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 | 