENING ~m;arks 10 his wo rk entitl ed the O«OII""lil1l5, Xenopho n h~s Socntes the philosopher exchange- views with Critoboulus. an Athenian ci tizen and fellow denWSllun, I o n the lIikClj. During the con\1t'l'Sltion, Socrates pos.es the qu~tion " Wh at do we mean by '(liktls'?" b it th e same- th ing as th e "ikia, th e physk:l.l building, the hOll$<:', or doe-s it include: :;t,llthc: property one ~ outside the oiki(l? In the coune of amwe ri ng Ihest' questions, Socra tes and C rilOboll!llS 19ree that a man's fJikos is thc: same as a Imn 's pro~rry. evt:n if so me o f that proP<'rty \i C'$ outside the ci ty in w hic h the man residN. Everything a ma n possesses is his oikM; furth ermore. by "properry" is m eant all those items u$eful to him in increasing his w ealth (Xcn. 0«. 1.5-11). Once th ese ddin ilions hllVl: b«n eslab!ish«l, it becom es qui ckly app;arent that the ideal form o f property is Iand.;I source of wraith often assoeiated in the d istOUT$<: with wa r (5. 12- 14. 6.7. 11.1 2- 17). Th ~ definitions an'" givel1 a living eXOITllpk as Socrates relateS his story of Isc homachus. a fine and noble mall (kll/os 1,,"911111<"). wh~ wealth and I.'lwiable reputation an' ba5C"d upon his successful 1l13llagement of his propeny. bo th th C" produce o f the fields alld th e po~ions withill his "ikia. his hOllse (6. 13- 14. 7.15 ff.). Within thr Iscoomachuss wifl:'. as the mother of th eir future ch ildn:"n. meticulously supe rvises the sto r.J.ge of the produce from the fields. keeping enough fo r a yeu and watching tha t th e food is consumed w ith caTe. She is also in charge o f storing in an orderly fashio n linens. blanketS, v.1:"apons, and utensils, and she supervises and teach es th e suves at the loom. pounds th.. gr.J.in to IlJ.aR bfl:'ad, tends to the sid : sl n~, sends th.. field 5eTY.lnts outside, 3nd segreg:.nc:s 111:111.' sbves frolll fCTIl31c si:.!.vc:s [1.21 - 9 . 11). In her ....."Ork . thc w ife chooses a ("'Il ia, J slave housekeeper. 10 help hl'r 5UpCIVIse, and rewards suc h loyal service with food and ~'O(){\s from the household (9. 11- 13). Isc homadlUs's dut k-s arc- rclegated to th e o utdoon (7. 22): hr meticulously tends to his crops and trees ( 11 . 15 tt). He assigns slave ste ...·..ards to k~p the field slavt'"S in line and to see tha t the fields lire well t .. nded (12.2 fr.).2 As J rewJrd for
"./riG.
guoot1. 1~'· Cirio:no "".I SLwr (I.omlo'" Vcno, 19S9). 75-76 . who downplay$ 'he rule o f W." lobor in .~ic"h ..",. ad"",. lII. 1 ,I\<x p>-1Ug<" ca" n:fer 10 > st."" boi.htf. >hhough ' ~ ber" >.01>"" (49). Hr, poi", tho. ItO!,JI bo,li/& or ",',",-" in !fl'...."..1 ........ ob ...... <:uI.....,. be thr Iixu! of .h.. ,,"dy.. F<>r a """"n< di... I
O~ .. ir.I.
AI'Ii 336-37.
r.."
~
pr' vem
WHAT
WAS AN
0IKO$ 1
II I
th eir s,e rvice. the stt"'.\-'2rds will recei ve a share of th~ produce. In the meant ime. Isc ho machus exerdses for war with his ho rse (11 . 12- 18). and then condu cts business in town where his ho use is situated ~t so me dislance from Ihc fields (1 1.1 8).3 In Xenophon's account. th erefo re, th e oilros is viewed :u ~ un it o f production . ~ unit of consumpti on and as 3 unit of reproduct ion. 10 lise the social scie ntist's terms, and is based on bndcd we~lth . An integral part o f the o;kos is the nucl ear f~mily-husband . wife, ~nd (intend ed) children (7. 21 )---a nd the m~riul union forming this family was carefull y arr.I.I1 /,,'ed betwee n th e husband and his yo ung wife's parents, both side$ having made certain that this was the oot possible cho it:(" (7. 11) . To w hat extent, however, is Xenophon 's ideal refl ec.tcd in othl'r so urces o n the Athenia n o;kos? Several aspects of his acc oun t sho uld alert us to ~ hidden side o f the oikos. First and fo remos t, Xenophon admits thlt ind ividuals o utsi de the family proper have so nl<" influence in the oikos and on its wealth, n~ mely th e socalled "bad fri end" ( 1.20), the Irera;ra or prostitut e ( 1.13) . and th e trusted sb ve (9.11- 13, 12.3-\ 3.9). Second. he brieRy ackn owl edges the existence o f 1I0nb nded occupations such as builder and smith (6.13- 14). Third, he s.ees as integral to th e activit ies of the gentleman farm er th e aspect o f Wolf and the necessity to {r:l.in for the mo re than likely eveTII o f war: in facl. war c) n increase th e wealth of an oik()s (5.1 3- 15). But what o ne must ask o f Xenophon. is how war or business ventu res, both of w hic h involved tr:l.vel. aff« ted the makeup o f ) n ()jil()s. Further, how wo uld the scatt erin g of bndcd hold ings. frequentl y o utside of A t ti c~ proper. affect th e nukeup o f the ()jil()s alld its decisions? I)olh th ese qU C$t.ions serve: to cast so me suspicion 0 11 X Cllophon 's unswe rving equatio n of th e h ou~ hold with the nu clear f.~l1lily u n it . ~ T. W. c .n."'. /WI< ~~J S.m';,u1 .~ A .........' C........, (Stanford. Calif.: S,anford Un"..... ity '''"'' 199 1), 3(1-]]. w ho argu .. tha, oIa"e ......Unc~ migh, h~".. bc-~" ""Iu •...-d for u.., co,,,mon urrne' during !",riod< of p"u labor. l'om~roy. .\".....,.10..... 6 5. ]16. ...... "'.. ,he ho .....1lcword ott w-...... J S<-t L. Fo:tIuIl . " ' ·!ou..,hoId ec",k, .nd I'ropcrty in CI • .." .! .... ,h~tI>:· C Q ]9 (1989): 29-31 . fo • • di$Cu ..ion of ailttn f'1"OPC.ty in Xc""poon·. emph,,,z,"g ,he ,"'egnu"" g<:nde. lnrncwork of ,hc prm,e world of,he hou..,hold. S<-t >40 I'. c..rtle~. " "10<- C .....1u (O"ford: Oxford Um..,nity Vrat.. 1993), 86-87. O n ' he .ru.:ln<"1; of rhe fields fu:"n rhe ho"", or ..,trlen'em. I « R . 0._ borne. D..,w: 11rt ~ ofct.wit~1 A "i~" (Cambri~ : C.mb<. Uni""",ty ,....... 1985). 16-19. • The followmg d,sc" ....,'" In rtus ch.p er and ,h~ ".,,,, 1u\"C "",,en ",flu~nccd by the ....ays '" R . McC N elting. R . R . W ilk . • nd E. Arn.ould . ..m.. I/"•• C""'p".,lIlw ""d 1·lisrMlldl Slwdl.. Q{ ~ Dor.oarit C "",p (lkrkeley. Calif.: Um"..";ty o f C ..hfo. nia I· ...... 1984). Although the nli,o,", (",i, fr.) . ", critical of th"", ios on th~ ~fe eyc1~ ",linl upon in ,he follow",!! disc,,»;on . ,hey do admIt 'm, conu.-ns .bou, n:pn:rd,,",IIon. st ... ,'Wt:I.•"d the .... ,~"' ..... o" of property could ;"fluence ,he " ",""- up of " " ILe hou..,hoIds. Th"Ir ""1$("",,, th" 'he """k,,,,,,,,,,, cnrnot be ignored in di<cu",ons of ,h~ bou""hold wtU be . n obv\"", ,nfluenee on rh~
,mt
,"'.t....,.
do",,,,,,,
,,""'J.: ,m, .",
"121"''''''
pr
err
112
C H A PT E R 5
THE USE O F THE TERM O IKOS
Although th("re W:lS no ancie nt cqui\l;l!ent fo r the modern phr:l.se "nucle~ T falllily:'s the \\'Ord l'I ikos in sources outside Xenophon :lgrees closely widl his definition of the nucle:lT f~mily u nit :;md its property. T he 1ll000t obvious instan ce is Aristode in his Polj/i(s. who assumes that th e forn1.:ltion of th e oikl'ls is based upon the principle of reproduction and therefore must consist of pare nts and children. T his natural desire for children leads 10 partnership ~mong severnl ClikCli, a pann("TShip which th en fo rms the polis. In fact. the polis as a who le is l1atu r:l.lIy prior 10 its paru. the 0111<>;. For th is reason, knowledb't' pertaining to household l11anagellll·m. which includes llIastcr-sb\'e rebtionships. nuri tal rebtionships. :lnd pllrental ru le. is the most e1e\l;lted type of knowledge (1',,1. 1251;125 ff.). Concomiumly. the use of Ihc te rm oikos in other sources can cent("r on the Athenian interest in bequeathing property downward to direct heirs. Thus in lsaeus. for exam ple. the (likos clln be the !Crill used for both "house:' the physical reside nce. and/or property attached to it. In lsaeus 3.8 the speaker complains that his opponent's sister did not bring a dowry into Pyrrhus's oikos-;! threetalent <.Jik"s-;!nd when she left that oik<.1S, she too k no dowry wit h her (see :11$0 3.78). Clearly this passage shows how all three aspects of the term "ikos, fll mily, property. :lnd house, c~n overlap; a reading of the o r.ltions wiu reveal countl ess instances of such ovcrbpping. 6 Outside of thc or:l.tions, oikos c:ln also me:ln a brge hou~ uS"d :u a ",eetillg place for deme5mcn Or phr.ltry membe ... 7 In :I similar way the term oikia, literally hou~, (;In also be extended to mean famil y. houS<."hold. and property.!:! For instance. Andocidcs (1.1 47) descr ibed his oikia as th e oldest and most courleous to someone in need. Clearly the sense here of oikia is lincage or descent group. Although schob rs h3ve 31\\OlYS been :I\\OlTe thu oikos WlIS 3 complex terlll. meaning more th~n "family," historical inte rpret ~tions lIa\·e. ncvertheless. ill practice red uced Ihe oikCls to the nucie3r fami ly. Indeed. Xeno phon's concept of the Clikos has dominated legal Jnd sociohistoriul rese:lrch throughout this century. A few quot:ltions from \Olr io us scho lllTS. rega rdl ess of mcthodologiClii ~pproac h . will suffice to demonstrate the tradi tional equatioll, In 1920. thC' French scho br s Sc~, fur ;n.ur>(:<". M . I . Fmley. 'n..- A ........ I &01"'''r (lkrkd"mkn, on X~n(>phc:>n '. ide.,] •• Id III .: ... lIu, ,he word ejtta.. .,..,sn.. Uy m~.,"ns • pe_m ......... hold. was J '" A,h~nU" uw,~ CQ 39 (1989): 10, for. bnef dJ~Ion of ,he CcckiClS. cr. S. I). u mbert. '/. P/t",rrjn
..............,t.;,
,..,ht.
pr'
err
W H AT WAS AN
O I KOS l
1J3
Louis Ge: rn e:t drtbrt'd: "en tom Ath c-ni e:n mile: C't ldu!te:. du vivant mcme: dt' son pere, reprisente: un olK~ C'n pui5S.lncC' .... A b notion co ncrete et comme: soJidific:C' de II ma ison qui ne meurt pas. s'oppose ridee des IlIlisons qu i nl issc m C't qui ~omnlt"ncC'nt ~ ChlqUe: b":n(·r,ilion:·9 According to Hans J ulius Wolff. writing in 1944, "The: OlKOl , i, e:. , th C' org:Uliud flmily uuits, wC're the b~sic groups whic h in thei r touliry made up th!;" 1t6A\~.. , :'10 And 19ain: "in the democntic en the ollCo~ i ..... thc "little family" of th .. individu:u cirizc:n, took the pllce of th e cbn.'" 1 1 More rrcen dy, Sanh Pomcroy Sllted: " Th.. princi pal duty o f citizen women toward the polis wu the: product io n of legitimate hein to the oiktll', or flmilics. whose 199rrg:ltC comp rised th e citizenry.... In C'ffC'ct the interest of the state coincided with the interest of th .. lamily in seeing thlt individu:u families did no t dit' om .... [n famili" in w hi ch a son "'";IS !;ac king, the daughten We're responsible for po!'rpe tUlring the ""/./05,'"1:1. In 1978 Mac Dow. ell. in his study of Ath enian law, entitled his sixth chaplcr: "T he' Family: Co n· trol of D ependents and o f .m 'Oikos:"1J In her seri" of ess:.lYS published in 1978 and \983, S. C. Humphreyi' explicitly equned jli/./M with house ho ld . and household in turn with the nudear family. In th .. t"arli t" r book. undt"r l subsection e:n· titled " H ousehold," Humphreyi writes that til.· nuclur f~mi ly was the: Ilornul residential unit ~s C'ariy ~ Homer. In cl~ssic;al Athens. " The eik M . .. was a closed space, afChitrtturally functional rather than ornal11ental. Its relationships weI\' hi· erarchic: h usband· wifC'. parent-
• c."."C1. Druil 'I w&fJ d.bu /Q '0 H . J. Wolff. " M~rr ~ l.aw
''"'''.
c..m . ,.n,.,.v (P....., Si"')'. 1955). 149. ."d " ,,,ily Orgo"i..';on ill ...,,
" Ibid .• 90. n S. ,""",,,,my; Cd i WF3, II ~ IH.01, _J.s:LwJ (New York : Schockc ... 1975).60-6\. U U M . M"",po...,n. no. t - ... Uwit.d A,,,,,", (hlw:><. N .V.: c.,.. .. cU U"i>=o.iry ........
t978).
~ 1 08.
,. s.. C. Humph"')". 'n..- r....,;/)t 11:-" """ /:N..r/o (Lolldo.., """"kdv ~nd Kqj:>" t>.uJ. 19lU), 2. IS It, K. Sin(\.lir./~ -.I1"'~'~ CJ.wk'" A,,.,,.. (C.."bridjj.:: C>mbridj(C U"h...._ my ....... 1988), 50. ,.. R...J ..... II h ..... I" A,w...:- Low...ul Lift (lon,!.),,: lU>utltdjr<. 19119), V .
"
m
13.
C H AP TE R
5
of this composite entity stood the kun!)!, the male master of thc: housc~ hold ... :'17 TllU~ Xenophon's d ... pictioll of the o;kclS still reigns sup reme:: it :.tC~ knowlc:dges that the: "iko$ indudc-s dcme.m beyond the house. but insists th'll these clements in Ihe end serve the needs of the nud ear family. Certainly Kholars are no t incorll'Ct in pointing out the rigidity of AthenIa n legal and social ideals pertaining 10 the dc:flllition :lnd makeup of the oikclS. Laws defined explicitly th e insi, for rightful membership in the oikos, th~t is. w ho could inherit its property and pass that \\It'l lth on 10 future heirs. At the basis of th.· oikos, :15 the law ddincd it. W3' marriage:. thc agreement b.:-t..'il::en two hO llse ~ hold heads that one m:m 's daughter W:.tS to bt- given to another man's $On. This agreelllc11l. or betrothal. w:Il; known :IS n rgyi and culminated in the act of ("on~ SUlllnl:!tion (e.g. [Dem.144.49: PI. Ug. 774e). 18 Along with the act of betrothal. rocial custom rt"<juired the: tr:tns;JClion of the dowry, and a wWding kast giv\'11 by the: groom for his phmlnn a5:a public adc:nowkdgnlent of the brid{'. Afier the binh of a child, the ten-ehold 1Ilt'lnbership quite diff('rently from the individuals liv~ I? Joi,u
A......... ';on
ctu.inl Tuc"""" 1'" I I ""~ ~ Adotou (c..mbr~: Combrodgt Un".... •
o.iw<1j"",1ttns, ...... 1 (Ox'-,,"": o..r.-,Idot, I'res<. 1968) • .J.-9; M, li",,,fbem. Sl"Jia ;,. Qrri en.. d)!f (l.ci: linO. 1968). 155 ft:; L. C~nct, 11v A~I""'" ,rW r{A~I C ........ =m.J. H.vnikon .nd 8. N"iD' (ll,ol.i~ more:}ohm H<>p kim UnMnl'Y 1'n:Io. 1981), 196: WoIff". "M ....... g<" .... w... 75 ft:;, Mad)owc:l!, I..... : 86-87; R.. &.Jq. l it-.. .-11. - ;" (],.,,jrM C......... (Ouptl Hi!t: Un;.....,my of North CaroIiI,. 1"-. 1990). 25:jusl. 11,-"", 45-50.71 - 7.1. Iv 0 " ,""~: ''CoIHu. III F 17 (I>t..oodem".) ......1 proby" con"'>Cnwy ~nd rd"cn:11«"S: H.m..,,,. t..nr~ 1:7-11: \..ombC"rt. I""""",, 18 1-8(•. On ,he dowry. $«. r.g., H. J. % Iff. ·· npOlt.~ RF: 23: 136; Finky. SI.G. 79: HarTUoII. l.- 1:48: M...:O"""CD. L>oil In-4lll. 11> TI>< whol<: quruion wb.-th .... cb;klr~n nom Iwo Alhrnjan IW"nb ,101 /Ornwly ,,;uried ""C'" co,lIidc-n:d (i. iwl$ co1i1d inb..,;1 II .. pbguc-d the 0:1".... clu!""'" 6. ""'<'< 22-23.
.,uI
P' 'tern
WI-I"T W"S "N OI K OS I
US
ing day to day w ithin a panicular ho use hold. Despite legal restrictions on owne-rship o f wc:.lilh, the- use of ,,"'Callh in a house hold could often mTrride such stricturcs.:Z l Golden. in his TrCe-1lI work on children and childhood. w:lrns that household bounda ries were Auid enough to include Loven o utside-TS. 22 Galla nt h:.ls emph:uized the co mplexity of house hold members hip--th;lI the nuclear famil y is actually see n rath er nrdy in o ur sources and that the eXlCllded family was a vital part of the- life cycle of Ihe ho usehold.v The present discussion will begin where Foxhall . Golden. and Gallant have left off. Through a detai led study of Ihe or:ations, and iIlustr:lth'(' examples from historical sources such :IS Ihe biogr:aphiC"S. a disc ussion of th e n:ltun' :lnd use of ,,"Talth in the ho usehold will ellable us to see how the model o f the nu cle::or fam ily docs not fit the com pleXity of Ath enian life. On the contr.uy, as family mem bers married and di ed. the family ;l,~ um ed a multipl icity of fo rms.
THE INFLUENCE OF O IKOS WEALTH ON O IKlA COMPOSITION
I begin with the physical unit. th e oikill. For clarity's s:.Ike. and because English words can obscure th e me-aning o f the- Greek, r1ikill in th e fo llowing disc ussio n will mean th e physical building. th e house. True, as \V;IS stated in the form er sectioll. Andocidcs referred to his descent group :u an r1ikia. but in th e same o ratio n. besides this one inStlllce. thc word oikir1 defined :l ho use. a place o f priv;lIe residence, including Andocides' own house (1. 11 , 17. 40-41 . 47, 48, 6 2. 124-25, 130). The quotation in 1.1 30 from a folk tale in whic h orkio means " housc" demonslratc"s that common usage e-quatL-d orkio with domesti c resid ence. The oralor Aeschin es defined th e oikio as a building where one rmlll lives; implied here is one man as head of one house ho ld (Acschi n. 1.12 4). But the passage aoo reveals that such a building's U $(' could change dependi ng on th e needs of the individuals who pu rchase (or rent) it. Thus. if o ne man pu rchases and dwel1s in a ho use it is referred to:.lS an oikio ; if several men live th ere, di viding il among themseln .'S . it is a s)"roikio.24 In Ihe same breath AC"Khines then disc usses I nglUthia, " worksho ps" or. less appropriately. "6ctories." Th L'SC r rglls/rria and the \ building whi ch n n house Ihem (oikrm) can ch:..nl,-e names :.IS well dependin g upon the occupati on of the man running th e es tablishment or depending upon how th e man uses th e premises. Thus. a shop can become a surgeon's office, then a bronzcs milh's workshop. then a laundry, Ihen a carP<'lII ers wo rksho p and finallya brothel. Th us, by th e w:ly he used mJny places (p<Jlla), Timarc hus, th e lar1, FoxIuIl. " HOUlCholJ;' 22~ . n M . GoI
G.lIant . RWt. 22 If. b4 For th~ dmn'uOI' of . )"'O'N. :t.J
"".
0«
W. K. \'lItrhn< . "The AII K Std.. , II ;' Hrspnut 25 (\956):
pr
em
I
1]6
C HA P TE R
J
get of AMoC"hin~' noto riously vitriolic atta cK, has made !lully establish mcnts into brothels (1.124). Aeschines' dose eq uation of oikia wi th commercial establishme nt is not idiosytlcratic--inscriptions dealing with lea.sed property show that shops in th e 1m" could ~ referred to as oikiai.Z5 Architectu rall y, th<" oikill as a domc::stic unit \v.I.i 1 d osed sp;!ce: the su mhrd architccmr:ll d esi!,.'!} for borh modcl""Jte-siz('() and la~ ho uSC'1 was a group of rooms built around a central courty;utl. In the city, due to the irregular plan of the !otreet!, roo ms in ho u5t'll tended to be irrcgubr in shape, and a narrow corridor off the stree t into th e cou rty.ml served as the elltr.l.llce. 2tI Often. ill the houses ill southwest Athcns then: were worluhops with. at times. their own separ:lte enrnlllcc:s. 2 7 Nearthe Agora, MUSt'S with ....,orbhops.....-..:re cspe<:ially irn-gular in design, adapting to the comours of stre<'ts leading into it.2H In the Peiraeus, there are remains of la~ house cOlllpkxcs which ~re spacious and luxuri ous, but these existed dose by many smaller multiple dwdlin gs.2'.I In the rural areas, an ..,i/,ria could be a building tha t .....as not primarily resident i:1l but served agricultura l needs and only St.'Concia rily provided lempo=-y rnidcnce for agricultural laborers and perhaps the landowner himseJ f. Y1 As for houses per se. th ey could be: more regular in plan th an Iheir urban coulllerp~ rts, wilh the central counyard constituting as much a$ one-third of Ih t" tOl31 :m :lI. T ht"rc: might be: an ex ternal courty3rd liS well for penning livestOCK. o r a 1O"''Cr for storing produ~ in o r near th e counyard. J1 Many of Ihese laq,oe r houses may wt;:1I have been tht" living qua n e" for a single family, confo rming therefore to Xenophon's ideal o f the family unit co ntained wilhin tnc: self-sufficient Jall(kd "i~"". Olh<"r so un:es, hown" r. tell a differenl story. Fim and foremost, not: all oilmi (pmpcny an d residence) of weallhy familcs ",,,n: COIllIXHed of a single residence: the cikos as propeny couk! consist of sev"" M. II. W.llboonk ... t..: . .... o(S.o<~ l'Iope . ' .... ,n Auia." ibid .. 52 (1~3J: 223. :lit> G . MOflPll. "Ellphik"," Hou;c: Lysi.u , .- TAPA 112 (1982): 122-23. v I!., . S. Yo... J.i!. "An [ndlffiTi.d Di>n-kI of And(!It ...... b~" •.- Hnpr,.;" 20 (1951), 135-288.... Po 187- 267. II 1'0< • p>d """TV.""" of '0.0.'" .,,",, coonlT)' donw:sr;': =hi,«,u~. >eo J. E. Jon.,., ''Town .,>d Coun'T)' H OI' .... of A"i~. in a... ••icil Tim ...:' in ·1.,."i"",...J rlw ,""un.,.. ill .1 ..."-'< ""J O4loieJ·li ...... M;~.. C__~ t (1975): 68-71 '-"" Ih~ Agon ' - ' - 7t If. r." tI><" hoI''"'' i .. Alh""" ~ I!., . C.rb,>d. 1M l'i<.>tus (liNea. N.Y.: eo,.""n Uni1.Tni'Y , ....... 1987). 142--43 . ... I~ . Oobor.... "lIuildi,'I>' 11><1 I~e in 0",.,-,1 ..... Hdl....... ioc Grff(~.- A.8SA 80 (I~5): In-V. ). For Ih~ nor.>! ~...., rOT il"u..€e. j. E. }t<"l>o .. ....J ,/0, U... «I. S. Knl. (Ca.... bri~: Ca",bri~ Unn,mty I'ma. 19\10}. 92- 113.
>out"""'"
"SpiKo'.
pro vem
WIIAT WAll
AN
O /K OSI
11 7
enl (likim. A suJ"V'C)' of thc propcnied f:oIIuilies in D avies's listing will suffi(:c 10 dtmonstnte that dite families otten wmt"d SC"\Tnl houses: the Bousclid Stnto. dcs owned two. one at M elile and o ne at Elemis. both of wh ich were rrmcd out-prrsullubly after Stnlodcs' death. but th e Greek is nOI explicil (b. 11.H 45). One should note here Ihlt a fngme!l1 of Lysias (1.3-4 ITh» stalC5 Ihat Alh c nians could lease hou~ tht)' owned and rrnl the house in which thL")' lived.'l Demon of I'aeania nuy have hld l sYIIl)i/.lilllS ....'ell 3S:ln "i/.li" with a giIorden; the b Ut'1 wt're, h(M~r. donatt'd to Ihe cult of Asclcp ius w that D emon could become iUi priest . Aphobu.'l hld ;I Iy",,;/.I;II ;IS well ;tS a fanl1 w ith ;I house. Dkac-ogenes II owned a city house , a J}'I'di/.licine u! and one in Mdite. C iron owned a fanl1 011 Ph l ~':l and .......-0 houses in the: ci ty. on.. of which WlIS rentt"d OUI . Pasio the banker owned .......'0 sy"mJdai, o ll e of which illcludt"d his b.lnk pre:m.iSd. The ontor I-I yperides owned a lownhouse in Alilt'lH. a ho use in th e f\oineus, and a house an d eslate at Elemis. Euclemon had th~ residenCe! two in the city. o ne of whic h \v.I.$ rellle:d out. :.md a rrnt .:-d lodgillg in the Pcil"ll('us. 3J Funhc:rmon::. many landed fam iliet OWlll-d scattered holdulgs throughout AItica and ~n ouaide: of il. AcunaI)' overvie:w of Ih.:- fam il ies in Davia's listing will suffice to dc;"llionsinle this point. AmOllg Ihe fifth-century politici:'IIl$. Themistodes hdd blld in his own d .:-IlI .... property in the Pt.-ir:leus. a house in Mditt:. property in Phlya., and pcrha]l"l prop ... rty in Magnesia in Asia MinOr-:ll Ieas-!. h.. re<ei\'~d large a mou nts of rn..:nuc: from Ih ... btle r. Cim o n pos~d fields in Lacilwe. aud had m in ing im<'"feSu in T hnce and perh.lp! property in th ... Che:non<'"S<'". Akibixles ownro property in Scamooniwc: and En::hia in Attica as well as three giIorriwm in Thrace and the He llespont. A relative of Alcibiades. Alcimado of PhegoU1. hdd land at Oropn,b"<4.·..,, C>n.bn.¥"" U"'~l}' 1- .
199t). 1- 1 on th .. 6.gmenl.
·'n.
For I.... houoa of tile " .. n diocl.tOSCd. """ I) ... Apt.: 87-63 (Stnloclt$): 117- 111 (Onno,,' DlillOMhotnn olJtKedIy .......! lhat I.... . TU
.,....Ifw w.., ..
119-20 (Aph.obut.): 1+6 (1)>= .... <><3 II): 201 (I.....,.. ... ): 228 (H.p""'): 200 (Con... III): J13- U (Ciron): 4J t (P.. oon): 518 (.nd 11'1"'.1 ,tID< IWk. Alhen. t3.S9Or-d) (HYP""~): 5(.2 (E1K'CIl,,,U). One Ihould .add th.u l)e,,-,hrneo 'PP<'MS 10 ...."" b..d No" hoi, ..... "u.c• •n. """" un ........ in ,Ik 1'einnIo. .nd I.... .om. 41 .H. . ... whi<-h '-'(1)_ ( ",.\ too...... II ""1Ud ......nd hn int..n"'1JI ~Im... lwr '" m.-" hw.band.: huwn.
"'-
138
C H AP TE R
S
haW' owned ;I. houS(" ill the Peiueus and land in Lcsbos:as well. Aeschinc:s owllcd a house at Collyt\l5, l~nd al Hala e, and land in Boeotia and M acedonia. probably gifts to him from Philip, who alS<) re\V'~rded i)emad <:$ w ith land in Boeoti;l..3~ Although it is impouible to chronicle the number of times Athe ni$ we:.llth, as will be diS(';Ussed more fuUy in the next chapter. Th e second point to be stre5St:d here i.s th:.lI,:U Dsson poimed OUl . 38 although landed wealth was the ideal. in many cases wealth was supplemented, if not supplanted by. nonbndt'd wC:.llth. Again a CUf50ry n";l.ding o f Davies wi!! suR·lce. In the tifth ce ntury, Themistocles, <:lM); 3 10-1 1 (ennon: 1)"";0" ~n~",u"'Ju" how nw(h pr0perty. ,f .ny. •h.. family """11"",, ill Ih~ C hc""",.,...): 20--21 ("Jcilmda;...., .1.0 W. Elm. Ak''''' , 'oJ [WIId,,11 ."d Now York: R,,~dedgr. 1<JtIiI1. !l3); t 7 ("kibladn of Pl...goln); '" 19 (Oioni»); 0 (Nicido): 201. !iOK-9 (N;':orh~"",•• r>J Co,"'n); 541 ("""'hi.....); 100 (''''"udM): see.1oo L CIMO" , ''Th~ A,h ....;,,, Upt><'r eta.. ~,Mi NO'"" Conlt'dy." TAPA 106 ( 1916): .u-J4. 10 Ih .... t odd An.iocido' lind""" .... ~,O' in Cypru< (And. IA): C . Hcrrrun . Rim..1iMJ FrimJJJoip"",1 1M c.m. Gi" (C.mbn | 