Cox, Marriage in Ancient Athens.Pdf

CHAPTER 14

Marriage in Ancient Athens1

Cheryl A. Cox

1 Introduction

This chapter will be concerned with fifth- and fourth-century BCE Athens. In any study of Classical Athens, the historian must depend on inscriptions, political biographies and the orations. The inscriptions, particularly grave monuments, lack narrative for the most part and the political biographies are late in date, dating to the Roman era. The orations are contemporary with the events they describe and give us abundant information on motivation and behavior. The private orators, Andocides, Antiphon, Demosthenes, Lysias, Isaeus and the minor orators, flourished from the last third of the fifth century to the end of the fourth. The emphasis of the private orations on matters involving the succession to property makes them essential for the historian studying the property interests of the elite. No discussion of marriage in ancient Athens would be complete without first stating that ancient Athens was a shame culture, that is, one in which there was a tendency to evaluate oneself according to the way one was seen by others. Shame was caused by the fear of external sanctions. Shame and honor were closely linked as honor was fundamental to one’s reputation and social worth. For men honor was caught up in public display in the political institutions of the city. A man’s honor was also linked to the public behavior of his family members. For the woman public behavior meant sexual modesty. Whether married or unmarried she was expected to show reserve in her dealings with the opposite sex. Her movements, dress and behavior must fit a standard of modesty.2 First and foremost the emphasis in the texts is on the role of the father as the daughter’s kyrios. As the defender of his daughter’s virtue (Aeschines 1.182–83;

Companion to Families in the Greek and Roman Worlds, edited by Beryl Rawson, Wiley, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/washington/detail.action?docID=624786. Created from washington on 2020-10-19 10:20:39.

99781405187671_4_014.indd781405187671_4_014.indd 231231 110/9/20100/9/2010 44:07:59:07:59 PMPM 232 Cheryl A. Cox

[Demosthenes] 40.57, 59.65; Pomeroy (1975) 86), the father gave his daughter away in marriage by the act of engye, the handing over of one man’s daughter to another man’s son ([Demosthenes] 44.49, 46.18; Harrison (1968) 3–9; Lacey (1968) 105–106; MacDowell (1978) 86–87; C.B. Patterson (1991) 48–72). By Classical times, the rite was integrally connected with the notion of legitimacy and citizenship. The father ensured that his daughter married a trustworthy man of her own status and of good repute ([Demosthenes] 47.9; Isaeus 7.11). An integral part to the marriage negotiations was the dowry. In Athens, the dowry was given to a daughter so that she could marry a fitting husband (see on brothers and sisters, below), but little is stated in the orations about discussions between father and daughter concerning her dowry. Rather, we hear more about husband and wife in the negotiations in a household.

2 Husband and Wife

Social historians and anthropologists studying European societies are now acknowl- edging that women could and do have a great deal of informal power at the private level of the household. Women’s interests are reflected and expressed in succession practices and in the successful management of the household economy. Particularly important to the status of women is the dowry, because of its place in the conjugal household and the negotiations over its use and transmission. A large dowry ensured the woman an important role in the decisions of the marital household, it helped to stabilize the marriage and to encourage marital intimacy. Because the dowry, as the property of the woman’s natal kin, would ideally be transmitted to a man’s children, the man could become involved in the property interests of his wife’s family of origin (Cox (1998) 70, note 5). In Classical Athens, the male sphere of activity was predominantly the public one – the fields, the law courts, the council, and the assembly. The woman was relegated to the indoors – her chief function was the managing of the oikia, the house, and as such her role was acknowledged as indispensable (Pomeroy (1975) 71–73; Just (1989) 13–25; Cohen (1991) 70). Marriages in Athens were arranged: the selection of a prospective husband for a woman was a matter of great concern for her parents as she was supposed to marry a man of good status (Demosthenes 20.57; Lacey (1968) 107; Just (1989) 43; Garland (1990) 217; Sealey (1990) 25). Generally the young girl was married at about 14 years of age, whereas her husband tended to be in his 30s (Just (1989) 152–52) – this age difference can be attributed, first, to the attention devoted to the dowry and, second, to delayed transmission of property from father to son. Divorce itself was an easy procedure: the husband merely dismissed his wife, while the woman, if initiating the divorce, had to present herself to the archon (Harrison (1968) 38–44; Lacey (1968) 108–109; Pomeroy (1975) 64–65; MacDowell (1978) 88). The orations, however, give little indication that divorce was indeed common. For instance, from the corpus of Isaeus there are recorded approximately 50 mar-

riages, but only two divorces are mentioned (Isaeus 2.6–8, 6; Davies (1971) 563).3 Copyright © 2010. Wiley. All rights reserved. rights All Wiley. 2010. © Copyright This probably does not reflect the divorce rate of ancient Athens; because a woman’s

99781405187671_4_014.indd781405187671_4_014.indd 232232 110/9/20100/9/2010 44:07:59:07:59 PMPM Marriage in Ancient Athens 233

divorce could lead to gossip about her behavior and, therefore, bring shame to her (Scafuro (1990) 163), the reluctance of the orators to discuss divorce may represent the normative view, the social ideal. In Isaeus 6 the speaker, the alleged adopted son of Euctemon’s son by a first wife strengthens his claim by hiding the fact that Euctemon had divorced his first wife (Davies (1971) 563); the obfuscation was meant to weaken the claims of legitimacy of Euctemon’s sons by a second marriage. Indeed, a look at the divorces recorded in Isaeus and outside this corpus reveals that although the husband could merely dismiss his wife, the woman was not necessarily passive or mute. Isaeus, for one, was quite careful to couch a divorce in accept- able terms.4 Isaeus 2.6, which describes a divorce initiated by an older man from his young wife, details how the husband, concerned that his wife should produce children, approaches her brother with the suggestion that she should be divorced and remarried to someone who could sire children. The husband is not only careful to praise the woman’s virtue and character, but also, with the brother, approaches his wife to obtain her consent. The woman at first refuses but, reluctantly, with the prodding of both her brother and her husband, agrees to the divorce.5 In another oration, the young wife does not leave her older husband although their two young sons have died and there is little chance, given her husband’s age, that they could have any other children (Isaeus 8.36). The general view of the orations, no doubt idealized, is that husband and wife tried to make a marriage work. There may be some distrust of the wife at first, but when she begins to bear children for the oikos a deep respect and trust develops between spouses (Lysias 1.6, 1.14), which is based on open communication (Lycurgus Fr. C 11–12), and husbands and wives were supposed to settle their dif- ferences for the sake of the children ([Demosthenes] 40.29). Certainly in myth and drama this ideal prevails – the domestication of women allows for their incorpora- tion into society as the wives of men (Just (1989) 232). On the other hand, although some of the ancient sources do admit that a husband could be romantically and sexually intimate with his wife (Cohen (1990) 163), other sources considered it in poor taste to display too much affection for one’s wife, indeed such behavior could lead to gossip that the woman was not the man’s wife but an hetaera (prostitute) (Isaeus 3.13–14; see also, Plutarch, Cimon 4.8–9). Spouses did show genuine concern when the other was ill (Demosthenes 30.34, 50.61, 59.56) and, in one case, a husband instructs his wife to have their yet unborn son avenge the husband’s upcoming execution at the hands of political foes (Lysias 13.42).6 Men were allowed extra-marital sexual activity, but they should not bring the concubine or hetaera into the household out of respect for their wives ([Demosthenes] 40.9–10, 59.21–22). For the wife, however, absolute fidelity was the rule, as men had to be certain that their heirs were their own children. Furthermore, the children had to be true Athenians in order to participate in the polis, their citizenship defined by the Athenian citizenship of both parents and the formality of the parents’ union. Consequently, the husband was obliged to divorce his adulterous wife (Lysias 1), and she could suffer public humiliation and be barred from the religious rituals of the polis

Copyright © 2010. Wiley. All rights reserved. rights All Wiley. 2010. © Copyright (Harrison (1968) 35–36; Pomeroy (1975) 181–83; MacDowell (1978) 124–25; Just (1989) 68–70; Sealey (1990) 28–29).7 Women were strongly discouraged from

99781405187671_4_014.indd781405187671_4_014.indd 233233 110/9/20100/9/2010 44:07:59:07:59 PMPM 234 Cheryl A. Cox

displaying improper behavior (Isaeus 3.13–14) and the ideal was for the husband to keep his wife in the house away from the eyes of other men (Cole (1984) 97). Although the woman’s duty not to shame her husband is a recurring theme in the orations, men as well should not shame their wives’ honor in the public sphere by supporting measures or approving of actions detrimental to their wives’ physical safety (Lycurgus 1.1–2, 1.141; Lysias 12.69–70; Deinarchus 3.1) or by supporting measures that would jeopardize their modesty ([Demosthenes] 59.110, 59.114). To do so, it was feared, would encourage women to abandon their modesty ([Demosthenes] 59.111–12). Also, so as not to be shameful to his wife, a man should be responsible in his financial affairs (Demosthenes 22.53). Close cooperation and respect between spouses are reflected in the active interest a husband and wife took in each other’s property. The wife could not inherit from her husband except for any additions to her dowry he might make in the event of his early death and her subsequent remarriage. Nevertheless, the wife knew the financial details of her husband’s oikos to the point, particularly after his death, of having managerial control of the estate (Demosthenes 27.40, 29.46–48, 36.14, 55.24–25; Cox (1989–1990) 45; Hunter (1989a) 39–48), even though sons legally acquired control in their majority and guardians were assigned control of the estate during the sons’ minority. The orations frequently attest to the widow’s strenuous efforts to keep her husband’s estate intact against encroachment by kinsmen or neighbors (Hunter (1989b) 103). Such concern in one case led to a woman’s feud with her own father (Lysias 32.10) and in two other cases with her own son (Aeschines 1.98–99; Demosthenes 36.17–18). Besides the widow, a wife could try to guard her husband’s property from creditors (Demosthenes 30.4, 31.10, 47.57–58) and was cognizant of her husband’s attempts to pay off debts (Demosthenes 47.57–58). Informally, therefore, a woman actively pursued the preservation of her marital oikos because, as is stated frequently in the sources, marriage was a kind of fusion of two estates, that of her husband and that of her oikos of origin (for example, Isaeus 2.4–5; Demosthenes 27.5, 30.12, 59.2–3). This was not merely rhetoric; the husband could be a vociferous defender of his wife’s claims to her father’s estate, should she be an heiress, or to her brother’s estate, should he die without heirs (Demosthenes 43.3, 63; Isaeus 3.22, 5.9, 7.3, 8.41–42, 10.18–20, 11.41–42; Hunter (1993) 103). Furthermore, a wife could influence her husband either to adopt one of her kinsmen (Demosthenes 41.3; Isaeus 2.7) or to send one of their sons or daughters into her brother’s estate as its heir (Isaeus 11.41–42, 49). The law acknowledged a wife’s influence on the use of her husband’s wealth by trying to limit her power: a man, when drawing up a will, could not be influenced by a woman (Isaeus 2.1; Demosthenes 48.56; Hyperides, Against Athenogenes 5.17; Athenaion Politeia 35.2). In the orations (Demosthenes and Hyperides) the emphasis is on the influence specifically of the wife and the hetaera, that is the type of woman who had sexual relations with the man. In a material sense, the wife’s dowry allowed for the unification of two oikoi. In legal

Copyright © 2010. Wiley. All rights reserved. rights All Wiley. 2010. © Copyright terms, the dowry belonged to the woman’s natal oikos, as it had to be returned to her original family either on divorce or on the death of her husband and her

99781405187671_4_014.indd781405187671_4_014.indd 234234 110/9/20100/9/2010 44:07:59:07:59 PMPM Marriage in Ancient Athens 235

remarriage. To judge from the orations and dotal tablets (horoi) the wealth of the dowry for elite families on average was valued around 30 to 40 minae, though there are instances of dowries given to the woman which were well above this range and below it as well (Casson (1976) 54–55; Wyse (1979) 243; Finley (1985) 79). Because the wife’s dowry could be inherited by the children, it was worth fighting for, especially if she had not received her full share (Demosthenes 41). Therefore, the potential loss of a substantial amount of dotal wealth would inhibit divorce (Isaeus 3.28), and the fear of this loss was a recurring theme in the drama of the day (Euripides, Andromache 864–79; Schaps (1979) 76, 142–43, notes 26–27). Certainly the dying husband realized the power of the dowry when he gave his widow a dowry whose value was far above the value of most dowries given to the young bride of an elite family (Finley (1985) 266–67, note 29; Hunter (1989a) 307, note 7). Although the dowry was valued in cash, it frequently consisted not just of cash, but also of movable items, furniture, jewels, plated ware and, perhaps, land (Cox (1998) 117, note 44), and therefore could be amalgamated into the husband’s estate. Thus, in his list of his father’s property Demosthenes included his mother’s jewelry and gold-plated objects (27.9–11). Although this was not productive wealth, the prestige associated with these items allowed Demosthenes’ mother a good deal of influence in discussions on their use (Hunter (1989b) 41). Another oration tells of a wife making loans to family members from, possibly, her dowry, though this is not explicitly stated (Demosthenes 41.9). In some cases, dotal wealth was so integrated in the marital oikos that a wife’s dowry was confiscated to pay off her husband’s debts (Isaeus 8.8–9; Lysias 19.32; Demosthenes 47.57–58), although whether this practice was legally permitted is subject to debate (Schaps (1979) 75–76; Just (1989) 82; Hunter (1994) 19). In Isaeus 8 Ciron gave his daughter in marriage to Nausimenes, but on the latter’s death did not receive his daughter’s dowry back, presumably because it had been expended to meet some debts incurred by Nausimenes (8–9). In Demosthenes 47.57–58 the speaker’s wife tried to plead with her husband’s creditors not to confiscate furniture that was part of her dowry. That the creditors ignored her may indicate their rapaciousness, but there is the possibility, and this is strictly conjectural, that they suspected that the woman was deliberately lying in an attempt to save some of her husband’s property. In Isaeus 10, the speaker’s mother, according to the speaker, did not inherit her father’s estate as was her due as an heiress, but was given in marriage to a non- kinsman with a dowry. When the woman’s husband protested to his wife’s kinsmen about their disregard for his wife’s rights, they then threatened to initiate a divorce between the two and have her marry a close kinsman of her father, in accordance with the laws governing heiresses. Although the speaker states that his father could not bear the emotional loss, the repercussion to the divorce would have been the forced return of the dowry to the woman’s patriline, not an attractive prospect for the husband who may well have been experiencing financial difficulties.8 So far we have seen married life in action, but what were the concerns leading up

Copyright © 2010. Wiley. All rights reserved. rights All Wiley. 2010. © Copyright to marriage? For this we must turn to a discussion of brothers and sisters to see the machinations behind the transaction of marriage.

99781405187671_4_014.indd781405187671_4_014.indd 235235 110/9/20100/9/2010 44:07:59:07:59 PMPM 236 Cheryl A. Cox

3 Brothers and Sisters and Marriage

A major concern for the brother was the material welfare of his sister. The orator Demosthenes states that the chief aim in contracting a marriage for a sister or daughter is to give her the greatest amount of security (Demosthenes 30.21). Therefore, when Demosthenes’ own sister was defrauded of her dowry by her guardians, Demosthenes in his lawsuit against the guardians lamented that his sister would not be able to marry well (Demosthenes 27.61, 28.21). Also, a brother could be concerned for his sister’s childlessness after marriage and, at the instigation of the husband and with the consent of the sister, agree to his sister’s divorce from her husband. The latter might make sure to return the dowry so that the woman could remarry (Isaeus 2.4). Another source reveals a brother’s concern for the confiscation of a widowed sister’s dowry along with her late husband’s property: the dowry was needed to care for his sister and her children (Lysias 19.32–33). Theomnestus was eager to prosecute the political rival of his sister’s husband after that rival had imposed a 15-talent fine on the sister’s husband. In his speech Theomnestus declares his concern for his sister’s welfare and for that of one of her daughters who allegedly may not be able to be dowered ([Demosthenes] 59.7–8, 59.12). The brother therefore aided his brother-in-law in prosecuting the rival. Another oration informs us that a woman was divorced by her husband because she could not provide a dowry from her father’s impoverished estate: she and her sons were cared for by her brothers (Demosthenes 39.24–25; Davies (1971) 366). Other orations reveal that the married woman returned with her children to her brother’s house on the termination of a marriage, and in one case was given in a second marriage by her brother (Lysias 3.29; Hyperides, For Lycophron 1, 2). In another case, a brother avoided contracting a marriage for his sister to a family enemy (Lysias Fr. 8 (Thalheim 1901)). Emotional embellishments aside, the sources reveal a brother’s concern for his sister’s welfare at and after marriage, concern for her children, and concern particularly for the dowry which originally belonged to the woman’s paternal estate. Although uterine half-siblings could not marry, homopatric half-siblings, offspring of the same patriline, could legally marry (Harrison (1968) 22). This marital strategy reflects concern for immediate sibling control over the paternal property.

4 Paternal Property: The Dowry

When discussing the dowry in the orations, we must emphasize that these dowries were given by the elite families; although smaller amounts for dowries appear on Attic inscriptions indicating property mortgaged for dowries, the amounts cited there may not reflect the entire dowry (Schaps (1979) appendix 1). Therefore, it is unsafe to assume that the inscriptions (horoi) reflect the practices of poorer people. In any case, the Athenian oikos, which was always concerned with the devolution of property, prac- ticed an extreme form of inheritance by excluding the daughter from any inheritance

Copyright © 2010. Wiley. All rights reserved. rights All Wiley. 2010. © Copyright besides the dowry. Brothers shared equally in the paternal estate, while a daughter was given a dowry as a pre-mortem inheritance. The dowry, consisting of cash or real estate

99781405187671_4_014.indd781405187671_4_014.indd 236236 110/9/20100/9/2010 44:07:59:07:59 PMPM Marriage in Ancient Athens 237

and movable items valued in cash, was meant to take care of the woman’s needs in the marital household and to consolidate the ties between her children and her natal oikos. The woman could otherwise have no further material claim to the paternal estate, if she had brothers who themselves had sons (Wolff (1944) 62; Levy (1963) 141; Harrison (1968) 45–60, 130–32; Lacey (1968) 109–10; Schaps (1979) 20, 74–84). Furthermore, the daughter’s dotal wealth never seems to have been equal to the wealth inherited by her brothers: Isaeus 11.39 states that a father should endow his daughters well and ensure that the son was not less wealthy from what remains. The largest percentage of wealth devoted to the dowry comes from one of the smallest estates in the orations (Isaeus 8.7–8): from an estate of approximately one and a half talents Ciron dowered his daughter with 25 minae or about 28 percent of the estate’s wealth. He then gave her in a second marriage with a smaller dowry of 10 minae or 11 percent of the estate. Because a one and a half talent estate was well below the income of wealthier families (three to four talents minimum) who were required to perform state services (Davies (1971) xxiv), Ciron in Isaeus 8 gave a large dowry relative to his means to secure a proper marriage for his daughter.9 A larger number of the elite families had estates ranging from 13 to 15 talents with each daughter or sister receiving anywhere from 5 percent to 14 percent of the estate’s wealth. Even though a woman did not inherit equally with her brothers, a great deal of attention was directed towards the dowry. Brothers were concerned about the recov- ery of the dowry after termination of the sister’s marriage (Lysias 19.32–33) or ensured that she was remarried with a dowry equal in value to the one initially set aside by the father for her first marriage (Demosthenes 29.41, 30.7, 31.6–9, 40.6–7). In most cases of dowering, the father set aside the dowry, or attempted to, before his death (Lysias 19.14–15, 32.6; Isaeus 8.7–8; 11.39; Demosthenes 27.5, 28.15–16, 29.43, 40.6–7, 40.20–22, 40.56–57, 41.3, 41.6, 41.26, 41.29, 45.66, 59.7–8; Plutarch, Alcibiades 8.1–5 + [Andocides] 4.13 + Isocrates 16.31), and in one case well before his daughter’s marriage (Demosthenes 27.5). In the latter instance, the father of Demosthenes the orator in his will bequeathed two talents of his 14 talent estate to his five-year-old daughter and specifically stated whom she was to marry (Demosthenes 27.5, 28.15–16, 28.19, 29.43–45). Historians have known for years that the dowry, which was always the property of the woman’s original oikos, served to prevent the woman from being separated from the paternal estate. This can certainly be seen in Athenian laws which mandated the return of the dowry to the woman’s natal family on the dissolution of her marriage by death or divorce (Wolff (1944) 50, 53; Levy (1963) 141; Harrison (1968) 55–60; Schaps (1979) 81–83; Just (1989) 72–73).The dowry could, however, be estimated as part of the husband’s wealth (Demosthenes 27.4, 27.9–11, 42.27) and could be included in the confiscation of his property by private creditors or by the state. Although the dowry was never legally required, it was a social obligation (Harrison (1968) 48–49; Karabelias (1982) 54; MacDowell (1978) 87; Finley (1985) 79): not only could a marriage be suspect without it, but also the prestige

Copyright © 2010. Wiley. All rights reserved. rights All Wiley. 2010. © Copyright of the family depended on a good match acquired through a substantial dowry (Lacey (1968) 109–10). The orations reveal that dowries were needed to attract

99781405187671_4_014.indd781405187671_4_014.indd 237237 110/9/20100/9/2010 44:07:59:07:59 PMPM 238 Cheryl A. Cox

prestigious husbands (Lysias 15–16; [Demosthenes] 40.6), while the wealthy dowry was an indication of a family’s good standing and that of its affines (Demosthenes 39.32–33, 40.20–22).

5 Ties between Brothers-in-Law

Attention to the dowry, the outlays devoted to it and the prestige accompanying it, all contributed to a family’s interest in a marriage for a daughter or a sister. This concern went hand in hand with another marriage strategy: in many cases, the daughter married before – in some cases well before – her brother of an equal age. In Davies’ register of propertied families alone, there are 18 instances in which the brother married after his sister, or sisters, as opposed to six in which roughly contemporaneous marriages occurred.10 Of the families in the orations not considered in the register, there are six more instances of later marriages for brothers (Lycurgus 1.17; Isaeus 2.3; Lysias 3.29; Demosthenes 41.3, 48.53; Lysias Fr. 43 (Thalheim 1901)) and there is only one explicit reference to a brother marrying before his sister (Isaeus 10.5–6). Significantly, in this latter case, that of Cyronides, the paternal estate was probably insolvent (15). Earlier age of marriage for women and later age of marriage for men was the norm for ancient Athens. This pattern of marriage is generally known as the Mediterranean type and is evident not just in Athens but in the later society of the Roman Empire (Saller (1987) 21–34). Property transfer occurred ideally at the death of a man’s father, and a man’s marriage could be postponed until a man had control, if not actual ownership, of his paternal estate. The consequences of this pattern of marriage are that there was a large gap in age between father and son and between husband and wife (Strauss (1993) 67–70). Given this Mediterranean type of marriage, sisters married before their brothers. As stated previously, the earlier marriage of a sister indicates an interest in gathering together a substantial dowry so as to secure a beneficial alliance for the woman’s natal family. Among the political families, for instance, before Epilycus the Philaid married, he and his father gave Epilycus’ sisters in marriage to some of the most powerful politicians of the day: the great strategos (general) Glaucon of Cerameis, the son of Pericles and the father of Andocides the orator. These alliances brought the family out of political obscurity (Davies (1971) 296–97). The strategy of the earlier marriage of sisters was not restricted to these politically powerful, fifth-century families. Although Plato never married, the marriage of his sister allowed Plato to ally to a landed neighbor, thereby consolidating two landed estates in Eiresidae (Davies (1971) 201). Both Deinias and his son Theomnestus married after their sisters, thereby allying with the wealthy banking family of Pasio. The pattern of later marriages for brothers accords with the arrangements of Demosthenes’ father in his will; he made detailed provisions regarding the marriage of his daughter, but no terms were laid down for the marriage of his son (Demosthenes 27.4–5). Sources for other families demonstrate affinal trust: brothers married after their

sister, in one case to pursue a military career, and then were adopted as heir into the Copyright © 2010. Wiley. All rights reserved. rights All Wiley. 2010. © Copyright house of the sister’s husband (Isaeus 2; Demosthenes 41.3). The wealthy estate

99781405187671_4_014.indd781405187671_4_014.indd 238238 110/9/20100/9/2010 44:08:00:08:00 PMPM Marriage in Ancient Athens 239

prompted the speaker in Lysias 32 to defend the property of his wife’s unmarried brothers against the alleged misappropriation of the estate by their maternal grand- father (1, 20, 28). The trust between brothers-in-law is clearly evident in Lycurgus 1 where Leocrates, who had a concubine but apparently no wife (17), married his two sisters to Amyntas and Timochares of Acharnae (21–23). After the defeat of the Athenians at Chaeronea, Leocrates went into self-exile to Rhodes and then to Megara (21). While in Megara he sold his estate to one brother-in-law, Amyntas, who in turn sold the slaves to Leocrates’ other brother-in-law, Timochares (22–23). Leocrates seems to have owned the same slaves again on his return to Athens (30): he was asked to hand over his slaves for torture so as to give information about his departure from Athens. Logic would dictate that the slaves in question were those who helped him to pack up a boat and leave Athens secretly (17), the very slaves bought by Leocrates’ affines. Therefore, the implication here is that Leocrates’ property was bought by his brothers-in-law for safekeeping during his sojourn. Finally, in [Demosthenes] 47 Theophemus uses his brother and a kedestes (in-law) to help him confiscate property to settle a debt (9). Because Theophemus was not married (38), the kedestes may have been the husband of a sister (Humphreys (1986) 77). Orations reveal the encroachment of a wife’s brother on her husband’s estate, with, it seems, the testator’s approval. Diocles was said to have maintained his hold on Ciron’s estate by encouraging his sister, Ciron’s second wife, to stay in the house of Ciron even after her sons by him had died. Furthermore, Diocles aided the claims of Ciron’s adelphidous (brother’s son) to Ciron’s estate against the claims of the son of Ciron’s daughter by a first marriage (Isaeus 8.3; Davies (1971) 314). In Isaeus 9 Euthycrates was killed by his brother Thudippus. As he lay dying, Euthycrates charged his sister’s husband to keep Thudippus’ descendants from his, Euthycrates’, estate (19–20). There are instances of the brother-in-law’s protection of the testator’s will: in Lysias 13.2 and 13.41, where a woman was married to her first cousin, her brother witnessed her husband’s will and was asked to avenge the husband’s death at the hands of one of the Thirty. In Isaeus 6.3 a sister’s husband was the caretaker of Philoctemon’s will (Humphreys (1986) 77), which insisted on the adoption of another sister’s son to the exclusion of Philoctemon’s homopatric brothers. Collusion between brothers-in-law could at times break down: Polyeuctus quarreled with his adopted son, who was his wife’s brother (Demosthenes 41.3); Cleonymus quarreled with the brother of his sister’s husband, and perhaps the husband himself (Isaeus 1; Wyse (1979) 176); and a man was accused of breach of guardianship by his wife’s brothers (Lysias Fr. 43 (Thalheim 1901)). Finally, in [Demosthenes] 48 an unmarried brother, Olympiodorus, contracted a marriage for his sister with a certain Callistratus. Both men conspired to share the estate of a deceased relative and to exclude all other relatives from the property (1, 53). A quarrel, however, developed between the two men when Olympiodorus claimed and won the whole estate for himself after a series of court trials with the other relatives (25–31). Olympiodorus’ victory led his brother-in-law Callistratus to berate Olympiodorus for abandoning his sister and her daughter and devoting his extra wealth to his concubine (53), thereby

Copyright © 2010. Wiley. All rights reserved. rights All Wiley. 2010. © Copyright equating a quarrel between affines with the abandonment of a sister’s needs. In other words, collusion broke down when the two affines became rivals to the same estate.

99781405187671_4_014.indd781405187671_4_014.indd 239239 110/9/20100/9/2010 44:08:00:08:00 PMPM 240 Cheryl A. Cox

The sources for both the political and private families reveal, then, a clear tendency for trusting relationships between brothers-in-law. It is difficult to generalize the reasons for a breakdown of this trust, but certainly the possibility that two affines vied for the same estate or threatened each other’s property could precipitate a feud. Could the marital alliance endure a feud between affines? The sources are not very informative. In Demosthenes 41.3 the oration does not state why Polyeuctus feuded with his wife’s brother but only that the feud resulted in a divorce between Polyeuctus’ daughter and the brother-in-law, not between Polyeuctus and his wife. On the other hand, in the case of Alcibiades, his wife’s attempt to divorce him on the grounds of sexual promiscuity was contemporaneous with his feud with her brother Callias ([Andocides] 4.14; Plutarch, Alcibiades 8.1–5). The discussion above has shown how marriages were carefully planned, the interest in the dowry is especially apparent. Marriages, however, were not just planned for the current generation but were alliances that kept in mind what had been happening over generations.

6 Marriage Strategies

We now turn to marriage strategies, that is how families and kin groups contracted marriages to consolidate property. In this discussion the word “endogamy” will be prominent. Endogamy means literally “marriage within,” either marriage within the kinship group, kinship endogamy, or marriage within a locale, local endogamy. We will look at kinship endogamy first among the families of the private orations. Despite the difficulties inherent in the orations, the chronological gaps, the tele- scoping of events and the falsification of fact, they are valuable sources for the study of how individuals, families and extended kin manipulated blood and marriage ties and wealth. Within this manipulation, patterns emerge which suggest how interests in property could be sustained for several generations. The focus of this present study will be on how such patterns or strategies can reflect an individual’s interests in his or her patriline. By patriline, I mean the line of descent through males from a male ancestor. We will then assess the role and importance of locale in the formation of marital alliances; locale here refers to marriages within the deme and the local interests motivating these unions, which have been studied by Osborne in his work on the deme (Osborne (1985) 127). Locale can also refer to the location of property holdings and of residence, and a study of these must consider how they motivated families to ally. To what extent, then, did families and kinship groups focus on a particular deme or region when forming marital alliances? A few examples will suffice. The Bouselidae, a clan descended from Bouselus I, were notorious for their in- marrying. The Bouselidae married first cousins and second cousins and alternated endogamy with exogamy, or out-marriage, over the generations. These marriage patterns were then secured by adoption as a daughter’s son, for instance, would be

adopted into her father’s estate. All of these marriages were devised to lay claim to the Copyright © 2010. Wiley. All rights reserved. rights All Wiley. 2010. © Copyright property of the Bouselid Hagnias II (Davies (1971) 77).

99781405187671_4_014.indd781405187671_4_014.indd 240240 110/9/20100/9/2010 44:08:00:08:00 PMPM Marriage in Ancient Athens 241

Dicaeogenes I and his affines, known to us from Isaeus 5, also alternated exogamy with endogamy. Cleon, for instance, married out to Dicaeogenes’ daughter but then his son married a first cousin once removed (Davies (1971) 145). Deinias married out but his son Theomnestus married his sister’s daughter, whose father, Apollodorus, was the son of the wealthy banker Pasio ([Demosthenes] 59.2–3). The out-marriage of Deinias’ daughter to the wealthy banking family of Pasio was balanced with endogamy, a union that allowed Theomnestus to share in Apollodorus’ wealth ([Demosthenes] 59.2). Theomnestus then prosecuted Apollodorus’ enemy Stephanus, who threatened Apollodorus with a large fine (15 talents). In all of this, locale played a large role. Sosias married into the Bouselidae possibly because one Bouselid Hagnias II held land in Araphen, the deme to which Sosias belonged. Sositheus, his son, then tried through marriage and adoption to encroach on the estate of Hagnias II (Demosthenes 43.70; Cox (1998) 9).Cleon’s son Cleomedon married his first cousin once removed but she was also of the same deme (Cox (1998) 12). In [Demosthenes] 44 Archiades’ sister had married out to Leostratus of Eleusis and their daughter married a fellow demesman. A son from this union was adopted into Archiades’ estate ([Demosthenes] 44.13, 44.17, 44.21.). For the Bouselids again, Stratocles married a woman whose brother owned property at Eleusis, the deme in which one of Stratocles’ houses was established and close to his field in Thria (Davies (1971) 87–88). Stratocles then had his daughter adopted into his brother-in-law’s estate (Isaeus 11.41–42.).

7 Marrying In and Adopting Out

The marriage strategies discussed above in the case studies attest to the frequent use of kinship endogamy after the expansion of ties through marriages with non-kinsmen. In several of these cases marriage alliances were re-enforced by adoption. What emerges with great regularity is the use of the neighbor, whether a fellow demesman or someone from a deme nearby or even a distant one. Let us summarize here those adoptions which followed marriages to the neighbor. How did a kin group react when one of its own was adopted out? In Themistocles’ case, after the adoption of his son into his father-in-law’s, Lysander’s, oikos, his two children by two different wives married, while another daughter married her father’s brother’s son. These endogamous unions occurred at the time of Themistocles’ disgrace and, therefore, could have been prompted by it as well (Davies (1971) 212; Cox (1998) 216–19). In the case of Sositheus, however, political disgrace did not prompt endogamy which then followed adoption out: after Sositheus had his youngest son adopted into the estate of his wife’s father, Sositheus’ daughter married Sositheus’ brother’s son. A patriline, then, will practice endogamy as a response to the adoption out of one of its members. In other cases, however, the adoptee, although adopted out of the patriline, either himself (herself) married back into the patriline or a direct descendant did. In Isaeus

10 Aristarchus of Sypalettus had married out of his deme and kin group by marrying Copyright © 2010. Wiley. All rights reserved. rights All Wiley. 2010. © Copyright the daughter of Xenaenetus of Acharnae, who was from a deme nearby. Aristarchus

99781405187671_4_014.indd781405187671_4_014.indd 241241 110/9/20100/9/2010 44:08:00:08:00 PMPM 242 Cheryl A. Cox

secured the fortune of his father-in-law, Xenaenetus, by having his son Cyronides adopted into Xenaenetus’ estate (4–7). When Aristarchus’ own estate became insolvent (15–16; Wyse (1979) 662), it fell under the guardianship of his brother, Aristomenes. Moreover, the speaker stated (17) that some families with insolvent estates would try to have their children adopted into other oikoi so that the children could avoid the loss of civic rights which necessarily accompanied insolvency. There is the possibility that Cyronides may have been adopted so as to avoid disfranchisement (Wyse (1979) 655). In any case, Xenaenetus’ estate was worth around four talents (10.23), and Cyronides may well have used some of this wealth to pay off his natural father’s debts. Cyronides, however, although adopted out, still retained control of his natural father’s estate by marrying within his agnatic kin group: he married his father’s brother’s daughter, Aristomenes’ daughter, who took with her as a type of dowry title to the estate of Aristarchus (5). The title to the property was then re-enforced by the posthumous adoption of Cyronides’ sons into his natural father’s estate (6). Although scholars have maintained that the law severed the adoptee from his (her) oikos of origin and, therefore, from the patriline (Harrison (1968) 93; MacDowell (1978) 99–100; Rubinstein (1993) 57–60), endogamy nevertheless, within or back into the patriline, could compensate for the adoptee’s absence from the patriline. In most cases, these euvresmaneuvers were facilitated by the proximity of both kin groups. Not all Athenian families resorted to kinship endogamy: a rough estimate from the known or inferred marriages in Davies’ register, for instance, would yield a percentage of endogamous unions at 19 percent – not a terribly high figure compared to other agrarian societies which practice kinship in-marriage (Flandrin (1976) 39; Rosenfeld (1968) 253–59). However, there may well lie hidden more instances of endogamy in the register; we are at the mercy of texts which do not always detail relationships among members of a kin group. In any case, of the instances discussed above, there was a greater tendency for the individual (called Ego, and assumed to be male) either to contract, or attempt to contract, a marriage through his father’s line than through his mother’s line; the ratio of such marriages, or attempts, runs about 2 to 1. This ratio is reflected in Davies’ register as a whole, for a possible 37 endogamous unions (Cox (1998) 32–33, note 96). Of the ten unions through the mother’s line in Davies’ register, four were cases in which Ego married an heiress who by law was required to marry a close agnate. There were, apparently, no male agnates of her father to claim her hand, or willing to do so. Otherwise, the marriage to a kinswoman through the matriline could leave the offspring from that union at a severe disadvantage legally: Ciron’s grandson from Ciron’s first marriage to his mother’s sister’s son was prevented from inheriting Ciron’s estate by Ciron’s agnate, his brother’s son. Sositheus, in the end, appears to have lost his claim, and that of his son, to the Bouselid property of his wife’s patrilineal kinsman, Hagnias II. The bias in favor of marrying within the patriline reflects the bias of inheritance law: the estate of a man who was without heirs was to be transmitted to his closest male kinsman who was descended from a common male ancestor. In other words, the pre-

Copyright © 2010. Wiley. All rights reserved. rights All Wiley. 2010. © Copyright ferred heirs were a brother of the same father and his descendants. In absence of these, a sister of the same father and her descendants were resorted to. Only when all

99781405187671_4_014.indd781405187671_4_014.indd 242242 110/9/20100/9/2010 44:08:00:08:00 PMPM Marriage in Ancient Athens 243

kinsmen through the father were absent could the mother’s line be eligible for consideration (Harrison (1968) 130–49; MacDowell (1978) 92–99; Just (1989) 83–89; Hunter (1993) 102–103). What of the families outside of the orations and who do not necessarily appear in Davies’ register of propertied families? To judge from the find-spot of tombstones and the demes of the spouses, those families living in rural areas, be it interior plain or coastal region, tended to marry locally. If the find-spot of the tombstone was in a rural area, it is assumed that the family lived in that rural locale. If the find-spot was in the city, the tombstones revealed that the spouses came from disparate demes. In other words, the city allowed for the intermingling of people from different parts of Attica (Cox (1998) 43–63). Marriage was very important to the people of ancient Athens. The thought taken to form a marriage alliance considered many factors. It is clear from the marriage strategies that marriages were thought of over several generations. One gathers that not only the immediate family was involved in the transaction but consideration of the extended kin also came into play. It was this communal concern therefore that put pressure on the husband and wife to make a marriage work. Marriage then was a way of uniting families but also a way of making things run smoothly in the polis of Athens.