I'he Exposure of Infants in Ancient Greece from Homeric to Christian Times.

A thesis submitted to McG-ill University- according to the requirements for the Degreee of Master of Arts

Mary Jean Grant. Contents*

Introduction page 1. Homeric Times 3 From Homer to the Fifth Century. 16 The Classical Period 22 From the Fourth Century to Christian Times 39 Fate of the Exposed Child 53 System of Exposure at Sparta 59 Exposure Amongst Slaves 65 Legal References 70 Connection Between Exposure and Infanticide for Religious Motives 74 Terminology 82 Conclusion 86 Bibliography The Exposure of Infants in Ancient Greece from Homeric to Christian Times*

INTRODUCTION.

After the passing of centuries, it is often difficult, even well-nigh impossible, to come to a definite decision with regard to certain phases of everyday life amongst the ordinary folk: of ancient peoples, if archaeological remains are not very helpful and literary references few and far between* Thus it follows that the question as to the wide-spread prevalence of many customs is one which we are often content to settle by an occasional misinterpreted statement, or at least by two or three chance references which, perhaps, were the exception rather than the established rule* Take for instance the practice of human sacrifice amongst Greeks and Romans. Basing their conclusion on a few outstanding cases, many people claim that it was a custom fairly frequently practised. Yet without careful consideration and without further light upon the subject from new discoveries, the matter is a delicate one to handle* -2-

A similar problem is the task of arriving at a correct conclusion with regard to the actual extent of the practice by the Greeks of exposing new-born infants to die, since there is the drawback of a limited amount of material and the con­ sequent danger of over-estimating what is at our disposal. And yet in both these cases, the correct inference from what fragmentary evidence we do possess, is of vital importance to our interpretation of the characters of the people in question.

The subject of exposure has not as a matter of fact been fully dealt with by many persons* But amongst historians the brief references devoted to this topic differ widely* There are some who hold up their hands in holy horror at the very thought of this custom prevailing amongst so highly cultured and sensitive a people as the Greeks, and explain away such references as have come to their notice as isolated and unusual instances, criticising those who accept its wide­ spread practice as guilty of misinterpreting or stressing too strongly occasional remarks in this connection. Opposed to these are some who, from a Christian view-point, regard the Greeks as being quite barbarous enough to practise this custom extensively, and brand them as outcasts and pagans* It is my purpose herein to put forward the opinions at which I have arrived from such diverse suggestions; to substantiate these by examining various references to the subject of exposure now extant, and to consider such conditions as may have had a bearing upon its existence or on the other -3- hand, its non-existence. To evade the difficulty of over- stressing certain statements, I shall endeavour to produce as considerable a number as possible* I have purposely avoided the use of the word "infanticide", for I think that with the exception of abortion, which may or may not be included under that heading according to one's personal opinion, exposure was the only form of infanticide amongst the Greeks practiced to any extent and therefore a more appropriate title to this con­ sideration than "Infanticide"* The parents of the child did not resort to more swift or effective measures to bring about its death and thus by refraining from actual force reveal their unwillingness to stain their hands by spilling kindred blood* And it is my opinion that the absence of other forms of infanticide is the key-note to the explanation of the majority of cases of exposure as the unwilling, yet unavoidable submission to an inevitable necessity.

Homeric Times* Further back than the period dealt with in the Homeric poems, it would be impossible for us to go in an in­ vestigation of this custom, for we would have practically no sources of information, no material from which to draw. Thus we may consider this period, so vividly depicted for us in the famous poems, as a natural starting point* Let us then reflect a moment upon the nature and condition of the land into which the new-born Greek was thrust. -4-

The .peninsula, jutting out into the sea was a bleak, rocky and mountainous country. Small patches of arable land nestled in valleys completely cut off from each other; while short, swift-flowing streams made river transportation impossible. The soil was by no means virgin but was still cultivated with difficulty by an agricultural people. Inroads of Minoans from the south to the Peloponnese, and of various types of strangers who had, and were still coming in continuous, inundating waves, and who spread to various parts of Greece, swelled the popu­ lation and gave rise to the common belief amongst Greeks of later days, that before the Trojan War "the world was too full of people." And thus it was in their opinion that the remedy for this was sent by the gods, in the form of a war, which in­ volved considerable numbers of Greeks, and lasted long enough to lay low a goodly number—not quite so effective a method as the mighty flood of by-gone days recounted in many literatures, including the Greek, which cleansed the earth of the wicked. However that may be, the scene in which the Homeric poems were laid is one in v^hich there was a population beginning to feel crowded within the bounds of its country. Yet no remedies on the part of mortals were as yet necessary, since the obliging gods, foreseeing all needs brought about the Trojan War, at a critical time, when some good also could arise from its many evils. -5-

Greece at that time enjoyed a typical Mediterranean climate. In summer, day after day the fields were scorched by the blazing sun, while no rain clouds darkened the sky. Succeed­ ing the hot summer,came the damp, cool days of winter. Even today with all the improvements of modern civilization this climate is not one in which young children flourish. An added evil to the Homeric Greeks was the unreliable water supply, an ever important feature. In modern Greece only one child out of three survives to its first birthday. How much less likely to survive was the nurseling in these far-off days amidst the con­ ditions of living which existed nearly three thousand years ago? Thus in spite of the numerous deaths of infants at birth and shortly after, the Greek world at the time of the Trojan War was beginning to be overcrowded. The over-population was of course due to the invading strangers, not to the large families of the previous inhabitants. The main point is that there was no need for exposure until their inroads began and soon after their advent, the Trojan War was effective in doing away with surplus population.

As soon as mention is made of the customs in Homeric times, immediately arise the questions—"Was Homer (or whoever the author may be) representing his own time, or was he pictur­ ing a preceding era? Does he give us a true representation of whatever time he describes or is it not rather a romantic picture, conceived in the poet's mind?" The answer to the first question does not make a great deal of difference to our -6- coneideration, since we cannot possibly limit our statements to periods between set dates. As for the answer to the second one, this is not the place to enter a lengthy discussion upon the possibilities of either side. Suffice it to say that though there may be exaggerations or improvements here and there in the story, yet in the main, it is bound to be a reflection of the poet's own time. Now that the background is settled, let us consider the poems themselves. In all the works of Homer, there is no single instance of the exposure of a child, girl or boy. The nearest approach to anything of this sort, takes place amongst the gods. Hephaestus mentions his being hurled from heaven by his mother when he was born, lame and weak, saying "Verily, then, a dread and honoured goddess is within my halls, even she that saved me when pain was come upon me after I had fallen afar, through the will of my shameless mother, that was fain to hide me away ( K^V^I) by reason of my lameness. This of course cannot be quoted as an instance of exposure, referring as it does to a god, who was immortal and no matter what was done to him, as his mother no doubt well knew, could not be destroyed. Apart from this, no reference is made to the destruction or attempted destruction of infants. If then there are no actual references to exposure, is their anything in the poem which suggests the practice of this custom or the opposite? With regard to dowries in early times,

(1) Iliad XVTH - 395. -7- whioh would include the Homeric period. Gilbert Murray says -"In the primitive ages of Greece, as ^ristotle has remarked, "men carried their weapons and bought their women from one another." That is, the suitor paid a price normally calculated in oxen, to the father of the bride, who thus became her husband's property. In classical Greece, the custom was just the opposite. The father gave a sum of money with his daughter to induce the suitor to marry her. Speaking very broadly this means that in the early times, there were not enough women for the marriage market, in the later times too many. It would seem that the first custom arose in an age, when owing to dire poverty and continual wars, men hesitated a good deal about rearing their children at all, and were especially reluctant to burden themselves with daughters. There is something touching in the frequency with which during the heroic times you find names of women compounded from "bous" an ox. Oxen were the gold currency of the time, and these names express the excuse which the parents made to themselves for ven­ turing to rear the useless female child. The real reason was simply that they could not bear to kill it. But they would never allege that* It is not the way with the human race, to avow such motives* We are much too shy* No doubt their neighbours and the less agreeable of their elder relatives considered it extravagant of them, foolishly sentimental or ostentatious* Well maybe it was, but after all perhaps the girl would bring in a good price some day: so they called her Alphesiboia, winner of kine. -8-

Phereboia, bringer-in-of-kine, Polyboia, worth many kine, or Stheneboia, Periboia, Eeriboia, Meliboia, and the rest of the (1) names". The practice of the suitor giving the bride-price and (2) the occurrence of some of these names,—Periboia, Eeriboia, in Homer, makes it plain that Mr. Murray would assign to Homeric times the common practice of exposing female children. In answer to the above quotation, Mr. Andrew Lang states - "The bridal customs are not pedantically stereotyped in Homer, but variations in accordance with circumstances do not prove lateness or earliness, any more than such female names, Alphesiboia, Phereboia, Polyboia and others, indicating that a daughter will bring many kine into her family, express the excuse which the parents made to themselves for venturing to rear the useless female child." Not even in Australian black society are girls more apt than male babies to be killed as bouches inutiles, they are far too valuable to their brothers or their maternal uncles being exchanged for other men's sisters, or nieces as brides* The cattle-owning barbaric societies of Africa, are not addicted to infanticide, much less could Homeric society be, with its wealth and its tenderness of heart* In Greek non-Homeric legend how often do we hear of a baby-girl being exposed. It is the boys who suffer, in the hope of defeating some prophecy* Homeric society is infinitely remote (3) from that in which girls were too expensive and useless to keep."

(1) Rise of the Greek Epic - page 150-151 (2) Odys. 7-57, XXI - 142. II. V, 389. (3) The World of Homer - p. 40. -9-

The latter opinion appears to be more consistent with the ways of the Homeric Greeks, as we shall see later. But because the suitor furnished the bride-price in Homeric times, a custom which was the ordinary procedure, are we to believe that a scarcity of women existed and because in later times the father provided a dowry, that there were too many women for the marriage-market? If we do it is difficult to reconcile with this conjecture, the fact that in the Homeric poems every man of mature age is married, while in later times because bachelors were becoming far too num­ erous there was need to impose fines upon them. We find too (1) lengthy apologies for celibacy, a fact which further goes to prove their existence. Thus it would seem that there were plenty of girls in early times, while later, it was more difficult to procure a wife; even though no bride-price had to be provided by the prospective husband. Furthermore in early times with a few outstanding exceptions in the case of powerful families, inter­ marriage took place amongst the people of the same tribe and later of the same district because of the difficulty of trans­ portation already described. Thus we find that the two sexes must have been very nearly equally balanced, since no extra men or women were imported, from different districts. In the case of the members of such families as are mentioned in detail in Homer, we find that daughters are not lacking. Priam had twelve though not all of the same wife. Menelaus had but one child, a daughter Hermione. Agamemnon had two daughters and one son. Clytemnestra was a sister of Castor,

(1) Stob. - Flor. 68,37. -10-

Pollux, and Helen—Odysseus and Penelope both had but one sister and no brothers. Thus we find that daughters are reared as well as sons. The change from the giving of the bride-price by the suitor to the offering of a dowry by the father is quite in accordance with the difference in the conception of woman between the two periods. As we have no certain account of the inter­ vening centuries, we cannot put our finger on any single cause, which would have brought about this entire revolution in the woman's mode of living. The spreading of Oriental ideas and habits to Greece by way of Asia Minor, was probably the most potent factor. Woman ceased to be the companion and equal of man and the natural outcome of her segregation was ignorance about the affairs of the world, and an awkward embarrassment in his presence. Marriage with such a wife was not a matter into which a man would be eager to hasten. He was likely to remain unburdened as long as possible. Of course in most cases a wife was desirable ultimately, because the state demanded citizens and one's own feelings were eager for an heir to carry on the family, yet there was lots of time. In the face of this indifference, the father of a girl was finally forced to offer a dowry as an added induce­ ment with the result that some fathers thought it a burden to portion their daughters. Hence this goes to show that in later times, female infants were more frequently exposed. -11-

The tender and understanding spirit in which children are mentioned in Homer, is the greatest proof of the affection with which the parents must have regarded the child and is con­ sequently a strong argument in disproving any likelihood of ex­ posure. Take for instance the delightful picture of the meeting of Andromache and Hector, as he is off to the field of battle. A nurse with the tiny Astyanax accompanies Andromache "carrying in her arms the merry-hearted child, a mere infant, the beloved son of Hector, like to a fair star". Hector extends his arms to his son "but the child shrank back to the bosom of the well- zoned nurse, affrighted at the aspect of his dear sire, fearing the brass and the horse-hair crest, seeing it nodding dreadfully from the top of his helmet: gently his loving father smiled and his revered mother. Instantly illustrious Hector took the helmet from his head, and laid it all glittering on the ground and he kissed his beloved child and fondled him in his arms". After speaking, "he placed the boy in the hands of his beloved spouse; (l) but she smiling tearfully received him in her fragrant bosom." It would be difficult to find so charming a picture of love for a child told with such beauty and simplicity in any literature. Then again when Andromache has realized that Hector is dead, the lament which she utters is not for herself, but rather for her child. She pictures vividly the life which is in store for her orphan son a life all the more hard to bear because of

• —-— • • —~— •—• ———• •———^———— •—•— . »mn r •• • I»II —^mmmt_m ••_!• (1) II. 71 - 400-474. -12-

the loving care he has always had. "Astyanax that aforetime on his father's knees ate only marrow and the rich fat of sheep and when sleep came upon him and he ceased from his childish play, then would he slumber on a couch in the arms of his nurse in his soft bed; his heart satisfied with good things. But now see- ing he has lost his dear father, he will suffer ills full many." These are the only actual occasions on which a child enters the story itself, but throughout there are unconscious references, here and there, which involve the understanding of and sympathy with the ways of children. For instance the care of Athena for Menelaus is described in a beautiful simile to be like "a mother repelling a fly from her infant when it shall have laid (2) itself down in sweet sleep." Again, when speaking of Teucer taking refuge beneath the shield of Ajax, the poet says he (3) "retired like a child to its mother". Time and time again, the Greeks, or on the other hand the Trojans, urge each other to fight more bravely because of their wives and infant children ( v^TPta. Te'xva. )• And one of the prettiest pictures of all is contained in the words of Achilles to Patroclus when he comes to him shedding hot tears because of the rout of the Achaeans. "Why Patroclus art thou bathed in tears, like a girl, a mere babe, that runneth by her mother's side and biddeth her take her up, and clutcheth at her gown and hindereth her in her going and (4) tearfully looketh up at her, till her mother taketh her up?"

(1) II. XTT - 500-505. (2) II. IV_ - 131. (3) II. VIII - 273. (4) II. XVI - 7-10. -13-

It would be impossible to enumerate the many instances of filial affection, or the opposite—the parents' love for a child. Yet these feelings too show the strength of family bonds. The love of Priam and Hecuba for their sons, especially Hector, of Peleus for Achilles, of Hector and Andromache for their child are but a few of numerous instances. The feelings of Odysseus, when he sights land after his ship-wreck are described thus—"And even as when most welcome to his children is the sight of a father's life, who lies in sickness and strong pains, wasting away, some angry god assailing him; and to their delight the gods have loosed (1) him from his trouble." Hermes can think of nothing of greater value with which Priam can entreat Achilles than "his father, his (2) fair-haired mother and his child that thou mayeet stir his soul." One of the greatest proofs against the practice of exposure is the desire on the part of all parents for a large family, as is to be expected in the "pastoral and agricultural

stages," in which as we have seen, the Homeric Greeks were>"where the value of extra workers, far more than compensates for the expenses and cares of early rearing." For a man to have but one son or no children at all is considered a pitiful plight. Priam with his many sons and daughters was regarded as the happiest of men before the war. Polyctor, father of Argeiphontes had seven children and Alcinous six. The following is said about Peleus, "Howbeit, even upon him the gods brought evil, in that there no­ wise sprang up in his halls offspring of princely sons, but he (3) begat one only, doomed to an untimely fate." The curse of

(1) Od. V - 394. (2) II. XXIV - 465-7. (3) II. XXIV - 538-40. -14- childlessness is indeed a terrible one. Phoenix bewails it in these words, "but my father immediately perceiving it, uttered many execrations and invoked the hateful Erinnys, that no dear son sprung from me should ever be placed upon his knees, and the gods (1) ratified his execrations, both infernal Jove and dread Proserpine. Small families can naturally be explained often by the barrenness of the wife, for instance Helen bore but one child, then "the gods no more showed promise of seed to her." Of course a great factor too would be the high birth rate* An important influence was one that has been already mentioned, namely the climate which was not conducive to fostering children* Even illegitimate children were considered precious in the eyes of their parents and tended with equal care* For instance Eudorus (an illegitimate child of Phylas' daughter) did (2) "old Phylas nurse and cherish unduly as he had been his own son*" Though Helen bore Menelaus but one child, he had a "well-beloved (3) son born of a slave woman*" And 'tis said of Pedaeus, son of Antenor that he was indeed a "spurious son* Yet noble Theano brought him up with care equally with her own dear children, (4) gratifying her husband." And many are the instances which could be quoted. Thus in the face of the eagerness for as many chil­ dren as possible, exposure would have no place. To sum up our evidence, then, we find that the Homeric poems produce many strong proofs against the exposure of infants, male or female, and that practically nothing suggests its practice on any one occasion.

(1) II. II - 455. (2) II* HI - 191-2. (3) Od. IX - 13-15. (4) II. V - 69. -15-

The only other literary source of the social customs of early times are the legends which are preserved in the plays of the great writers beginning with Aeschylus, but just how credible they are is an indeterminable matter. It is true that in such stories as that of Oedipus, Ion and others which shall be analysed in detail hereafter, instances of exposure are related, and it has been stated that this fact implies its practice when the myths originated. Such myths as these do go back to Homeric times, even further, and it is quite possible that they are based on fact. Nevertheless because these stories have been singled out as worth relating, and have survived for many centuries, the implication is that they were indeed exceptions to the usual practice of the people. The circumstances surrounding the action are in every case exceptional, the exposure being carried out much to the sorrow of the parents, to avoid an oracle or—a common theme—in the case of a maiden who had been approached by a god, to escape her father's wrath. Personal motives such as these, always prompt the action in these tales. It may be concluded then that such caees would (1) be most unusual and were so considered by the early Greeks if they actually occurred amongst them, as is proved by their choice of them as themes to hand down, first by word of mouth and then by writing, from generation to generation. A case of exposure then in the Homeric period would have been a much-talked-of event urged by a special cause; in fact if we knew the truth, it is likely that we would find that it hardly ever occurred.

(l) Interpretation of these legends v/ith reference to human sacrifice will be considered later. -16-

From Homer to the Fifth Century. After Greece had recovered from the effects of the Great Trojan war, her population began to increase with alarming rapidity. Safer means of transportation and increased tra

foad

(l) J.l. Myres - Causes of Rise and Fall in the Population of the Ancient World. Eugenics Review, Vol. VII, April 1915. -17-

which she imported. The economic conditions, as may easily be seen, were bound to have a considerable effect upon the practice of exposure--which became finally an artificial means of relieving the pressure of the ever-increasing population in an already over­ crowded world.

Let us now turn to literature and see what it reveals regarding any increase in the practice of exposure. We will find that down to the end of the sixth century an instance of exposure would be almost as unusual as in Homeric times. This rough date of course coincides with the end of the colonization movement which would be quite the natural point. It has been thought by many that as early as Hesiod, (but two centuries at most after the compilat­ ion of the Homeric works) exposure must have been a common practice This conception is based upon a few lines in Hesiod which are in­ variably quoted to substantiate this view. The words are

»/ , . *-> UOV VOY6f-riS &e /'CL'5 £'-yj it a. i *i t*> lor O / K.O \J

y-rj/vcLtoS de Oc^\/oi^> eTe^oY £"A7'i €r *raTa-Xt/Tu)v (l) and according to their translation mean "There should be an only son to feed his father's house for so wealth will increase in the home; but if you have a second son you should die old." That is, the best policy is to have but one son to whom you may leave your estate intact. Whereas if you have a second son, you must live a long life in order to collect wealth enough to be divided amongst the two. They suggest that immediately the question would arise "What did Hesiod expect the father to do with any sons above this

(l) Hes. Works and Days. 376-8. -18-

number?" The prompt answer is "Expose them." They further remark that there is no sign in Hesiod that the birth of daughters was looked on as a misfortune.

This interpretation to the above lines is no doubt influenced by a pre-conceived belief that the practice of exposure was wide-spread even as early as this time and these words made to fit this idea. Consider the two subsequent lines in Hesiod's poem and see if they do not rather change^ the meaning of what goes before—

acta. S& hi€\/ J? Xeoy/ ea-trt TTo^oi Zees Z'i o'Afiov

"Yet Zeus can easily give great wealth to a greater number. More hands mean more work and more increase." From these two lines, it is clearly seen that Hesiod has no intention of advising the destruction of extra sons. In the first two lines, he is saying that at least one son is necessary and if it is only one, you are saved a great deal of trouble as your estate, of course, will the longer remain undivided. Paley's expression of the gist of the whole passage is very probable. "It is well to have at least one son, if you look to increasing or "feeding" your property. But it is better still if you die old, to have several sons for their united care will bring greater profit." There is no other mention in Hesiod which might suggest exposure of either boys or girls. Consequently ex­ posure in all likelihood was not an ordinary thing in Hesiod's time.

(1) Hes. - Works and Days - 379-380. -19-

The period between Hesiod and ^.eschylus is but p orly represented in literature. Our knowledge of social conditions because of the lack of written material is thus rather vague. Within this period come such literary figures as Archilochus, Alcaeus, Sappho, Simonides, Stesichoros and so on, most of whose works we possess only in fragmentary form. We have from such people as these of course no reference to exposure but we do find in their works, the vivid and delightful child pictures,similar to those found in Homer, a fact which shows that children are still considered a blessing and suggest that circumstances had not yet come to such a pass that exposure was absolutely necessary. The fragments of Sappho for example, are filled with references to children. In describing her own daughter, she says - "I have a child, a lovely one In beauty like the golden sun, Or like sweet flowers of earliest bloom And Cleis is her name, for whom I Lydia's treasures, were they mine, Would glad resign." (l) Again, in an addrese to evening a tender touch is brought in - "Evening all things thou bringest Which dawn spreads apart from each other The lamb and the kid thou bringest, Thou bringest the boy to his Mother." (£) while a sympathetic observance of childhood is revealed in the words - "Like a child whose Mother's lost, I am fluttering terror tost." (&) These and other charming references to children are found int he small number of fragments we possess. The poems of Sappho which have not come down to us must have contained a wealth of similar

(1) Translated by J.H. Merivale. (3) Translated by M.J. Wolhouse. (g) ft " J.A- Symonds -20-

pictures.

Nowhere in literature may be found a more sympathetic that" wA tch

description of mother and child than ASimonides, man though he was, wrote in the threne which he puts into the mouth of Danae. It is slightly too long to quote . AS mother and babe are wafted over the waves, the mother heart of Danae "yearns over her sleeping babe" and the words which she whispers into his ear are"exquisitely delicate and touohing." We have also the true story of the infant Cypselus who was afterwards tyrant at Corinth in the seventh century B.C. Because of an oracle the Bacchiadae were eager to put him to death, and according to Herodatus this is what happened.— "So the men came to Petra and went into Aeteon's house and then asked if they might see the child; and Labda who knew nothing of their purpose, but thought their inquiries arose from a kindly feeling towards her husband brought the child and laid it in the arms of one of them. How they had agreed by the way that whoever first got hold of the child should dash it against the ground. It happened however, by a providential chance that the babe just as labda put him into the man's arms smiled in his face. The man saw the smile and was touched with pity, so that he could not kill it. He, therefore, passed it on to his next neighbour who gave it to a third; and so it went through all the ten without M(1) anyone choosing to be the murderer. Thus the smile of this little child melted the hearts of these cruel men.

(1) Her. V - 98. -21-

Although definite proof that exposure was not commonly practised is lacking, human touches such as these occurring in the literature of this period and referring to it are of great weight in proving that it was not a general custom. The very earliest reference to the destruction of children, though exposure is not specifically mentioned, dates back to Solon about the beginning of the sixth century B.C. We have two references concerning a man's power over his children. Sextus Empiricus in treating of Roman laws and law-givers says, "Solon gave the Athenians the law "concerning things immune" by which he allowed each man to slay his own child. (*a0%ov ifoveuei* l«- curToo To\ t^uTou 77*?£a. e/7

The Classical Period. It might be a very natural consideration to suppose that the wealth of varied writings of the fifth and fourth century B.C. would provide definite information regarding the custom of exposure. But on the contrary, to arrive at a correct conclusion as to the extent to which exposure was practised during these two centuries is attended with more difficulty than the similar in­ vestigation for any other period. Owing to the nature of the references in this connection we will find that any opinion we adopt must be only conjectural. Unfortunately the two Greek states about which we have the most complete information in these centuries cannot be taken as typical examples of the condition of the average Greek state throughout that period. Sparta with its own special form of government, its own interests and habits, must be left entirely out of the question for the moment, while Athens, its rival, and in many ways its opposite, enjoyed a position quite unparallelled. After the Persian War, as head of the Delian Confederacy, Athens reached the peak of her prosperity and although the Peloponneesian -23-

War was a fearful drain and into the first half of the fourth century, financial difficulties were constant, careful supervision and efficient administration, even in the days of political decline, restored Athens to a more secure position than might have been ex­ pected. The ravages upon the population caused by war and plague were keenly felt. Hence the lack of citizens, especially males, coupled with the fact that Athens was during this period on the whole not a poor state, leads us to suppose that exposure was not practised as often as in states where poverty was more prevalent and the losses caused by war less burdensome, and as it was in Athens itself in later times.

Consequently if we are able to establish to our own satisfaction the likelihood of the practice in Athens itself, the probability of its frequency in the rest of Greece is that much more definitely assured. From the fifth century onwards we have references to exposure in writings of various types. Although, because of the nature of the works in which they are contained, they are not so specific as those that come later, I think that upon examination they constitute a proof, which is far too weighty to be overlooked, that exposure was being resorted to more fre­ quently than ever before. Let ue now examine these passages and determine the value of their evidence. The field of drama is perhaps the most prolific in this connection and because of its popular appeal reflects more truly the tastes and customs of the majority of the people. -24-

Aristotle in describing the function of the tragic poet says that it is to describe not the thing that has happened but the kind of thing that might happen--what is possible as being probable or necessary ( a.\\ oi<* *^ ^r0.?o t-tai ?d 8uMu.7d uaTd TV e/V*4 -4* To a!va.y](a.7ov) Though Aristotle finds fault with certain points in their work, he considers that such people as Sophocles and Euripides wrote very fine plays, which he would approve, of course, as ad­ hering to his definition. Now if exposure was something of which the Athenians of this day had never heard as actually happening and of which they considered no human being was capable, it is possible we might find an instance of it in an isolated drama, but would it be repeated continually by poets who were eager to gain the approval of the people and who evidently were approved by such a critic as Aristotle? Thus the recurrence of exposure as the subject of dramatists from Sophocles to Plautus and Terence, who base their work on the Greek, cannot be an impossible and romantic happening which appealed to the people over and over again in spite of its incredibility. It must have been based on fact to some extent. It is true that the Greeks by nature enjoyed hearing the same story re-told again and again, as is shown by the varied treatment of hackneyed subjects by different tragedians. But if this action was beyond the bounds of probability it is not likely that its repeated treatment would continue to please the people, as plays concerning exposure evidently did. -25-

Amongst the tragedians, as we have mentioned before the stories involving exposure are for the most part based upon myth; and though it cannot be said that they picture contemporary customs, the casual manner in which the exposure is introduced, without explanation, presupposes on the part of the audience a knowledge of it. The earliest and perhaps most widely-known story is that of Oedipus Tyrannus of Sophocles. To overcome an oracle that he would slay his father, his parents exposed him on a moun­ tain-side, but he was rescued by a shepherd. Amongst the lost plays of Sophocles also is said to be one written about Alexander or Paris who was exposed on lit. Ida, because,before he was born, his mother dreamed she had brought forth a fire-brand. He too was rescued by a shepherd. No extant play of Aeschylus deals with this subject, but with Euripides it was evidently quite a favourite. The story of Ion is the only one we actually possess. Creusa, daughter of Erectheus, king of Athens bears a child secretly of which the

father is Apollo. She exposes ( J'A,,TW ) it in a cave under a cliff from which it is removed by Hermes to the temple of Apollo at Delphi and here it is reared by the priestess though Creusa

believes T^^A:^,^^ £«Te&*'s: In the play the mother and son are brought together. One of the lost plays of Euripides which we know dealt with exposure is the TTAuge,T. The story according to Hyginus went

fl) Ion. line 951. -26-

as follows—"Aage, Alei filia ab Hercule oompressa. Cum partus adesset, in monte Parthenio peperit et ibi exposuit. Eodem tempore Atalante, Iasii filie, filium exposuit ex Meleagro natum, Herculis autem filium cerva nutriebat. Hos paptores in- ventos sustulerunt, atque nutrierunt. Ipsa autem A.u?e, patrem suum temens, profugit in Mysiam." Strabo has a different account, that Att^e and her child were put into a chest and that thev were 12) rescued. Fragments of the lost "leliphus" suggest that this version of the story may have been dealt with in that play. From the following quotation from it

'A J,T7! y°~/* /\XeoO T^cuS u,£ Too f i stxjis @I

I f C ~s. I

dKuCTC EL\e/@vi&^- (3) we gather that Aur-e may have attempted to expose leliphus before her father discovered her. Another story about which Euripides wrote, which in­ volves exposure is the "Alope". Alope exposes her child whose father is Poseidon. The child is rescued though perhaps Alope herself is put to death by her father. Then too we have fragments of a lost play treating the tale of Antiope, in which twins of

whom Zeus is the father were exposed by her. ^ S* ^o^./^ f»»C/ C?

(1) Hyginus II, 7,4. (2) Geog. 615. (3) Fragments of Euripides - 696. Uauck. (4) Apollodorus - III, 5,5. -27-

Euripides also wrote a play about Paris, and in this as well as in the "Antiope" the story of the exposure was probably told in the prologue. Then too, in "Melanippe, the Prisoner", her two children were exposed in a cattle pen, though accounts as to the details of this story vary. The father of these children was Poseidon.

There are many other mythical stories too which we do not find in plays, for instance that of ^talanta, who was accord- (1) ing to Aelian exposed because her father wished a boy. "7^7-^ J

This motive may have been a later development for we have no parallel reason as early as this. Herodotus1 story of the birth and exposure of Cyrus, is somewhat similar to the stories of the tragedians. His mother also had a dream before his birth and as a result he was exposed. A shepherd's wife, however, taking pity upon him, put in his stead her own child which had died. In all these stories which of course were the very earliest references to exposure, we find that the act was the outcome of an unusual set of circumstances, which are far removed from the happenings of everyday life. It is a particular and un­ usual reason which is given as the excuse of the exposure, which is thus as we have seen rcept far above the level of the common folk at the time when the exposure was practised. The stories are evidently considered as unusual occurrences since they have been preserved in plays. But that they have become popular sub­ jects for drama shows that they appealed to the people as reflect­ ing to a certain extent their own habits. It is significant, too,

(1) ^el. V. H. - XTTT. -28- that Euripides, the latest of the three great dramatists, as far as we know, wrote more plays dealing with the subject than the others.

In descending from the level of tragedy to that of comedy, we find ourselves in a world much more akin to the life known by the people of the time. Tragedy is not content with ordinary happenings, but demands elevated themes suitable to its dignified character. Comedy can put up with anything, and it is therefore to it which we should look to find a representation of everyday occurrences—but with one warning. Just as tragedy tends to elevate, so comedy tends to caricature. Thus we must be a little careful in taking^ererything that comedy offers literally Turning to the most outstanding comedian of this period, we notice that the plots of Aristophanes1 plays are naturally not based upon so serious a theme as that of exposure because the structure of the plot of the old Comedy is not so important to the success of the play as that of the new. There are neverthe­ less a few references in the plays which carry a certain amount of weight, as being spontaneous utterances, which the audience (1) are expected to understand. In the "Clouds" Aristophanes is comparing a former play he has written to a newly-born child, saying "And I, (for I was still a maid, and it was not right for me to be a mother) exposed ( l^e(9V/

(1) 1. 530. -29-

the practice of women who have borne children silently and in fear put them out,hoping somebody will take care of them. The (1) next instance occurs in the "Frogs". Referring jestingly to Sophocles' play, Aristophanes says of Oedipus -" 6 £«'***-* v £„ ocrtp**^ in his note to this phrase, Dr. Merry states that the meaning of ^V la-noaKco is "in a crock. The common practice of

exposing children in a '' X»'T„CL " (for which "oVr^^/is only a somewhat grotesque evi^ualent) is seen in such words aB^u^/^, Gf^vf'fcA) , *-*, a.^Y'j1^ "• The "Thesmophoriazu^sae" also contains a reference to a child whom a wife is pretending to be her own, and whom ela-cf^e rpaZ* e* ^V^* tiro, *.-*} fSoJv *>&>'«> A*Au

The scholiast again says ' £, e\ ^T(9€k pl^s,^ J/«T,'GW** " This last passage however, does not necessarily refer to an exposed child, but perhaps to a baby purchased from its parents. The word ^V/cy^s appears in the "Wasps".

> > <•/

X The scholiast's comment to this is -" ^.-Z^ 0 Tc^.-.j„. Z«T,0e^*~*>v? ^ c\ -•r

(1) 1. 1190. (2) 1. 505. (3) Wasps - 1. 289 -30-

It is possible on the other hand to interpret this passage differently. In discussing it in his notes W.C. Green translates it "Put him into a pot" adding, "a frequent metaphor from cookery. Being plump and fat he would be a savoury morsel to add to the pot. The scholiast's interpretation as referring to the exposure of infants J* ^Jr**' seems to me to be quite unnecessary here. Being recognized by Hesychuis, it deserves some respect, but where Aristophanes can be so easily explained from himself, it appears better so to explain him." What seems to me to be more important than the \>/ords of Aristophanes con­ veying as they do an ambiguous meaning, is the comment of the scholiast. He evidently is forced to draw from Sophocles,

Aeschylus and Pherecrates, for a parallel use of the word lyx^p'^Sr/S showing that it was far removed from everyday life. Of course, on the contrary the tragedians may have coined it for their own use and the fact that it does not occur in Greek literature is because the Greeks expressed the idea by a less poetical word such as

Although we may dismiss these last two instances as being possible of an interpretation other than that of exposure, the first two cannot be quite as lightly treated. The one would suggest that the exposure of illegitimate children was by no means unheard of, while in the other the fact that the phrase ev

SLUT^C is so well-known as to be replaced in comic fashion by the vulgar " irf oo-^d+cvj" certainly hints that the "^uTpa." was not -31-

reserved for this purpose only in the case of the offspring of gods, or those who were singled out by an oracle as being too dangerous to live.

In speaking of this passage in the "Frogs" Van Hook says "Is Aristophanes referring here as is generally assumed, to a widespread Athenian practice of his own day? I think not. We have merely a reference to the well-known tale of the fate of Oedipus at Thebes." I agree that it does not refer to a wide­ spread Athenian custom. But in the face of these references we cannot say that it was practically unknown in Athens and hardly ever practised at this period. We have seen too how much better than in the rest of Greece were the conditions in Athens for supporting her population. As a result the evidence of Aristotle, in spite of the fact that the tragedians had to be resorted to for the use of the word *ff^rf**"* would on the whole reveal that exposure was being practised in occasional cases, and that it was being regarded as a less unusual happening than in the days of Euripides, hardly a quarter of a century before. Let us now examine what the philosophers Plato and Aristotle have to say about exposure. Within two pages of the "Republic" are three passages which appear to hint at it. In the first place, Plato says—The best of either sex should be united with the best as often and the inferior with the inferior as seldom as possible, and they should rear the offspring of the one sort of union but not of the other, if the flock is to be

(1) Exposure of Infants at Athens T.A.P.A. Vol. 51 (1920) -32-

(1) maintained in first rate condition.

Again "The offspring of the inferior or the better when they chance to be deformed, they will conceal in some mysterious, (2) unknown place, as is fitting." And lastly referring to children of irregular unions, "and we grant all this, accompanying the permission with strict orders to them to do all they can to prevent any embryo seeing the light; and if any force a way to the birth they must understand that the offspring of such union (3) cannot be maintained and make their arrangements accordingly." The first question to be settled is whether Plato had in mind exposure or any form of infanticide for his ideal state, and then if this is true, how far this device for keeping down the population in an imaginary state reflects Athenian practice. Commentators admit that these passages are not perfectly clear, but are divided in their interpretations of them. Jowett sums up the arguments in favour of exposure as the solution, explaining that they all occur within two pages and therefore it is likely that they should bear the same meaning. He also argues that "they must be taken in the worst sense that they will bear because Plato would naturally wish to cast a veil over an unpleasant subject. On the whole we must conclude that the only reason for denying Plato to be a maintainor of infanticide is the wish to acquit him of allowing a practice so repugnant to modern (4) Christian notions."

(1) Republic 459-D. (2) Repub. 460-C. (3) Repub. 461-C. (4) Notes to the Republic. -33-

Those who support the other side, refer to a passage in the limaeus to prove that Plato had no thought of infanticide in the Republic. " Ttz si r^ MK^ J« ^ £x^ ^ %l„7&Socrates is made to remark,"And if I abstract and ex­ pose ( iLtofi^XXuo. ) your first born, because I discover that the conception you have formed is a vain shadow, do not quarrel with me as the manner of women is when their first born children are (S) taken from them." The other passage is "Well we have at last managed to bring this forth, whatever it turns out to be; and now that it is born, we must in very truth perform the right of

(1) Tim. - 19A. (2) laws - 740 E. (3) Th. - 151 C. -34-

running round with it in a circle,-the circle of our argument~ and see whether it may not turn out to be after all not worth rearing, but only a wind-egg, an imposter. But perhaps you think that any off-spring of yours ought to be cared for and not put away,( ^ r, £W, ) or will you bear to see it examined and not get angry, if it is taken away from you, though it was your first born."

Whether we can definitely say or not that in his ideal state, Plato is advocating infanticide, these two passages intro­ ducing exposure as they do without further explanation are more important than any in establishing the fact that exposure was known and practised by some. Prom the second quotation, Mr. A. Cameron infers that "exposure was a possible fate for any child, (2 ) with the customary exception of the first." It is'open to quest-

ion whether we can go so far as saying a possible fate for any child, as that would be giving considerable stress to the quota­ tion. But although from the quotations in the Republic we are convinced that exposure is meant, there is an uncertainty whether it is a "criticism rather than a reflection of contemporary

Athenian practice." It is agreed that Plato was favourably im­ pressed by the system of the Spartans and in the Republic may be taking over their practice. Yet in the Theaetetus we have a natural and unconscious remark about a matter with which Plato evidently thinks his readers, Athenians, are quite familiar. The

(1) Th. - 160 E. (2) ,fThe Exposure of Children and Greek Ethics." Clapsical Review Vol. 46, (1932). -35-

mention of the mother's feelings would eliminate the Spartans who were considered to be ready to make any sacrifice for the good of the state. In cases where they were not, Plato or the Athenians in general would probably not hear about them. The implication from the Theaetetus is that it was deformed children that Plato had in mind; in the Republic, he includes besides these children of irregular unions.

In his reconstruction of the state, Aristotle speaks

of this problem only once. Eis words are "As to exposing (

(1) Pol.1335 b. 19-26. -36-

This emphatic dislike towards exposure would suggest that Aristotle had had occasion to develop his attitude and thus that towards the end of the fourth century even in Athens, the practice was in­ creasing.

The pre-eminence given to the problem of limiting the population in Plato and Aristotle reflects the difficulty which faced every Greek state and proves that measures for limiting it had been adopted in some cases. The very fact that the question crops up is a strong argument towards establishing the practice of exposure. The two opposite opinions are clearly stated by Van Hook and Myers. "What may be deduced from these opinions of the philosophers?" asks the former. "That they reflect actual Athenian conditions which were general? Of course not. They refer to heroic measures for limitation of population which might (1) be resorted to in their imaginary polities." The latter states "Thus the philosophers of the fourth century when they commended infanticide as a cure for over-population and its consequences, were only accepting, justifying and systematizing into greater rigour a custom which was already well-established in the Greek world; and that not late or sporadically, but widely and at all (2) periods." If we adopt a view between these two opinions, we shall probably be nearer the truth. We should not expect that the Athenian of the fifth and fourth centuries would be likely to

(1) The Exposure of Infants at Athens T.A.P.A. Vol. 51 (1920). (2) Causes of Rise and Pall in the Pop. of the Ancient World. Eugenics Review, Vol. 7 (April, 1915). -37- find an exposed infant "on every street-corner", nor on the other hand, if he should find an abandoned babe tucked away in some nook would he be as surprised as a person of today if he should meet with the same circumstance. In fact the evidence found in the philosophers brings us to a conclusion concerning exposure almost identical to that at which we arrived after examining the plays of this period. These instances have all been taken from Athenian liter­ ature. But when we turn to the rest of Greece we have practically no direct evidence relating to exposure for this period. An inter­ esting exception is the Gortynian Law Code, of approximately the fifth century, which proves that it was a well-known practice in Grete, but evidently permitted only in special cases. "If a divorced wife bears a child, she shall bring it to her husband at his house, in the presence of three witnesses. If he does not receive it, the child shall be in the power of the mother either to bring up or to expose. ( ^ T^d^e^ e a^oBe^^) If the man has no house to which she shall bring / the child / or she does not see him, if she exposes the child ( at a7?o&e'<<= ) there shall be no penaltyf" the last phrase intimating that in some cases there was a penalty for perpetrating exposure, the earliest step against the practice we have noticed. The superiority of the Cretan laws is famous so that it cannot be taken as a typical example of Greek law. It is not likely that other cities had similar regulations as early as this, though we have mention of one or two in a later period. -38-

The comparatively prosperous condition of Athens in these two centuries,however, has already been mentioned, so that we can­ not be far wrong in assuming that what was true for Athens was also true for other states, according to their financial con­ ditions, along with the size of their populations in respect to the size of the state, so the practice of exposure had to exist in greater or less degree. During this period additional reasons alleged for ex­ posure have arisen, which are quite different from those we have noticed heretofore. How we have the occasional reference to the exposure of the illegitimate child by an unwedden mother who fears her parent. Another cause as we may infer from the philosophers was to get rid of malformed infants but we can imagine that once this excuse was established as legitimate in the opinion of the public it was probably used to shield less reasonable motives. But most important of all, as they also suggest must have been the increased pressure of excessive population and the consequent poverty it brought in its train, so that although this reason becomes much more evident hereafter, even now exposure amongst the poorer people was becoming a recognized remedy for what was as beginning to be looked upon a misfortune—a large family. -39-

Prom the Fourth Century to Christian Times. Prom the latter half of the fourth century well into the Christian era we have sufficient evidence to justify the opinion that exposure was a more common and frequent occurrence than it could possibly have been at any previous time. Towards the beginning of Christian times it was important amongst other causes in effecting upon the population an irredeemable decrease and consequently a strong feeling against it arose. This fact is established by all calculations of early statistics and is thoroughly in accordance with what we know of conditions and habits of Greece at the time. There may of course have been short periods in which individual states, because of a space of unusual prosperity found such a measure as exposure less necessary For instance Athens in the late second century was outstanding for its steady and rapid increase of material resources. Contrary to that of Greece on the whole, the citizen population of Athens in the two generations preceding the Mithradatic War was consider­ ably increased. Speaking of the period generally, however, we find that Athens, the foremost seat in classical times of mental activity and the centre of trade ceased to be a first rate power and sinking gradually from its high and coveted position seemed to have outworn her strength in the time of her glory and now to be incapable of regaining the heights which she had previously attained. Her force and energy were spent. Political changes -40-

were taking place continually all over Greece and the sanctity of ancient institutions was destroyed. Industry and commerce had developed in such a way as not to benefit the majority of the population, A deep gulf had formed between the wealthy few and the impoverished many. The view of life entertained by the Greeks had had to change -with their changing world. All these influences combined to make even colder the welcome that was extended to the new-born infant.

The stories dealing with exposure in the plays of Menan- der are of quite a different nature from those of the early tra­ gedians. Menander's plays do not deal with myths and legends, but are based on the social conditions of his own day. Perhaps certain aspects are exaggerated, nevertheless they depict with a certain degree of truth the society with which he was acquainted. From the six hundred and fifty lines of the "Epitrepontes" which we now possess, we can understand the plot. Pamphila and Char- is ius have met at a woman's nocturnal festival, and later, without recognizing each other, are married. Shortly afterwards, Pam­ phila bears and exposes a child without the knowledge of her husband who is away. He discovers this and leaves Pamphila for the time being. later the truth is learned and he is reconciled with his wife. In the "Hero", Myrrhina, eighteen years before the action of the play begins, exposes twins, a boy and a girl and later discovers them by tokens. Again in the "Periceiromene", twins are exposed by their father, because their mother has died and their father has fallen into poverty. -41-

It is only fragments of Menanderfs works which we possess, but from these we see that the subject of an exposed child was a very common one. We find also amongst the fragments sayings which hint at the dislike of large families. For in­ stance, a fragment preserved by Stobaeus.

•rM _^ * i —„ i ' , . »-~ * II Another reveals the tendency to consider a daughter a burden

£t/ ocuf Lt-oVt^L- IOUI €o~i lis utOS vocrv 6.Xou*s

CX.A\Q- & uy G^TTJ/? KT-TJLA- £cr7

(l)Meiitelce»II, 4, 86. (2; V. V, 1. 627. -42-

This is accountable for much exaggeration. Gods no longer play the role of fathers, but the children which are exposed are the offspring of ordinary folk who have gone astray or have become too poor to rear their baby—occurrences which are much more akin to the actual happenings of the time. In speaking of exposure in dramatic works, Mahaffy says "Still there is one circumstance about this matter which makes me suspect its frequency. In all the plays and fragments we have, I cannot remember a case occurring during the action of the play. There is no case for example of the finding of such a child, when exposed by its desolate and ruined young mother, leading to its recognition by its peccant father and its consequent rehabilitation. There is no lamentation that when a child is born it will have to be exposed. All the cases of exposure mentioned are in the past, and happened far away. (1) Have we, then, before us merely another fiction of the stage?" Since these words were written, fragments of the (2) Epitrepontes of Menander have been discovered. In this play the baby is but a month old and has recently been discovered. It is probably brought on the stage according to the conversation which takes place between the two slaves. The bits of infor­ mation and the fragments we possess of Euripides1 "Auge" imply that he represented the earlier part of the story. In fact, (3) the Scholiast to the "Frogs" of ^ristophones states "^^ ' T?J\

*Av'n" u!>$tvov" which would also suggest that this is true.

(1) A Survey of Greek Civilization p. 269. (2) 1905. (3) line 1080. -43-

The "Alope" which is in a way similar to the "Epitrepontes" may also have brought in the actual exposure or at least the dis­ covery of the child. .Fragments of the "Melanippe" too show that the discovery of her sons whom she has exposed must have been represented in some way on the stage.

• i

^ic^(l) and again--

However, even if we had no such examples, is this any reason to consider that this fact might help to prove that ex­ posure is a fiction of the stage? Is it not rather the structure of the Greek drama that is responsible for this absence of the detailed description of the exposure at the time when it occurred, or of the discovery? "The aim of the poet in presenting a tragic story upon the stage is to divest it of everything that is irrelevant and unnecessary, and to fix the mind of the audience upon a single and all absorbing issue" and consequently "after (3) Aeschylus, the unity of time is almost invariably observed." That is, if the important events of the story were concerned with the recognition of the child who had been exposed, the Greek writer would not represent first the scene of the exposure and then allow eighteen or twenty years to elapse before the import­ ant part of the play began. The early history would be described

(1) Frag. XXI (2) Fmg. XXIII (3) Haigh - The Tragic Drama of the Greeks, p. 339. -44-

in the prologue or casually in the conversation during the play. This explanation would refer also to such plays as those of Menander; though of course in comedy the rules were less binding Thus the fact that the exposure or discovery is not as a rule the centre of the action of the play does not sugeest that the practice is really fiction, but that the rules of the Greek drama did not allow the lapse of a lengthy period, and so chose to represent the more important part of the story.

One of the most frequently quoted references to exposure which is often used to prove its practice comes from Poseidippus, a comic poet who flourished ten years or so after Menander's death. «# t/iov ipecf'&t iiG-S KA\/ ,,£^^5 , ,<, ^jr i UX~1

Oui^u.Te/yCC % i rtTtO-rjiT , t MO^\/ >n i7\vvo-'oS (1) This saying is of course a gross exaggeration and must be taken with a grain of salt. This suggests, however, that there evidently was a strong feeling against rearing girls who would require a substantial dowry. For the same reason too, namely to keep their fortunes intact, the wealthy were content to bring up but one or two sons, as we find later in the days of Polyhuis. We possess only fragments of this comic poet, but from them we may infer that the subject of an exposed child was as popular with him as with Menander. Other references to exposure in the third century come from miscellaneous sources. From inscriptions we find that of

(1) Koch. TIT, 338. -45-

about a thousand Greek families who acquired Milesian citizen­ ship between the years 228 and 220 B.C., details of 79 remain. They had 118 sons and 28 daughters. There can be no natural reason responsible for so great a divergence in the numbers of male and female children. The figures show too that of these families which may be considered as representative of the time the average of the number of children is not even two. The only explanation is the practice of exposure. To overcome this very thing and the consequent danger of a poor army Philip V at the end of the century took steps to encourage large families in Macedonia, proving that the people were preferring to rear but (1) one or two children. If we consider authorities on the financial condition of Greece during this period, we find exactly the conditions we should expect to cause a considerable increase in the practice. "The third century was a prosperous time for the upper classes. But when we turn to the lower class we shall find conditions exactly reversed; they were definitely worse off than they had been; speaking generally prices were up and wages were down." For instance, take for example the position of the working man at Delos. "The unskilled easily fall below the bare level of subsistence and the skilled are very hard put to it to bring up even one or two children. Yet Delos was a bright spot. By 279 (2) B.C. certainly, workmen were going there from other parts of Greece.

(1) Livy XXXIX - 24. (Z)I "The Social Question in the Third Century." W.W. Tarn, from "The Hellenistic Age." page 125. -46-

We see then that the poor were very badly off, while the rich were flourishing. The former had no choice in resorting to exposure, and as the practice had become so common, probably thought less about it than their poor ancestors. The wealthy, no longer the aristocratic families who were called upon to finance the choruses of plays and equip vessels for the state, but newly-rich, had made their fortunes in trade and commerce and guarded them jealously; even to the extent of limiting their families to one or two, so that when they inherited,the money would not be divided into many small shares. This is a new cause which prompts exposure, which we have not noticed in previous times. Its practice amongst the rich has been said to "effect much the same object which deliberate childlessness does (1) in modern times." As we advance into the second century, we find on the authority of Polybius that exposure had certainly been carried far beyond all reasonable or excusable limits. Speaking of the first half of the second century he reveals what a terrible effect it has had upon the population. "In our time, all Greece was visited by a dearth of children and generally a decay of population, owing to which the cities were denuded of inhabitants and a failure of productiveness resulted, though there were no long-continued wars or serious pestilences among us. For this evil grew upon us rapidly and without attracting attention* by our men becoming perverted to a passion for show and money and

(1) W.S. Ferguson -"Hellenistic Athens." -47- pleasures of an idle life and accordingly not marrying at all or if they did marry refusing to rear the children that were born, or at most one or two out of a great number for the sake of leaving them well-off, or bringing them up in extravagant luxury. For when there are only one or two sons, it is evident that, if war or pestilence carries off one, the houses must be left heirless and like swarms of bees little by little the cities become sparsely inhabited and weak. On this subject there is no need to ask the gods how we are to be relieved from such a curse for anyone in the world will tell you that it is by the men themselves if possible changing their objects of ambition, or if that cannot be done, by passing laws for the preservation of (1) infants." The importance of this criticism cannot be over- stressed, and proves beyond dispute how often exposure was prac­ tised. It is noticeable that Polybius censures here only the wealthy and puts down the dearth of population to their lack of children. Children were p^xbably exposed because of poverty just as frequently, but perhaps Polybius feels that they can be excused and therefore does not find fault with them. His suggestion of passing laws for the preservation of children hints that no such laws existed as early as this time. It is interesting too that though he speaks of this scarcity of chil­ dren as a curse, he does not criticise it on moral or religious grounds.

(l) Polybius - Book XXXVI - 17 - 5. -48-

The remainder of the second century provides practically no material referring to exposure. Though this fact might be but a trick of fortune there is sufficient historical reason to account for its absence--at least for a decrease in its preval­ ence. The invasion by Rome in the year 147 B.C. caused much damage. Many people were killed or enslaved and thus gave room for those to live who would otherwise have been exposed. Large fortunes too would"have been considerably diminished by the demands of war-fare so that the motives which prompted exposure on the part of the selfish, moneyed class would have been to a large extent eliminated. Then too Athens which up to this point has provided most of our literary evidence, as a result of standing consistently on the side of Rome, was enjoying a peculiarly prosperous time. Families of three or four sons and an equal number of daughters were not at all unusual. We cannot, therefore, expect to find references to exposure in Athenian literature at this period. Conditions remained practically unchanged till early in the first century, the Romans again,under the leadership of Sulla devastated Greece. Though once more numerous people were killed providing gaps in the population to be filled, yet the treatment meted out to the states which had sided with l.Iithra- dates was surprisingly severe. Huge war indemnities and arrears in taxation had to be paid. Many states were reduced to poverty and the province as a whole was ruined financially. Such straits do not encourage large families. It is thus pro­ bable that the practice of exposure caused by poverty was increased -49-

Strabo writing in the latter half of this century notes with surprise that among the Egyptians all children are reared. "This however," he says, "of all their uses is most to be admired, that they bring up all their children." implying of course that the Greeks did not. His evident admiration establishes for Strabo a strong feeling against exposure. Beginning with Polybius we find numerous criticisms against the practice. A letter written from Egypt to his wife by a certain Hilarion, in the year 1 B.C. reads - Tf

H ecus a O\A o-t\ o\ «\t-c>t/ / eKtq % e*ys GLsjCe -

n

It has been remarked that this reveals the "cruel husband in flesh and blood". These casual words, however, without further reason for the order appear to me to depict not so much a father outstanding for his cruelty at the time, but a typical example of a man, who earning but a small wage, did not feel that he could rear a daughter who would incur for him considerable expense; but their briefness suggest that it was a subject upon which they had reached a previous understanding. With the opening of the Christian era, we find amongst philosophers, chiefly Stoic, great concern about the constant practice of exposing infants. Earlier Stoicism seems to tolerate the practice, but with the probable increase of deaths in this manner, it could no longer be overlooked by them. Musonius

(1) Strabo1s Geog. - 0 - 824. (2) Papy. Oxyrt*. - 744. -50-

Rufus for instance urges men to follow the old law-givers, who considered it most expedient to have many children.

' e i > t e - *' \ — /• -,

#T«L» e'S 70'v D IJLO fio* /i 'ex Tu.uT

He also bitterly attacks the wealthy who " rc/*^^, -^ 6V^/^^

/ r ex *a- p~r) Tp e^<£'* i r I^G. To. /'/jo/'t^ouft *-a GLJ?; op ->q ^t«.AAo^ . V ^ / Hierocles, a Stoic of probably the same.time, expresses prae- xicaX-Ly similar sentiments. KaTc*. ifoo-tis ycy "**>« >v«f o^oAooOoxr iou fouu^j

to Tf Cms TOL -»n l&- t-€- it A €• i trT £t /~c>3*/' s€.>^*^c^> Jut fc««Cw>V a^a/^6C^C/^' <*-^ ^ £ O lHCt.CT( 1/ ©'

Epictetus, a pupil of Ilusonius also speaks disparagingly of the practice. It is said that he himself remained long unmarried, and in his old age took a wife to help him rear a baby whose (4) parents were about to expose it. There is also a fragment which may have come from a Stoic source which reads -

TCL TVVv'a ><-»7 Oz/o/^/fn'tf/ '"a /«->7 °~u f*-ft J lOistoY iO\s ip>t>T,ots' (5)

(1) Stob. Flor. 75, 15. (2) Stob. Flor. 8i, 21. (3) Stob. Flor. 75, 14. (4) Simplicius - Coniment. c. 46, p. 452 ed. Schwei^h (5) ITahaffy - Flinders Petrie Pap. XIIJL e III. -51-

These are the chief criticisms put forward by Stoics. There are, moreover, one or two other mentions in writings of different types. Plutarch speaks of the "poor people who do not rear their children fearing that if they should not be well-educated, they would prove slavish, clownish, and destitute of all things commendable; since they cannot endure to entail poverty, which they look upon as the worst of all evils or (1) diseases upon their posterity." Dio Chrysostomus mentions the practice of women who through oiTi^iSia, obtain the children of others and pretend they are their own. This suggests that the children they procure would otherwise be exposed. A fragment of Pseudo-Phoeylides may also belong to this period.

fU-yi £e Yu>r~H (flOainoi {!>n,£d>oS ep-&sivo\f drSo&i yao^

s l o C ', N L * CA

This may, however, be influenced by Christian or Jewish sources. Polybius had criticised exposure on the grounds of the harm it had done to Greece. With the criticisms of the philo­ sophers, we come to a more lofty sentiment. Such phrases as imply that it is for other reasons that these protests are made. Upon moral and religious grounds, a voice against exposure had at last been raised. The practice of exposing children in Greece did not in actual fact come to an end with the gradual turning of public

(1) Plut. - De Amore Prolix - Chapt. V. (2) 185 Bergk. -62-

opinion against it, and the continuation of its history would certainly take us into the middle ages and even to the border of modern times. It was, however, diminished considerably. After about the second century it involved a legal penalty in some places and the Christian church when firmly established punished those guilty of this crime most severely. In Greece the seeds of the repugnance against it were sown by these early Stoics and other philosophers. With the opening of the Roman world, the Greeks had contacts with peoples of many lands and in the ex­ changing of merchandise, exchanged also ideas. The moral creeds of Jews, Christians and others gradually became well-known, and without doubt did much to turn parents away from this crime. The failure of the Christian church to accomplish complete ex- (1) tinction of this practice is attributed to the fact that it did nothing to alleviate the cause of the trouble, namely that Greece was overpopulated and therefore poor. But there is no doubt that it did more to lessen its prevalence than any law of itself could have done. Mr. A. Cameron traces the effect which Orphism with its belief in immortality and a cycle of existencbs had in pro­ ducing this repugnance against exposure, and shows that it had arisen entirely apart from outside influences and in some aspects formed a foundation upon which Christian beliefs were super­ imposed. Though this feeling existed amongst some, it is difficult to say whether it had any influence amongst those who

(l) ^ •&• Cameron, "The Exposure of Children and Greek Ethics" Classical Review, Vol. 46, 1923. -53-

for the most part resorted to exposure; and whether its effect could have finally accomplished the extinction of the practice, if left undisturbed. The fact that its teaching was so abstract and so symbolic would indicate that it could not be a religion for the ordinary man; and as it was he who was responsible for the majority of the cases of exposure, its beliefs cannot have been brought to bear directly upon the practice. However that may be, it w%s, in all likelihood, the combination of various forces, in the progress of mankind, headed by the Christian church, which finally reduced the prevalence of the custom to what it is today.

Fate of the Exposed Child• It might be interesting to consider briefly the fate of the child who was exposed. In the case of this question, as with many others concerning exposure, we have two utterly diver­ gent views, the one side upholding the opinion that the child in (1) most cases died, the other that it was more often adopted, as it (2) was exposed in a public place. The reason for this difference of opinion is again lack of information. But we have many side­ lights upon the practice which may help us to form our opinion. There were in all only four likely fates which could befall a "potted infant". To begin with, it could perish, by hunger and cold or, occasionally in country places by the attacks

(1) Darembarg and Saglio - "Expositio." (2) Zimmern "The Greek Commonwealth " page 330. -54-

of beasts. But if, on the contrary, it should live, it might be rescued to be reared as a slave, adopted surreptitiously by a barren woman and palmed off as her own, or least likely of all it appears, taken in by some kind-hearted person who out of the pity of his soul could not withstand the wailing of the starving child.

Just where a child was exposed we have no explicit evi­ dence. In most plays and myths of exposure it is in some out-of- the-way corner that a child was left, in a cave or on a mountain­ side where nobody was likely to see it. Bio Chrysostomus mentions

a shepherd and his wife who " ol uo^ov ol« It er/Oe^v CLITO) r S (1)

y e rr-7j o~a. IS I e 5 9 a A \ cc x

The phrase eis T-^J O£<2 is rather vague and could be interpreted in various ways. The actual place would no doubt depend largely on the circumstances of the exposure—whether perpetrated by a father in anger at finding his daughter no longer a virgin, and bent on the destruction of the child; by a mother of an illegi­ timate child eager to hide her sin and therefore to wipe out all indication of it; by the wealthy who naturally, if they could bear to commit such a crime, from so selfish a motive, would wish the child destroyed; or finally by the poor who would be divided in their sentiments. Some, no doubt, would wish to see their child saved at any expense, but some would rather the child died than be adopted for the fate which may have been in store for it. On the whole, then, the majority would be inclined to expose their children in a hidden spot to ensure the death of the child. The

(l) Dio Chrysostomus XX • 448# -55-

greatest check upon the adoption of such an infant for any pur­ pose was that if the child at any subsequent time was recognized by its parents it had to be restored if they desired. Consequent ly the expense of its rearing might be incurred for nothing. Glotz is of the opinion that it was practically always for slavery that an exposed child was rescued. If, however, it was exposed in a secluded spot, it would probably be difficult for a slave dealer or anyone else desiring to rear a child for a slave, to find an infant who had been exposed in such a manner before the child was dead. Any parents,if they stopped to think about it, would rather see their child dead than reared as a slave under the conditions which often had to be endured by them. They would probably take pains to keep it out of the hands of those who would devote it to degraded purposes. In the case of a woman, who being barren herself, pro­ cured the child of another and pretended it was her own, the actual exposure was sometimes not carried out. Arrangements would have to be made for its reception in the household and due notice given of its arrival, as it could hardly be brought in at a moment's notice. Probably a bargain was struck with the parents who would have otherwise exposed the expected child. We can imagine, however, that it was not rarely that a husband was surprised with the unexpected news of the birth of a child. Such a case would be not inconceivable in households where the women associated so little with their husbands. -56-

It happened, too, occasionally that a person finding an exposed infant would be touched with pity and take it in. We have many cases of shepherds doing this in the early tales, and later too we actually hear of Epictetus adopting a child, though in this instance the child was not exposed, but had it not been rescued, would have suffered this fate. But since it was gener­ ally because the father had too many mouths to feed on account of the overpopulation of Greece that he exposed a child, we will have to believe that others would have already as many children as they could support, without burdening themselves further. There are, of course bound to have been exceptions.

There is a passage in a work of Mahaffy which we may appropriately consider in this connection. "If the habit of exposing children was indeed common," he says, "and the evidence of this point is usually thought conclusive, can we conceive anything more brutalizing and searing to the natural instinct of affection of any young mother than to have her new-born irfant taken from her and thrown to the ravens and the wolves, ^nd yet it is very hard to evade the statements not only that such con­ duct was strictly legal, but that it frequently occurred. I per­ sonally still feel skeptical, for I know not in actual history of any case where such an infant was picked up or where an exposure of this kind is said to have been perpetrated by a person (1) with a name."

(1) A Survey of Greek Civilization - page 218 -57-

This criticism, I think, though perhaps not intention­ ally, shows how often an exposed infant must have perished. We know that the practice existed. Yet why do we not hear of people who had been exposed in their infancy or who had committed such an act as the exposure of a child? The answer is that so few ever did survive that we never hear of them. Even if they did survive would their identity ever come to light? If they were reared for slavery, or to fill the place of a child of another, careful steps would be taken to remove all signs of their true identity, so that the child in after years could never be claimed by its parents. Then too we hear of Cyrus being exposed and there is also the case of Epictetus mentioned before. But they are ex­ ceptional instances. As for the parents who exposed a babe, their deed was not one about which they would talk. If the deed was not committed through poverty, surely a sense of shame would silence those who exposed a child for any other motive. But if straitened circumstances were responsible, the parents compelled by this cruel necessity to part with their child, would naturally keep the sorrow deep in their hearts. Unless the child in later years should be found again, no public mention at least was likely, AS a result the record of the exposure would never be preserved for later ages to hear. The myths and plays, in which the interest centres about one who had been exposed and subsequently recognized cannot truly represent the usual outcome of the act. Naturally the play or story is not possible without the child being found many years afterwards. This happy ending is probably as true as the conclu­ sion of tales which we have read, of a babe being stolen by -58-

gypsies and later found by its parents-possible, but far removed from every-day life.

The manner in which a child was exposed also reveals that its death was expected. The baby was either laid on the ground in its shawl or more usually was prepared for death. It

was then placed in a pot or x

placed the cr^^ 6v7/6>^e^ , the babyish amulets and trinkets,

not for flsCj„,'(r^c±7ci, or tokens with which it may be recognized later, but in accordance with the custom by which these were placed with babies who died, as personal belongings and vases were buried with older people, longus understands their use

SHY / when he causes the king to/f ou * u ojpi o-p. <*_-#_ 7a.J7u. (rwe«Oe''s (2) fir ^X\l^7^if icu "• When Ion is exposed, he is prepared in this rT way and is raid to have been exposed LS<$ Bo-soup.**^ "• ,T At Gela in Sicily of 570 graves, 233 were ^,a, " containing the bodies of infants. Some people point to this in­ stance as proving exposure, but of course the high rate of infant mortality can easily explain the large number of coffins. 3ut it does show that the vJr^cx, was the ordinary tomb of infants. Thus

(2) Longus - Baphnis * Chloe - Bk. ±X Par* 56^ (1) "The bodies of children which even in places where cremation was in practice were not usually burnt, often had a big figured jar for their last resting place." Greek rottery - Dugas page 36. -59-

*e may conclude that an exposed child was expected to perish, and usually did. But if it should by chance be rescued, it was probably never united with its family.

We might notice in passing another point brought out in the quotation of Mahaffy —that is the feelings of the mother. The practice of exposure has often been criticised as cruel, but the cruelty involved in the death of the infant, could not be compared with its mother!s agony, as medical opinion states that a child would not live many hours after exposure. Plato in the Theaetetus points out the fierceness of women who have had a child taken from them and this illustrates that it was probably not often carried out with a motherTs approval, except in cases of illegitimate children. She might afterwards be thankful that the deed was done, but we can imagine the mother herself doing anything with the child before exposing it. Thus as it was the father's position to decide whether the infant should live, so he probably made arrangements for its disposal.

System of Exposure at Sparta• I have purposely omitted mentioning the system of exposure practised at Sparta, but since it was the only state in Greece which adopted a systematic method of exposure, I have reserved it to be treated alone. The practice as described by Plutarch is as follows--"0ffspring was not reared at the will of the father, but was taken and carried by him to a place called -60-

Lesche, where the elders of the tribe officially examined the infant, and if it were well-built and sturdy, they ordered the father to rear it and assigned it one of the 9000 lots of land, but if it was ill-born and deformed, they sent it to the so- called Apothetae, a chasm-like place at the foot of Mt. Taygetus, in the conviction that the life of that which nature had not well equipped at the very beginning for health and strength was of no (1) advantage either to itself or to the state." When and by whom this method was introduced is a debatable point. As a rule it is attributed to Lycurgus along with the other institutions peculiar to Sparta. Though some of the Spartan customs may have been adopted from similar Cretan practices, this is not so in the case of the method of exposure. We have no literary authority which mentions it among the Spartan imitations of Cretan life, and the early writers would, without doubt, have spoken of it, if the Cretans had practised exposure. Furthermore the Gortynian law Oode of the fifth century implies that exposure in Crete was penalized in certain cases, while the island had no problem of overpopulation at this time which would have made exposure necessary. If the system became established in Sparta when the other Lycurgan reforms were introduced, it would be one of the earliest practices of exposure in historic times, and upon this method individuals of other states may have modelled their use of it. In this case, lycurgus, or whomsoever the name represents, may have based the custom upon ideas which

(l) Life of Lycurgus XVI - Plutarch. -61- he received in other countries, or it may have been devised in Sparta itself, as it is in keeping with the rest of the stern Spartan institutions and thus quite possible of being conceived in the minds of those who devised the other reforms. In opposition to this opinion, we may be justified in regarding this practice of exposure as a much later development. Again we have no actual references to the practice in Sparta until the time of Plutarch, so that without definite information it is difficult to come to a true conclusion. Plato, in the Republic, probably had in mind the Spartan system, so it was very likely practised in Sparta in his day. It was not until the middle of the sixth century that Sparta accomplished supremacy in the reloponnese, and up to that time waged almost continual war­ fare. Until the end of this series of war, it is reasonable to suppose that Sparta needed all the citizens she could produce, so that exposure is not at all in keeping with this need. I think that the most probable suggestion is that it was not until she had settled down from these wars and devoted her attention more closely to the number of citizens born, that the system of exposure was introduced--about the beginning of the fifth century. This date agrees roughly with the time at which exposure became known in other parts of Greece where the first signs of over­ population began to be felt. This opinion is supported by the fact that Sparta sent out no colonies with the exception of one for political reasons, showing that she needed all her citizens at home. But vfnen her hold over the conquered population became slightly more secure, and she had a respite from war, she found that the citizens were becoming too numerous for the allotments -62-

of land assigned to them and it is then that the method of exposure probably had its beginning.

By carrying out this method, the Spartans accom­ plished a two-fold object. They limited in a systematic manner the population, so as to be contained comfortably within the state. As it was the fittest who survived, on the other hard, it was effective in building up a sturdy race of men who could bear almost any hardship and endure all toil—an essential factor to the small number of citizens amidst a large population of conquered people.

The uuestion of whether the father of a child had the right to expose it before submitting it to the authorities for examination, or even after it had been passed by them, cannot be settled by reference to fact, as we nowhere hear of such a case. This absence of information indicates that it was evident­ ly a problem which did not arise. The Spartan citizen, though poor, was fairly sure of a livelihood. He had his allotment of land and the contribution to the public syssitia was very small. The education of the children was carried out by the state, after they had reached their seventh year. *£ a result the rearing of a child was not such a burden as in other states, so that the need of exposing children through poverty could hardly exist. Amongst the helots and Perioicoi, however, the practice would undoubtedly be common. An alternate suggestion for the interpretation of exposure beinp carried out in the chasm of Lit. Teygetus is that the infants were killed immediately by being hurled over the cliff. -63- ihis explanation seems slightly less probable, ±he hole into which they placed the infants was called, as we learn from Plutarch, "Apothetae". The word "^^-/s^, " and the practically synonomous " ^Kr^G^t " are used as a rule to signify nothing stronger than "to place aside" or "set aside", and on many occasions already quoted can have no other meaning but "to exposeV The Spartans had, too, a place into which they hurled criminals, either alive or dead, and wherever mention is made of criminals being cast into this, the usual words which (1) signify this action are " ^ ftj.\\»j " or " 6,V/3/AA^ ". If then the same general procedure was followed in the case of infants, we should not expect the hole to be called "Apothetae", the place where infants were stowed away, but some stronger word from rt/3c^Vw" or "^>/7?7v>" which would suggest the place into which infants were cast. The fact that the later Greeks at large used the compounds of the word "r/o^p^i " to mean "expose" would signify that it was used by the Spartans with the same sense, and that it was from their constant use of it in this connection that it bore this meaning commonly in other parts of Greece when the practice of exposure increased, mother point to be noticed is that in the

Gortynian law Code the word " a,7?o7,'e^j^( " is used and here it means "to expose". If it bore this meaning in Crete at so early a time amongst Dorians, it is likely that it had the same meaning in Dorian Sparta.

(l) e.g. rausanias TV - 18, 4. Thucydides j: - 134. -64-

The practice of doing away with infants does not appear to have any religious significance. For instance it is not connected in any way with the cult of Artemis Orthia at whose altar young lads were scourged. This practice too may (1) have been a later innovation. But suppose it wasn't; even so we have no grounds at s,ll to connect it with the exposure of infants. Otherwise we might have expected the babies to have been killed immediately, and to have been killed at the shrine of Artemis. Then too it would not have been only weak children who were exposed, but probably the first born. But the system seems to have arisen from no other reason but to effect the objects already mentioned. The early religion of the Spartans, as of the rest of the Greeks,involving as it did belief in ajrtnropornorphic gods, who often went about amongst men, avenging themselves upon those by whom they were slighted and bringing good fortune to those by whom they were. honoured is a strong argument against the practice of actually killing the infants. By leaving them to die, the Spartans gave the gods at least a chance to preserve the children, if such was their divine will. In consideration of these points, the "apothetae" was probably a place where infants were exposed to relieve excessive population and to keep the Spartan physique up to a high standard.

(l) H.J. Rose - "The Cult of ^rtemis Orthia" from "Artemis Orthia" JournaVof Hellenic Studies - Supplementary Vol. V. -65-

Exposure amongst Slaves. In the course of this inquiry in connection with exposure, we have referred essentially to the citizen portion of the population. There still remains the large body of slaves who lived under conditions widely opposed to those of their mast­ ers. Yet they too were human beings and a very important element in the society. We might now ask opportunely whether their fetters made their offspring more liable to exposure or, on the other hand, whether they protected them, since their life of service was far too valuable for their masters to forego.

The common attitude towards slaves entertained by the citizens of a Greek state is clearly revealed by the manner in which they are regarded by such people as Plato and Aristotle. Deep thinkers though they are, keenly interested in the problems of mankind, yet they cannot dispense with the slave element in the population. Plato argues that the position of a slave is his due, the custom of slavery being merely an example

of the rule of the \e^f?oV " ^ "the V*'™""^ * whereas Aristotle estimates him no more highly than a piece of movable property -- (1) O fa-p hou\oS epwduVoV Op jrcLi/o\/ j/o VonycKVov O.-^o^o'S &ouAO<5 • It follows then that slaves were subject to treatment which would never be applied to a free citizen. "On principle the slave had no personality. He had no real name of his own. If two slaves cohabited, this union, though tolerated was not a marriage. The issue was merely an increase in livestock to the owner of

(l) Ethica ITic^omachia - VIII. 13, p. 1161 -66-

(1) the woman ".

This degraded status then being the lot of the slave, any children born could be treated as the master of the mother willed. His decision to keep or to expose a slave infant would rest entirely upon circumstances. Perhaps slightly more consideration would be given to the child of a slave who had originally been Greek, than to that of an imported foreigner, but on the other hand the latter was occasionally more skilled and could pass his knowledge on to his children. Consequently their chances at birth were more or less equal. A very important determining factor would be the expense of rearing a child until it reached an age when it would become useful and a frequent question on the lips of a Greek householder would have been "Is it more economical to buy a grown slave than to rear one in my house?" The general consensus of opinion is that "it was cheaper (2) to buy a slave than to rear one to the age of labour." Zimmern concludes that "slave infants had a more precarious chance than (3) free; for it always pays better to buy than to breed slaves." This being the case the slave infant would have very little chance to live. When a slave mother expected a child, according to Dio Chrysostomus, she took matters straightway into her own hands-

(l)Glotz - Ancient Greece at Work. (2) Encyclo. Brit. - Slaves. (3)"The Greek Commonwealth" - page 332 -67-

#c5 §e SoJyas /^J^^^K, ?ai y^ ,7^0 ToO 7o*c^

O /ICAJS

PT ~f>*-fp-*T«- e^tri 77*. SoTpo(fe7v d* o. yK exf *'p.e „*.t vp ___ -» / •*

Thus the child had first to gain his mother's consent to live. After this there still loomed the master, whose wish was abso­ lute. After running these two gauntlets, its mother and her master, not many slave babies emerged.

We can censure this treatment or their children by slave-women far less justly than the same act when accom­ plished by citizens. The slave had become well-acquainted with the kind of life that was in store for her child and did not wish it to live to have to endure such an existence. Further­ more, she had her own interest to consider. A child was only an extra burden added to her tasks and as, of course, these occupied her fully she would have litcle time to devote to her baby. These thoughts induced her to take what was in her mind, the most merciful course of action. The case of sex may have been to some extent in­ fluential in determining the fate of the child. Girls appear very frequently to have been preferred to boys. "Among house- CD hold slaves", says W..». i'arn, "the proportions or men and women were equal; but amongst houseborn, judging by those

(1) Hellenistic civilization page 90. -68-

liberated, women so preponderated that seemingly the girl baby born of a slave mother had a better chance of life than if her mother were free. Purchased slaves were far more numerous than houseborn." This last sentence is in agreement with the general opinion that many houseborn slave children were exposed. The girl slave, it is probable, was much cheaper to rear than the male. She could pick up her training from others around the establishment and could make herself useful at an earlier age. She too was less of a nuisance about the house than a boy. In large estates at least many slave boys were sent out to learn a trade, and may have incurred exoense in this way. We may not be justified, however, in basing our view that more house-born slave girls were reared than boys entirely upon the evidence of the numbers of those freed, V/omen slaves may have been liberated to a greater extent than men. First of all they would naturally excite more compassion from their masters, as being by nature weaker them men, and less able to bear their lot. Besides this their duties would be neglected at times, because of the birth of a child, and if this happened fairly often, the master would find that the benefit he received was hardly equal to the cost of the slave1s keep, little though it was. The result then was a better chance of freedom for

women. In the event of enfranchisement of a woman slave, the fate of the children born subsequently varied in accordance with her owner's will- The documents referring to the liberation of slaves found at Delphi show that various stipulations concern- -69-

ing such a child were frequently made in the agreement, usually that the child was to be free also. When there was no specific mention of future offspring, they evidently took the status of their mother. Sometimes the owner, even though he had liberated the slave, reserved for himself the privilege of disposing of

h.6r diildippri '—->•* /— ^ t* •> -"» ^ _ -• -» -, • x XJ,# '*- pe is r-riGewic*. ec a.o>7

ecra- icotTo^V SouXc^ ^XejiTTTT^S- (l) The exposed slave infant would stand the same chance of being preserved as the freeborn child- V/e have seen that the outlook of the latter was not very bright. if the slave child was exposed by its own mother, she would probably take pains that it should die. Xenophon recommends that permission be given to slaves to have children as a reward for good con­ duct. This suggestion shows that it was plainly regarded as a nuisance. Consequently the slave mother would try to get rid of her child as quietly and with as little annoyance to her owner as possible. If the master determined that the child should be exposed certainly no kindly motives would persuade him to abandon the child in a place where there was a chance of it being discovered. As a consequence, the#, the larger proportion of exposed slave infants, too, must have perished.

(1) Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum. ITo. 1608. -70-

Legal References.

Throughout the history of exposure in Greece, we have noticed an almost absolute silence with regard to it on the part of the law. This fact itself could arise from two causes, either because such laws did not exist, or though they did exist they have since perished. The latter alternative is not at all likely, since Polybius bewails lack of laws against it, even in his day, while we hear of no person being tried for exposure as a crime. The obvious implication is that it was permissible in the eyes of the law as well as by public opinion. During the fifth and fourth centuries, it was not practised, perhaps, on so extensive a scale as to require legislation against it. But afterwards some law would necessarily have been passed in one of the states if exposure was regarded as a crime. Thus we have reason to believe that it was not only by the minds of the people that it was tolerated, but it was allowed also legally. There are, however, one or two exceptions. .Ye have in the Gortynian law code of the sixth or fifth century B.C., previously quoted, the statement that divorced wives in certain cases may expose a child without penalty, showing that on some occasions, it must have involved a certain punishment, even in this early period. If this is so, it is indeed a unique case; and if it is an example of humane feeling, we may well marvel at the instance of the phenomenon. Can we discover any ulterior motive? V/e have not far to look. The institutions and habits of the Cretans are in many ways comparable to those of the -71-

Spartans. In Crete, as in Sparta, a considerable portion of the population was formed by a conquered race, who though not treated as badly as slaves, yet had certain duties and tasks. Thus the Dorian masters here were in somewhat the same position as their Dorian kinsmen in Sparta and were faced with the same problem of keeping their authority over the subject people. Sparta had no further room for expansion and so accomplished her end by creating a superior brand of citizen and keeping strict vigilance. Ja the contrary, Crete had plenty of room. iVe hear of the island receiving colonies in the sixth century. Her precaution then was to increase the number of citizens con­ tinually and eventually outnumber those in subjection to them. This would account for measures against exposure. The next legal reference to exposure in Chronological order takes us to Rome. In 456 B.C. an embassy was sent to Greece to obtain what information it could as to the practical working of the laws. The final outcome was the compilation of the Twelve Tables. Of these, one reads "Monstrous offspring (i) may be out to death in the presence of five witnesses. •' This indeed is very reminiscent of Sparta and the idea may have been adooted thence. We know of no other state in Greece which had a similar lav/. Indeed it was not likely to be found where even normal children were not protected legally. Thenceforth there is a long and consistent silence concerning exposure in ail Greece. It is not for several cen­ turies that we hear of a law concerning it. The next step

(1) Tabula IV - Frag. _I -72- against exposure appears in the writing of Aelian, who speaks of a law at Thebes.

It 7 /SlOpo? GvTaS &~7 /SeLiKoS f O p Qtx>

KetyeroS l,s To7s p.cLX,r7c^ - 'OT, oaK Jfea-Tiis ? C7 77 p -7 /*»av ao/V v £>& ei\

n ,'-*{ A.I f t?c*~ is U. To*/ Cus ToO /-*! if r o-a~ f*. €r isoS ' " (1) He further explains how the child is taken to the magistrates and given over by them to another, after coming to an agreement about its upbringing. Though the date of this law is uncertain it is usually assigned to the time of the Antonines. At ii,phesus also certain restrictions were enforced. A person evidently had to give definite proof of his poverty before he was permitted to expose the child.

Kc 1 £'S \6o-7f • ) v-o^oS e *" C tf> e-a~oJ p-~j e£ e **s• CX.I

7ic^7p>f 77a.< oa.f> a. // o (b]€rcr€?c-.f e c*>^ <*-* d>/a- A > p^ov

A- ~ ' -'c " (2) We have no means of dating this law. It is inter­ esting to note that exposure was permitted as a last resort and that no steps were taken by the state to relieve the in­ dividual of his burden, as in Thebes. Just what causes prompted these two laws would be difficult to ascertain. Was it the fear on the part of the

(1) Aelian V.H. TT - 7. (2) Proclus - On Hesiod!s "Works and Days." line 495. -73- legislators that the population would dwindle? Or, on the other hand, were the teachings of the Church or other moral codes, influential in arousing such action against the practice ?

Both these laws are aimed against exposure, necessary through poverty. As the wealthy were also responsible for a fair share of the numbers of exposure, we can hardly suppose that moral scruples instigated the legislation. In Thebes at least, it may have been a more humane streak which asserted itself. However, existence of these two laws does prove that exposure was being practised far beyond all reasonable limits* In this connection, we might include two quotations from the "Oracula Sebyllina". Amongst sinners are listed

it oa~o~c».i € isf pc*-o-?epi tJfopTow. (l) > ^~ ' ^> . and n —• /} \ /h '/ *' > ' vj-Oi Xei **•** " £y'KJCL \° to.! o.p CGtsc s c*-f

T->jl/ b /&/CLV pe^is-yjis- Jjc\(i>oOlS /p> *Ols €v <£ . (2) — "_ * "*/-! ' ~ \ ' _ *" I 'TJ - So much has been introduced by later teachings that it is impossible to sort the original sentiments from the later additions. These words too have quite plainly been touched up to suit the Christian doctrine. But the basic stratum may have been an original protest against exposure and then it formed a foundation for later views.

(1) II - i. 280 (2) Til - 1. 762. -74-

With these scant fragments, our legal material connected with exposure is exhausted. After surveying what little evidence remains, we find that it falls in line with the conclusion based upon an examination of the literature. With the except­ ion of the Gortynian Law, which as we have seen may be inter­ preted to refer to special circumstances, it was not until Christian times that any laws were passed against the practice, showing that a free hand was left to the people to carry on the practice till it had probably been carried too far. It re­ mained for the later Roman emperors to make the custom illegal.

Connection between Exposure and infanticide for religious Motives.

Now that the history of the practice of exposure has "oeen treated as accurately as possible, it may be of interest to attempt to discover any underlying currents of thought apart from the actual circumstances responsible for the need of ex­ posure, to which the idea itself may be related; any deep and hidden motives which though not visible at first sight, may in the beginning have created this mitigated form of infanticide and which continued in some form to later days. Our problem will be to determine whether, in the dim and distant past when Greece was inhabited by men in a very primitive stage, there was any end which infanticide if practised was calculated to accomplish; furthermore, if this can be established, whether there was any connecting link between the thoughts of the peoples -75-

of the tv/o separate epochs, or whether the Greeks of later days were entirely ignorant of the purposes of their prede­ cessors. In this latter case, exposure would be a chance tool which effected equally well their different aims. Amongst primitive peoples everywhere, there are at least three distinct factors discernible which have been for­ cible in instigating the practice of infanticide. The first and perhaps most wide-spread, is the custom of sacrificing a child, usually the first-born, to appease the wrath of a par­ ticular god or gods, I'his custom was followed amongst early Carthaginians, Phoenicians, Canaanites, Iloabites, Sepharvites, Hebrews, and probably other branches of the Semetic race. It was also common in India and amongst some of the early Teutons and Drobably gave rise to the custom of the "sacred spring" (1) amongst the Italians. The second explanation has likewise a religious significance. In many places, people who believe in immor­ tality and transmigration of souls, practise infanticide upon a considerable scale, i'or instance amongst certain of the Hindus, a man is considered to be born again in the person of his son, a notion which would naturally give rise to the de­ sire of putting the child out of the way, so as not to inter­ fere with his own life. In some cases, however, the idea existed that a son merely absorbed his vital energy, and this belief too would have the same effect. In other olaces the

(1) "Origin and Develooment of the Moral Ideas" - V/estermarck, 1 "VolV I, P. 406. "The golden iiough" - Part £11 - The Dyiag God,P,178-J.C. i»'razer. -76-

child is allowed to grow up and when he becomes of age fights (1) with his father for the position of head of his house. The third and perhaps least known cause, as it is usually concealed, is the plea of poverty and inability to support your offspring. This cause, would of course be less widespread, as it would not be resorted to except in cases of dire necessity and the accomplishment of the deed would not be attended by the martyr-like exaltation which would be the re­ sult of sacrificing a new-born infant, nor yet the sense of security derived from the murder of a child who would other­ wise cut short your life in some unconscious and inexplicable way. Infanticide for this reason was practised amongst the nomad tribes of Arabia. The Rajputs of India too because of the expense involved in the marriage of a daughter found this expedient necessary. Thus almost universally amongst primitive peoples where infanticide exists, one of these underlying currents may be traced. Greece, moreover, was no exception. In the stories 12) of the sacrifice of Iphigenia at xOiiis, of his two children by Menelaus when he was desirous of sailing away and contrary (3) winds opposed him, of various youths and maidens at the command of the oracle at different times, of the sacrifice of a babe to (4) Lycaean Zeus, in Arcadia, we find reminiscences of an age when human sacrifice must have appeased the gods in certain cases. p)"Tha Golden Bough" - Part III - The By lag God, Chapt. VI 7.C. Grazer. (2) Aeschylus - Again. 1- Z±5* (3) i-ierodotus - .II - 19• (4) Frazer "Golden Aough" - xhe Scapegoat p. 353. -77-

Dr. Frazer referring to the tradition of i,ing Atha- mas of Thessaly and to a certain family in Orchomenos, a member of which each year was liable to be sacrificed concludes - ».7e may infer that in Thessaly and probably Boeotia, there reigned of old a dynasty of which the kings were liable to be sacrificed for the good of the country to the god called Laphystiam Zeus, but that they contrived to shift the fatal responsibility to their offspring of whom the eldest son was regularly destined to the altar. The tradition which associated the sacrifice of the king or of his children with a great dearth, points clearly to the belief, so common amongst orimitive folk, that the king is (1) responsible for the weather and the crops." This legends com­ bines in a way the first and second motives. Dr. Frazer fur­ ther attributes to the harm done to a father by the spirit of a son, the story of Cronos and ^eus attempting to destroy their children. "Such barbarous myths," he says, "become intellig­ ible if we suppose that they took their rise among people who were accustomed to see grown-up sons supplanting their fathers by force, and fathers murdering and perhaps eating their in­ fants, in order to secure themselves against their future rivalry." The story of Oedipus may come from a time when father and son plotted against each other. The fact also that in some early myths of exposed children, a god is mentioned as a child1s father may be a later explanation of a sacrifice of a child to that god.

(i) Frazer "Golden Bough", - The Dying God - page 165. , \ it n " " » " 192. (2) TT -78-

Another view is that a great many of these legends which are usually attributed to human sacrifice, may be ex­ plained in other ways, iliss Harrison says "It may indeed be doubted whether we have any certain evidence of "human sacri­ fice" in our sense amongst the Greeks, even of mythological days. A large number of cases which were by the tragedians regarded as such, resolve themselves into cases of the blood feud, cases such as those of Iphigenia,and Polyxena, when the object was really the placation of a ghost, not the service of an Olympian. Perhaps a still larger number are primarily not sacrifices, 00*-!** , but ceremonies of riddance and purifica­ tion, KCL.e*.pju*ot . jjhe ultimate fact that lies behind such ceremonies is the use of a human pharmakos, and then later, when the real meaning was lost, all manner of aetiological (1) myths are invented and some offended Olympian is introduced." Though these motives may explain certain stories, there are others which obviously cannot have any alternate interpreta­ tion. Thus in Greece, also, these two motives were pre­ dominant in bringing about sacrifices of children. It was likely that the first born was usually the victim as in all other primitive societies. The plea of poverty we do not find in these early stories. The sacrificial ideas may originally have come to Greece from other lands, perhaps through Crete, or else arose independently as they did in other parts of the world. n) prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion, page 109 -79-

Is it possible, ohen, to connect in any way the ex­ posures which started in the fifth century or slightly earlier with the sacrifice of infants which was in all likelihood at least known amongst the very early inhabitants of Greece? Or were the later cases of exposure entirely the outcome of lack of food supply or of the other motives which we have already noticed, rather than only aggravated by them. To identify the two in any way, we would have to find some stream of thought which filtered, though obscurely, down through the ages and was then revived in later times. We have preserved in legend, stories of exposure which have come from Homeric or pre- Homeric times, and customs practised which, may have had their origin in the rite of human sacrifice of by-gone days. Jiut nowhere can we find a similar legend of events which took place between the time of the nomeric tales and the fifth cen­ tury. It is as if the train of thought had been entirely des­ troyed as far as the people are concerned- Since there had elapsed so long a space of time during which we would have to look a long way to discover a case of infanticide or exposure, we cannot reasonably consider that religious fervour could have descended upon the Greeks with such force as to be the main motive of the cases of exposure which took place in the fifth and fourth centuries and were continued afterwards on a larger scale. There is one line of thought which suggests itself, but if only because of the many suppositions necessary, is nuite impossible. There are some who consider ^ycurgus, the famous Spartan law-giver, as being elevated into the rank of a -80-

hero or a god and in some way connected with the cult of Zeus (1) Lycaeus. Furthemore the practice of exposing children is attributed to Lycurgus along with other institutions peculiar to Sparta. The legend of King Lycaon is attended with all manner of stories of human sacrifice. By putting two and two together, can we connect the exposure of children in Sparta with the human sacrifices to Zeus Lycaeus? I think not. To begin with, we have no definite proof that Lycurgus was con­ nected with this cult of Zeus; that he instituted the system of exposure; or again that human sacrifices were actually practised in connection with this cult in early times, rfe have seen that the system of exposure was probably a later develop­ ment in the constitution of the Spartans, A very strong proof against the idea is that the Spartan citizens alone practised exposure. If exposure had had a religious significance, we might reasonably expect to find the custom practised by the rest of the Spartan population and by towns in Arcadia where the same cult existed. As we have seen in Sparta, so in the rest of Greece, it was usually any other child but the first born who was exoosed. This is opposed to the religious view which believes that the god was particularly pleased with the sacrifice of the first born child, which in some places became automati­ cally dedicated to the god, whether born in a time of trouble or not. In the case of killing an infant to prolong oneTs own life it was the spirit of the first-born which was most potent.

(1) Encyclopaedia Britannica - under nycurgus. -81-

The greater humanity of the Greeks, shown in the practice of exposure rather than infanticide by any other means reflects the resigned submission to necessity with the hope of salvation from some unknown source rather than the swift com­ pliance with the wish of a god. If we need further proof we have only to consider that the Greeks themselves never mention this idea, besides the fact that infants were exposed anywhere and at any time, not kept to be exposed on some festival in honour of a god.

The obvious conclusion then is that exposure in historic Greece was not a survival of the killing of infants for religious motives. When exposure became known to any extent in Greece, contacts with many other peoples were already established, so that it would be difficult to determine whether the idea of exposure had sprung up originally in Greece itself, or whether it had been based upon the practice of infanticide in other lands. Truly the peoples near Greece who practised infanti­ cide did so as a sacrificial rite rather than through over­ population. But whatever its motive the idea could have suggested itself to the Greeks as a method for limiting their families. On the other hand, it is quite possible that the practice was original on their part. ±he latter opinion seems to be more reasonable. After all exposure is not a custom which must depend on a common source, but has arisen indepen­ dently amongst many primitive peoples. -82-

Terminology. The terminology in connection with exposure does not vary widely. The adoption by various parts of Greece of the same word to express this act reveals how well known it finally became. The words ^rp/fnj and wvTp.fu, were not used in every-day life at all. They were coined by the dra­ matists and used by Aristophanes when he parodies the trage­ dians. Whenever they occur the scholiast feels bound to ex­ plain them and can parallel their use only by reference to tragedy. Hesychius and Suidas recognize the words, but evident­ ly adopt them from these sources. The fact that the words are found originally in tragedy proves beyond doubt that the y^rp*. became the coffin of the exposed infant even when the practice was first beginning.

Miss Harrison regards the word lyxuTr'^ as ^e~ riving its meaning from the day of the Chytroi. She explains this festival as originally a purification ceremony and "from some such notion arose the Aristophanic word S^uTp, $&* "to pot", i.e. to utterly ruin and destroy, to make away with." Whatever the real meaning,the word was not used in everyday speech, for after Aristophanes, we do not find it. The usual expression was 6«Jia^)^t or arjoT, 9-^^, • Of twenty references to exposure from Euripides to i^ongus, I find that fifteen use one or other of these words. V/henever a scholiast explains frrr/ju> , he uses the word *«i-fe^, . The

(l)"Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion" - page 38 -83-

same is true of Hesychius, Suidas and Moiris. -he use of so colourless a word as this does not imply that children were not

exposed 4r pT~* , any more than because we do not say "to coffin" a person but rather "to bury" him implies that he is

not buried in a coffin, ihe other words used a'p.^j- , ^w, and pivru> , but each one occurs on only one occasion.

Conclusion,

From this survey of references to exposure in liter­ ature and the consideration of the prevailing conditions in the various periods, the following conclusions may be drawn. The exposure of infants throughout the Homeric period and to the end of the sixth century B.C. was such a rare occurrence that the truth of its perpetration was hardly credited. The cases which were known were preserved in story and passed on from generation to generation. It was not until the fiftji cen­ tury that the practice gained any hold over the people, and though it existed for a century and a half it hardly dared raise its head in public. Thereafter exposure became quite common and until about the second century A.D. its prevalence fluctuated with the nature of existing conditions. After that point it was diminished. The cause of exposure was essentially overpopulation. Consequently it was the poorer class who first of all had to resort to it. unce this practice was established, other motives -84-

less excusable also prompted it. For instance it was often the way to rid oneself of an illegitimate child. Slave masters or even slaves were relieved often of the burden of a child by exposure. But the greatest secondary cause was the in­ difference on the part of the wealthy to have more than one or two children amongst whom their fortune would have to be di­ vided. Exposure for such a reason could never have been toler­ ated if the custom was not firmly planted for some time before­ hand. The capacity of Greece for supporting her people, chief­ ly on account of wide tracks of wasteland, had reached its limit by the end of the eighth century. Colonization relieved the pressure for two hundred years; but after that time expo­ sure was the chief weapon of fighting the evil. Once this practice was tolerated, it was abused shamefully and from the third century B.C., it was the manner in which unreasonable parents rid themselves of unwanted children.

The effect on the population which this practice was instrumental in accomplishing was evident as early as the days of Polybius, but extreme measures for a time staved off the calamity. Aliens and slaves from other lands were enfran­ chised in incredible numbers and it was by this means that the population remained practically stationary. There is consider­ able truth in Juvenal's description of the "Greekling", many of whom in his day had nothing in common with .their prede­ cessors of classical times. By the end of the second century the problem of depopulation was very pressing. -86-

We might add one or two words in conclusion to show that when the practice of exposure first began, though conk pelled by necessity, the parents of the child regarded the ex­ posure with slightly different feelings from those with which we regard their action. People often ask why it was that the Greeks who were as a rule so scrupulously careful about the lives of their citizens and could not take the life of any grown person, not even a slave who was regarded hardly less highly than a piece of furniture, without incurring a grave charge, parted with their offspring with so little compunction, rating the life of a new born infant at next to nothing. There is a point worth noticing which is well brought out by H.J. Rose

"A Greek father had not like the Roman paterfamilias, the power of life and death over his children; if then he might expose them when new-born, it follows that they are scarcely felt to be human, hut son or daughter, the child thus ex­ posed was treated in a casual way that contrasts strongly with the punctilious avoidance of taking human life, espec- (1) ially the life of a kinsman, in the Greek word generally." On the fifth day after birth, the Amphidromia was held, the festival at which the child was carried round the hearth, and either on this day, or as late as the tenth day after birth, the relatives were invited to a sacrifice and banquet and the babe admitted to the family. It appears that after this ceremony the child wag never exposed- But there

(l)"Primitive Culture in Greece" - page 114 -86-

was absolutely no objection to exposing a babe not yet a partaker of family rites or those of the state. In the eyes of the Greeks it was on the same level as the offspring of livestock, and hence could be treated similarly. There was too in the case of the earlier Greeks a further consideration to be noted which we mentioned in connection with Sparta- The parents who exposed a child must have felt unconsciously that they were free to a certain ex­ tent from complete responsibility for the child's death. For the Greeks, being deeply religious, considered that it was not beyond the powers of heaven to take a hand in such a matter, and if it should be their pleasure for the child to live were not without means to accomplish uheir end. Whereas, if on the contrary they were content to let the child die, they assumed if not entirely, at least shared the responsi­ bility for its death. For in earlier days at any rate, the gods and goddesses were believed not only to watch closely the affairs of mortals, but to go about amongst men ana to take a keen interest in their doings. At the same time the whole countryside was peopled with nymphs of river, tree, spring and mountain, who might take compassion on a deserted babe. Thus, according as the act was really unnecessary or whether it was urged by unavoidable circumstances, this thought was in all likelihood to the parents an underlying . excuse or consolation for a deed which otherwise might have been looked upon by them with considerably greater repugnance. -87-

Taking into consideration the original and basic cause for exposure, and such ideas as those just mentioned, we cannot justly censure the practice in its infancy, though we may not be prepared to take the same course of action today It is only after we find that it has transgressed all moderate bounds, that we fail to sympathize with the parents who re­ sorted to it. We cannot understand the callous and hard­ hearted natures of those who for no reasonable cause would carry out so cruel a deed, and by their action bring only harm to their native land. Bibliography.

This bibliography does not include the primary Greek and Latin sources from which the material for this thesis was chiefly derived. Where these have been used, they have been given in the foot-notes.

Bates, W.N. - Euripides. Becker - Charicles. Bevan, E. - Later Greek Religion. Buck, CD. - Greek Dialects. Burn, A.R. - Minoans, Philistines and Greeks. Cambridge Ancient History. Cameron, A. - Exposure of Children and Greek Ethics. Classi­ cal Review, Vol. 46, (1932). Daremburg and Saglio - Expositio, Infanticidium. Encyclopaedia Britanniea - Slaves, Sparta. Farnell, L.R. - Greek Hero Cults and Ideas of Immortality. Cults of the Greek States. Ferguson, W.S. - Hellenistic Athens. Frazer, J.G. - The Golden Bough. Gulick, C.B. - The Life of the Ancient Greeks. Haigh - Tragic Drama of the Greeks. Harrison, J. - Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion. Keller - Homeric Society. Lang, A. - Homer and His Age. The World of Homer. Laistner, M.L.W.-A Survey of Ancient History. Macchioro, V. - From Orpheus to Paul. Mahaffy, J.P. A Survey of Greek Civilization- Greek Life and Thought. Social Life in Greece. Hurray, G. - The Rise of the Greek Epic. Myers, J.L. - "Causes of the Rise and Fall of the Population of the Ancient World. " Eugenics Review, Vol. VII, April 1915. Hilsson, M.P. - A History of Greek Religion. Poland, Reisinger, Wagner - Culture of Ancient Greece and Rome. Ridgeway, W. - The Early Age of Greece. Rodd, Sir R. - Homer's Ithaca. Rohde, E. - Psyche. Rose, H.J. - Primitive Uulture in Greece. Scot, A.F. - Offerings and Sacrifice. Schomann, G.F. - Antiquities of Greece. Tarn, W.W. - Hellenistic Civilization. Van Hook, L. - "Exposure of Infants at Athens", T.A.P.A. Vol. 51, (1920). Greek Life and Thought. Westermarck - Origin and Development of the noral Ideas.