Greek Bastardy in the Classical and Hellenistic Periods 0198150199, 9780198150190

Citation preview

OXFORD

CLASSICAL M ONOGRAPHS

The aim of the Oxford Classical Monographs series (which replaces the Oxford Classical and Philosophical Monographs) is to publish outstand­ ing revised theses on Greek and Latin literature, ancient history, and ancient philosophy examined by the faculty board of Literae Humaniores.

GREEK B A S T A R D Y In the Classical and Hellenistic Periods

DANIEL

CLARENDON

OGDEN

PRESS 1996

• OXFORD

Oxford University Press, Walton Street, Oxford 0x2 6 dp Oxford Neto York Athens Auckland Bangkok Bombay Calcutta Cape Town Dar es Salaam Delhi Florence Hong Kong Istanbul Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madras Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi Paris Singapore Taipei Tokyo Toronto and associated companies in Berlin Ibadan Oxford is a trade mark of Oxford University Press Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York C Daniel Ogden /996 AU rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press. Within the U K , exceptions are allowed in respect of any fair dealing for the purpose of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms of the licences issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside these terms and in other countries should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Greek bastardy in the classical and Hellenistic periods Daniel Ogden. (Oxford classical monographs) Includes bibliographical references and index. I. Illegitimacy—Greece—History. 2. Greece—Social conditions— To 146 BC I. Title. II. Series. HQ999.G8035 /995 306.874—dc20 9 5 ~I 5 ° 7 3 IS B N 0-/9-^75079-9 1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2

Typeset by Regent Typesetting, London Printed in Great Britain on acid free paper by Bookcraft (Bath) Ltd., Midsomer Norton

The starting-point of this book was the core of my Oxford D.Phil. thesis, ‘Notheia: Greek Bastardy to 30 b c ’ (1992), begun at Corpus Christi College and completed at New College. The teaching of a course on Women and Society in Ancient Greece at Swansea in 1992-3 gave me the opportunity to rethink and elaborate upon this material. I thank first my D.Phil. supervisors, Dr S. R. F. Price, Dr P. S. Derow, and Prof. W. G. G. Forrest. My examiners, Prof. J. K. Davies and Dr R. Van Bremen, gave me much valuable help, as did Dr O. Murray and the other (anonymous) examiners of the 1994 Connington prize, for which the thesis was also successfully submitted. For the Oxford Classical Monographs Committee Prof. P. J. Parsons and Prof. M. Winterbottom helped on the administrative side. Dr R. G. Osborne of Corpus Christi College gave me generous help as my appointed adviser, although we could find little to agree upon. For the Press itself Ms H. O’Shea, Ms L. Gasson, Ms L. Alsop, and Ms J. Pritchard transformed the manuscript into a book. I have received moral support from senior colleagues in teaching jobs: Mr F. Weiskittel and Dr W. G. Thalmann, both formerly of Hobart and William Smith Colleges in Geneva, New York, Mr R. Lane Fox and Dr J. B. Hainsworth of New College, and Prof. C. Collard of University College, Swansea. Many others have helped along the way. Dr J. N. Davidson has been my richest source of references; conversations with Dr M. Edwards have clarified my thought. I have received advice on specific points from Dr P. G. McC. Brown, Dr N. S. R. Hornblower, Dr S. C. Humphreys, Dr F. P. R. Just, the late Prof. D. M. Lewis, Mrs E. Matthews, Prof. F. G. Millar, Dr R. C. T. Parker, Dr C. Sourvinou-Inwood, Mr E. J. Stell, Dr J. C. Trevett, Dr I. G. Tompkins, Dr M. Vickers, and Dr U. Wartenberg.

vi

Preface

I owe a more general but profound debt of gratitude to Mr E. L. Bowie, my undergraduate tutor and a continuing source of help and encouragement. My parents have been unstinting in their moral and financial support of my studies, and it is to them that the book is dedicated. D.O.

CONTENTS

The Citation of Inscriptions

ix

Introduction

i PART

i:

ATHENS

i . The Diachronic Development of Athenian Bastardy Law 2. The Surveillance of Legitimacy ( 1): The Process of Legitimation 2. The Surveillance of Legitimacy (2): The Protection of the Wife from Extraneous Impregnation 4. Bastardy and Citizenship s. From Autochthony to Democracy 6. Aspects of the Lives of Athenian Bastards PART

11:

32 83 136 ist

166 180

SPARTA

7. Common Bastardy 8. Royal Bastardy ç. Gortyn PART THE

in :

BASTARDY

CLASSICAL

AND

AND

THE

CITY:

HELLENISTIC

PERIODS

10. Bastardy in the Cities of the Classical Period 11. The Hellenistic Relaxation PART

I V:

HELLENISTIC

277 280

EGYPT

12. Greeks and Barbarians 13. Hellenistic Egypt: The Chora 14. Hellenistic Egypt: The Cities

322 328 348

Conclusion

Menander Epitrepontes 914. M Andocides 1. 131. ” Menander Georgos 29-30. M Menander Sarnia 646, cf. also 3. ” Menander Dytkolos 290-1. See Liddell et al. 1968 s.v. examartanö for usage. “ Some interpret this phrase to mean not that the perpetrator is made to

The Protection of the Wife

147

in one of the categories of women on top of whom it is permitted to kill, he is liable to the same penalty. Thus, gentlemen, the law considered that those that force women deserve less punishment than those that persuade them. For it condemned the latter to death, but on the former inflicted double the damage, reflecting that those that get their way through force are hated by those they have forced, but those that have persuaded by doing so corrupt their souls, so that they alienate the affections of other men’s wives away from their husbands and towards themselves, and the whole house comes under their control, and it is unclear to which of the two groups of men the children happen to belong—to the husbands or to the adulterers. In response to this, the man that made the law made death the penalty for them. (Lysias i. 32-3) It has been recognized that Lysias is in many ways dishonest in his argument here.59 In the first place, the law that he only associates with the punishment of adulterers, and dissociates from the punishment of rapists, Draco’s homicide law, does not, as we have seen, draw any distinction between rape and adultery, and so applies equally as a punishment for both.60 And secondly, as our review of the evidence for punishments for rape in the classical period beyond the homicide law itself has just shown, whatever Lysias’ obscure phrase about the penalty for rape (of men, boys or women) being ‘double the damage’ is supposed to mean, it does not seem to exhaust the available penalties, which again included death under the public prosecution for hybris.61 Thus, as Harris argues, there does in fact seem to have been little appreciable difference in the severity of the punishments available for adultery and rape.62 But, as Harris also appropriately argues, it is significant that Lysias felt he could make this argument:63 his audience will have felt an anxiety about adultery far greater than that concern­ ing rape, since rape theoretically brought into question the pater­ nity’ of one child at the most, and in practice usually not even that, recompense his victim twice over, but that he is fined twice as much as he would have been if he had violated a slave. I find this implausible. See the discussion of Harrison 1968-71: i. 34 n. 2 and Cole 19846: 101-3. The best reason for taking this interpretation is that a system of gradated penalties for rape correlating with the status of the woman raped can be paralleled from the provisions regarding rape in the Gortyni an code. 59 See Harris 1990: passim, esp. 371. 60 S e e H a r r i s o n 1 9 6 8 - 7 1 : i. 3 4 a n d H a r r i s 1 9 9 0 : 3 7 2 .

61 Harris 1990: 373. 62 Ibid. 375. I am not convinced that the penalties laid down for rape were possiblv more severe than those laid down for adultery. 6J' Ibid. 375-

148

Athens

since a one-off rape would only exceptionally lead to pregnancy, and since a wife known to have been raped was divorced in any case. Thus rape constituted a defined and prospective threat that could be guarded against.64 But the threat constituted by adultery (that is adultery proper, not seduction) was that it was ill-defined and retrospective: an adulterer acted in secret with the wife’s co­ operation, over a protracted period. Who was to know how long an adulterer had been about his business at the time he was caught? Who was to know that, since the wife had given proof of her weak­ ness, she had not taken other adultererous lovers before the one caught? Adulterers not only foisted bastards on other men, but also undermined the status of those genuinely legitimate.65 The divorce of an adulterous wife certainly ensured that she would foist no more bastards on her husband, but in many respects it was a shutting of the stable door. And again we see legitimacy inter­ preted in terms of the oikos: adulterers are said to bring the house under their own control through their actions. Lysias appears not to mean primarily by this that, since the adulterer controls the wife in place of the husband, she carries out her wifely task of house­ hold management at the bidding of the adulterer, but rather that he gains (destructive) control of the posterity of the oikos. Cohen notes that the general criminal category into which adulterers fell, that of kakourgoi, was a category particularly associated with crimes that involved penetration within an oikos* In a similar vein, Xenophon says in his Hiero-. ‘Many cities have the custom of permitting adulterers alone to be killed with impunity, obviously for the reason that they consider them to be corrupters of the love of women towards their husbands’ (Xenophon Hiero 3.3). Cohen rightly observes that for the classical Athenians adulten* was the ‘paradigmatic’ sexual crime, the role taken by rape for us.67 Plutarch attributes the following legislation to Solon: ‘He gave the right to the man that caught an adulterer to kill him, but if some­ one snatched a free woman and forced her, he laid down a fine of 100 drachmas’ (Plutarch Solon 23). This text also implies that adultery was treated as a much more serious crime than rape. But there are a number of difficulties with it. If Solon did indeed *• Cf. Keuls 1985: 100. M Harris 1990: 370 n. 2 lists the scholars that hold to Lysias’ belief that adultery was considered a worse crime than rape. “ Cohen 1991: 112. 47 Cohen 1990: 148.

The Protection of the Wife

149

legislate thus on adultery (as opposed to rape), why was Draco’s earlier law still in force by the time of Lysias, and quoted by him? It seems best to suppose that the reference to the right to kill an adulterer is in fact a garbled reference to the Draconian law, and that Plutarch is therefore misinterpreting the law as applying to adulterers only and not rapists, in just the way that Lysias does, and for that reason supposing that Solon saw adultery as a worse crime than rape (indeed Plutarch’s thought here might be guided by the Lysias passage). Lysias implies that the punishment for the rape of a free woman is the same as for that of a free man (whether the original had anthröpon or andra). If this was indeed the case, then we may finally have found a part of the adultery/rape legislation that is not most powerfully explained with reference to the protection of bloodlines. It would at any rate be odd to argue that such was the case if the same penalty applied to rapes that could vitiate blood* lines (i.e. rapes of women) and to rapes that could not (i.e. rapes of men). One could, however, argue in favour of the bloodline hypothesis that the penalties for male rape were simply calqued, illogically, on the penalties for female rape, or that although the penalties for both male and female rape were the same, they were rationalized differently, the female penalty relating to the protec­ tion of bloodline, but the male relating to the protection of the personal dignity, with men’s personal dignity being more highly regarded than women’s. But given the already demonstrated misrepresentation of the relative sizes of penalties for rape and adultery generally in this passage, it would be rash to conclude too much. Indeed, since it is Lysias’ task to minimize the enormity of the offence of rape in contrast to that of adultery, he could well have attempted to do this by falsely assimilating the penalty for female rape down to the level of that for male. Or perhaps the assimilation is not so much false as misleading, for ‘double the damage’ is itself a relative, not an absolute term, and whether it means that the offender should pay double the assessed amount for the damage he has caused, or double the fixed fine for the rape of a slave in the same category (i.e. male or female), the basic rates of fine or punishment for the rape of women may still have been much greater than those for men. As Harrison importantly observes, the normal mode of prosecu­ tion for both adultery and rape was public {graphe moicheias and

Athens graphe hybreös): this meant that any citizen could bring a prosecu­ tion. The state clearly felt it was the interest and duty of all citizens to protect the legitimacy of the citizenship—all would lose if the coinage of the Attic citizenship were to be debased.68 And Hansen notes that the normal mode of indictment, eisangelia, shows that adultery was considered a crime against democracy, no doubt because it constituted a threat to the purity of the descent group.69 There was a defined number of situations in which the open availability of prosecutions for adultery or rape might work to the husband’s (or guardian’s) disadvantage. Thus the husband of a cherished wife that was raped might wish to cover the matter up and continue to live with her as wife, and be thwarted in this; similarly, an unmarried girl’s guardian might wish to cover up her rape, for the sake of the girl’s marriage prospects. Also, a husband that had come to recognize his own infertility might be tempted to encourage his wife to a little discreet infidelity, to provide him with an heir. These humane conveniences the state attempted to curb through the agencies of personal enemies and disinterested sycophants.70 Less honourably, a husband may have wished to hold on to an adulterous wife so as not to have to return her dowry, or in order to profit from her adultery, whether by blackmail or a more civilized arrangement. Aeschines suggests that few husbands were willing to admit to the adultery of their wives.71 M Cf. Harrison 1968-71: i. 35, Lacey 1968: 115, and Cole 19846: 106; pace, again, Cohen 1991: 122-3. ** Hansen 1991: 214. 70 Cohen 1991: 129-30 advances other reasons a husband may wish to conceal his wife’s adultery, in particular, shame at his own cuckoldry, or the desire to prostitute his wife. 71 Aeschines 1. 107; cf. Cole 19846: 106.

Bastardy and Citizenship

NOTHAI

OF

TWO

ATHENIAN

PARENTS

WERE

NOT

CITIZENS

The most fraught and most cherished issue in the tradition of scholarship on Athenian bastardy is the question as to whether those bastard children bom of two Athenian parents that were not married were none the less entitled to citizenship after Pericles’ citizenship law.' Such is the momentum of debate behind the issue that neither this book nor any other will have the authority to bring the matter to a close. At the conceptual level, the question is indeed a very important one,2 far more important indeed than its usual treatment as a legal technicality suggests, since it is upon this question that the issue turns as to whether membership of the classical Athenian state was determined ultimately by marriage or by descent.3 At the practical level the question is less important, since it concerns the fate of a group of individuals that would have been extremely tiny, and possibly non-existent. Bastards of two Athenian parents were denied citizenship after Pericles’ citizenship law because they wrere denied it beforehand, from as early as Solon (as I have argued in Chapter i ), and because the citizenship law did not change their status. Rather, it included others in their status. The case against the citizenship of bastards of two Athenian parents can also be argued on the basis of evidence and principles from the classical Athenian state itself, 1 T he citizenship of bastards bom of two Athenian parents is denied by: Wolff 1944: 76-82, Gomme 1937: 75 n. i, Just 1989: 55-60, Humphreys 1974: P89-91, Davies 1978: 105, Rhodes 1978, Patterson 1981: 31 n. 20 and 1990 passim, Hansen 1986: 73-6, Ledl 1907-8: 230, Lotze 1981, Maffi 1989, and Mossé 1991: 275. Citizenship is conceded to them by Latte 1937: 1072, Erdmann 1934: 377-83. Harrison 1968-71: i. 63-5, MacDowell 1976, Hignett 1952: 343-5, Walters 1983: 317-20, and Leduc 1992: 277. 2 Pace Wyse 1904: 280. 3 Cf. Just 1989: 55.

152

Athens

and this point too can be made from practical and conceptual perspectives. At the practical level it can be seen that the effective mechanisms for the creation of citizens excluded nothoi of two Athenian parents. From the time of Cleisthenes citizenship had formally depended upon membership of a deme, and no longer upon membership of a phratry.4 Now, as we saw in Chapter 2, the criteria for deme membership after Pericles included birth from two citizen parents but did not, at least as far as the unreliable Ath. Pol. reports them, explicitly include legitimacy.5 It is upon this ostensible omission of legitimacy from the deme admission criteria that those scholars that argue for the citizenship of bastards of two Athenian parents chiefly rely.6 However, it is not clear that the criterion of legitimacy is absolutely omitted here. The Ath. Pol. does still require birth ‘in accordance with the laws’ (kata tous nomous) for admission to the deme. This phrase could cover any number of requirements; most significantly, as w*e saw in Chapter 1, the phrase can be used as an alternative to gnêsiôs, ‘legitimately’. But whatever requirements the deme did or did not make of its candidates, forensic speeches that argue for citizenship base their arguments upon membership not of the deme but of the phratry, e.g. Isaeus 127 (an exception to this rule is Demosthenes 57, which, while discussing the phratry, does indeed focus on the deme, but for the specific reason that the plaintiff Euxitheus has been deprived of citizenship by allegedly fraudulent behaviour in a deme scrutiny). We must therefore assume that phratry membership was an effective if not a legal requirement for deme membership, and therefore for citizenship.8 As we have seen in Chapter 2, phratries apparently all required that their members be legitimate, with their introducer swearing an oath to the effect that they were bom ‘from a citizen woman given by betrothal’,9 or that they were ‘one’s legitimate/own (gnësios) son, bom of a married woman’.10 Therefore, we must assume that bastards of two 4 Wolff 1944: 78, MacDowell 1976: 89, and Just 1989: 57-8. 5 Ath. Pol. 42. 1; cf. the remarks of Rhodes 1978 on its reliability. ‘ Thus MacDowell 1976: 89, Harrison 1968-71: 64 n. 1; cf. Andrewes 1967: 92. 7 See esp. c. 3. * Lambert 1993: 31-5 argues vigorously that in the classical period phratry membership was as vital to citizenship as deme membership. * Isaeus 8. 19 and Demosthenes 57. 54. 10 IG [Guide nos. 57-8] iiJ. 1237 (Demotionid decree), 109-10. Cf. Davies 1978: 110 and Just 1989: 56.

Bastardy and Citizenship

153

Athenian parents, as necessarily not bom of married or betrothed women, must have been excluded from phratry, deme, and citizenship alike. So strong was the effective link between phratry membership and citizenship that some texts actually move from one to the other without mention of the deme. Mantitheus argues that, because his father Mantias was tricked into swearing to the legitimacy of his ‘illegitimate’ half-brother Boiotos at the phratry, Boiotos gained a fatherland and a city." In the speech against Neaira we are told: ‘he would introduce her children to his phratrymen at that time, as being his own, and would make them citizens.’112134Isaeus reports a case in which demesmen actually enrolled a boy into their number even though he had no introducer, simply on the basis that he had been introduced to a phratry." It is perhaps significant here that when aliens were naturalized, they were enrolled into a phratry as well as into a deme.'4 However, in Menander’s Sicyonian a redis­ covered citizen is apparently accepted straight into a deme without reference to a phratry (but the scene is an odd one: the same form is used to restore citizenship to a lost citizen girl, and girls were never usually presented to demes).151 advanced in Chapter 2 what I think is the reason for the phratries’ continued dominance in the citizenship stakes so long after Cleisthenes: it is because, unlike the demes, they kept birth registers (entries being made at the meion), and therefore alone were in control of the only even putatively reliable information about an individual’s origin. And legitimation is better seen in terms of a protracted process throughout a person’s youth (and even beyond), and not in terms of the negotia­ tion of a single large hurdle, the meeting of a unitary, crude ‘formal definition’16 of citizenship on one privileged occasion. It was the phratries that had presided over the largest part of this process, and in particular they had reaffirmed their confidence in the candidate at his kourHon, just one year before his deme admission. A further and related indication that legitimacy per se was 11 Demosthenes 39. 2 and 34. 12 [Demosthenes] 59. 38; cf. cc. 13 and 122. 13 Isaeus 7. 27-8. 14 See Hansen 1986: 74 and 108 n. 225 and Lambert 1993: 31-3 (and cf. 50-1); pace, in part, Osborne 1981-3: iii—iv. 172-3 and 182. 15 Menander Sicyonian 174-279. 16 The phrase of Mac Dowell 1976: 89.

Athens required for citizenship is that speakers under threat of dis­ franchisement plead their legitimacy in attempting to prove their citizenship. Thus Euphiletus actually argued his citizenship entirely on the basis of his legitimacy.17 And when Euxitheus argued in defence of his citizenship, he not only attempted to prove that both his parents were Athenian, but having done that, he then went on to argue that they were also married.18 However, those scholars that believe that bastards of two Athenian parents were indeed citizens argue that these speakers lay such great stress on legitimacy not because it was itself a criterion of citizenship, but because legitimate birth directly entailed birth from two citizen parents, which was the key criterion of citizenship that they did wish to prove.19 But if this was the purpose of the speakers, they are remarkably misleading about the logical structure of their arguments. Three arguments against the citizenship of bastards of two Athenian parents can be made at the conceptual level. First, it can be argued that the classical Athenians conceptualized their state as a collection of oikoi: this principle is stated by both Aristotle and Xenophon, as we have already seen.20 Since nothoi of two Athenian parents were manifestly excluded from the oikos, they could not therefore belong to the state.21 Secondly, we may consider sacral rights. When the Plataeans were given (virtual) citizenship status, they were permitted, among other things, participation in ‘the sacred and holy rites’ (hiera kai hosia).22 Since all nothoi, including those bom of two Athenian parents, were debarred from these rites, as we saw, they were ipso facto debarred from one important aspect of citizenship, and were therefore almost certainly debarred from all citizen rights. In particular, we saw in Chapter 3 that the allegedly bastard son of Callias, who was bom of two Athenian citizens 17 Isaeus 12. " Demosthenes 57. 40-3 and 68. See Wolff 1944: 76-9. It is however curious that Euxitheus only comes directly to deny his own bastardy in c. 53, and then only as a subsidiary argument to establish the reliability of relatives as witnesses. '* Thus Hruza 1892-4: ii. 40 n. 35, Besuchet 1897: 513, Erdmann 1934: 379, and Harrison 1968-71: i. 63-4 (who also argues that Boiotos wished to prove his legitimacy because this would have entailed his double civic ascendance and there­ fore earned him citizenship). 10 Aristotle Politics 1252b and Xenophon Oeconomicus 1. 5. 11 T his is the argument of Ledl 1907-8: 173-88. Cf. Harrison 1968-71: i. 63-5, Wolff 1944: 79, and Patterson 1990: 46. 11 Demosthenes 59. 104.

Bastardy and Citizenship

155

whose marital status was dubious, was abused by Andocides as accursed, which would have made his participation in things sacred very unwelcome.23 Thirdly, we saw in detail in Chapter z the apparent unity of legitimacy-recognition procedures and citizenship-recognition procedures. Since nothoi of two Athenian parents could not be given the first, they could not, ipso facto, be given the second. There are two further indications that bastards of two Athenian parents were not permitted citizenship, the first of which again concerns the ‘bastard-thing’ of Callias. A fragment of the comic poet Metagenes reads: ‘Who is a citizen these days unless Sakas the Mysian and the bastard-thing of Callias (to Kalliou nothon)V (Metagenes F14 K-A). I assume here that ‘the bastard-thing of Callias’ denotes Callias’ son by the citizen woman Chrysilla, and not the character of unknown origin that claimed to be Callias’ son, as told by Dio Chrysostom.24 ‘Sakas the Mysian’ was the wellworn nickname for the tragic poet Acestor.25 The testimonia for Acestor indicate that he was indeed alien by birth (though it is always possible that our sources have themselves been misled by such comic jibes as this one).26 The scornful point made here is clearly that only those least qualified for Athenian citizenship actually enjoy it. A simple reading of the passage would therefore suggest that the bastard-thing of Callias was as well qualified for citizenship as a Mysian was, which would therefore entail that bastards of two Athenian parents did not have citizen rights.27 The difficulty with this argument is that, despite the bizarre circumstances of his birth, the child evidently was indeed given citizenship, as the context of this passage and Andocides make clear (we have discussed the context of this in Chapter 1). We cannot therefore draw any certain conclusion from it.28 I think rather more can be made for the case against the citizen­ ship of bastards of m o Athenian parents from a passage of Euripides’ Ion, a play that more than any other enshrines the ideals JI Andocides 1. 131. 14 Dio Chrysostom 15. 15. !5 Cf. also Aristophanes Wasps 1219 and Schol. Aristophanes Birds 31; cf. also the notes of Kassel and Austin 1983-: at Cratinus F92. M Thus, see esp. Snell 1971 [T. Gr. F.]: i, no. 25 T i (Schol. Aristophanes Wasps 1219) and T2 (Suda s.v. Sakas). 17 Cf. Co* 1989: 42-3. * Pace Patterson 1990: 61 n. 81.

156

Athens

of the citizenship law. Ion, believing himself to be the rapebastard of the Dorian Xuthus by an unknown (and therefore not necessarily Athenian) free woman, baulks at the idea of coming to Athens and mixing with the citizens. He will be coming to the city ‘having acquired two diseases, being of an alien father, and being myself bastard-bom (nothagenês) '.w The disjunction between the two diseases is a weak one if the ‘bastard-birth’ consists of no more than having an alien mother as well as an alien father. Rather, the first disease seems to address alienness, and the second the circumstances of birth. This then implies that bastard-birth is in itself detrimental, quite apart from issues of parental origin, and therefore that citizenship was denied to all bastards tout court. Before leaving this discussion, we should make mention of two particular cases that have been adduced to the debate by the procitizenship lobby: the case of Archeptolemus and Antiphon, and the case of Phile.30 The punishment decreed for Archeptolemus and Antiphon for their part in the 411 oligarchy is quoted by Plutarch in the following terms: ‘Archeptolemus and Antiphon are to be a tim o S y and so is their progeny, both n o t h o i and g n i s i o i . ’31 A t i m o s is usually taken to mean ‘disfranchised’; it is therefore argued that if bastards can be disfranchised, then they must normally have been citizen.32 However, the state of being a t i m o s , a t i m i a , could mean much more than just loss of citizen rights: it could also mean that one could be killed with impunity, as Demosthenes shows.33The case of Phile will be argued later in this chapter.34 If nothoi of two Athenian parents could not be citizens, they must by default have belonged to the category of aliens.35 Since resident in Attica, they would have had metic status.

" Euripides Ion 592-3. * Harrison 1968-71: i. 65 n. z also makes an unconvincing case from the organization of Cynosarges: against this see Humphreys 1974: 91 and Hansen 1986: 75-6. 11 Plutarch Moratio 8342b. M Latte 1937: 1072 and MacDowell 1976: 89. ” Demosthenes 9. 42-4: Rhodes 1978: 89 and Lotze 1981: 165-6. 14 For a pro-citizenship argument based on the case of Phile, in particular Isaeus 3. 45, see MacDowell 1976: 89. ” Puce Wolff 1944: 83, Paoli 1930: 198, Harrison 1968-71: 188 n. 2. Gould 1980: 46 n. 57, and Vatin 1970: 120.

Bastardy and Citizenship WERE

THERE

ACTUALLY

ANY

BASTARDS

ATHENIAN

PARENTS?

15 7 OF

TWO

If an Athenian man was to have a bastard by an Athenian citizen woman to whom he was not married, then the circumstances of that bastard’s production must have been one of the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

by by by by by

an Athenian concubine (pallakë); an Athenian courtesan (hetaira); the rape of an Athenian woman; adultery with an Athenian woman; incest with an Athenian woman.

It can be shown that none of these sources was likely to produce bastards that were both recognized as such and allowed to survive the first few days of their life. The most important categories for consideration here are (1) and (2): the other categories only produce bastards of two Athenian parents as a result of illegal behaviour; and it is only in the cases of (1) and (2) that the father might even conceivably seek to be linked with the child produced. It is impossible to make any kind of absolute or sustainable categorical distinction between pallakai and hetairai36 (though, as we saw, the speech against Neaira attempted to make a specious distinction between them).3637 All that we can say is that women referred to as pallakai are (theoretically) monopolized by one man over a protracted period, and are a subset of those women referred to as hetairai, but that this term also covers women with whom one might have as transient a relationship as a single bout of sex at an orgy. Therefore a legally produced bastard of two Athenian parents that was recognized as such can only have stemmed from the union of a man with a woman referred to as pallakë or from a woman referred to as a hetaira but classifiable as a pallakë. It is almost impossible to find in our sources any citizen women in roles of this description,3®even though a great many scholars assume them to have constituted a significant group.39 The lack of 36 See e.g. Brown 1990: 249. 37 [Demosthenes] 59. 122. Mossé's historical understanding of the term with reference to the privileged slave-women that bathe their masters* bodies in Homer deserves mention: Mossé 1991: 277; cf. Patterson 19916: 282. M As noted by Gomme and Sandbach 1973: 30. 39 Thus Sealey 1984: 113-17, Rudhardt 1962: 43-4, Bushala 1969: 71, Harrison

158

Athens

citizen women pallakai and hetairai (of any kind) in our sources is easy to explain. Since, as we have seen, there is reason to believe that the rate of exposure for free women was much higher than that of.free men in Athens (and the Greek world as a whole), after Pericles’ citizenship law citizen women, the only women then competent to bear legitimate offspring, would have been at a premium, and all very much in demand for marriage, even if undowered or ugly. Athenian citizen pallakai? Let us consider the possible attested examples of Athenian citizen women pallakai or hetairai. As far as pallakai are concerned, we may, just, find one in Socrates’ Xanthippe: Porphyry tells us that this citizen woman had had a relationship with Socrates (prosplakeisan) before she became his wife.40 However, it would be very dangerous to read too much into this. In the first place, there was in any case confusion among ancient scholars as to which of his two co-wives Socrates married first,41 and this information may have resulted from an ancient scholar’s attempt to reconcile such conflicting traditions. Secondly, this concubinage (quite apart from the marriage that followed it) may have occurred in that very exceptional period in which the Peloponnesian war had taken so great a toll on the citizen men that there was indeed a brief superfluity of marriageable citizen women. None of the other proffered examples of possible citizen pallakai is convincing. Although Demosthenes (writing for Mantitheus) attempted to represent Plangon as a citizen and pallaki, she was almost certain­ ly a legitimate wife of Mantias (initially at any rate).42 And although Isaeus represents Phile as a bastard, and her mother, an Athenian citizen, correspondingly as a hetaira (probably a monopolized one), Phile was almost certainly in reality a legiti­ mate but defrauded heiress, and her mother a legitimate wife (we 1968-71: i. 14, Hmza 1892-4: ii. 74, Beauchet 1897: i. 100-3, Erdmann 1934: i n , and Patterson 1990: 60 and 80. A different view may be found at Mossé 1991: 279, which appears to have modified Patterson’s ideas somewhat: Patterson 19916: 282. 40 FGH 260 F i i (=Theodoret Graecarum affectionum curatio 12. 64-5). 41 See in particular Diogenes Laertius 2. 26 for the doubt (=Aristotle On Good Birth F93 Rose). 42 Demosthenes 39. 26, 40. 8, and 27; see Rudhardt 1962: 46-7 and Humphreys 1989: 182-3.

Bastardy and Citizenship

*59

shall return to this case shortly).43 Sealey argues for the existence of Athenian citizen pallakai on the basis of Isaeus’ assertion: ’Even those men that give their own daughters to be pallakai previously make an agreement about the dowry to be given to the pallakaf (Isaeus 3. 39).44 But there are great difficulties with this passage. In the first place the statement is a general one, and no indication is given that its subject is Athenian citizens and their citizen daughters. Secondly, the statement is in any case extremely tendentious, and contradicted by other evidence. In New Comedy it is considered paradoxical that a concubine be given a dowry.43 Indeed, dowrilessness is taken as the defining feature of a concubine, since women given in marriage without dowry can ipso facto be suspected of being mere concubines.44 And suspicions that the mother of Phile was merely a concubine were fuelled by her family’s admission that she was given without a dowry.47 The evidence for the existence of Athenian citizen pallakai is then very slight. So slight indeed is it that Müller could argue that it was actually illegal to give citizen women into concubinage, and that to do so was to be liable for prosecution for procuring (proagögeia).48 Patterson has argued that concubinage was con­ sidered essentially a servile status in classical Athens, and a status that most free let alone citizen men would seek to avoid for their womenfolk.49 The evidence for Athenian citizen women as hetairai of the multiple lover variety is perhaps slightly better, but of course the children of such women could not be tied in any way to any one man. The point is well made by an apothegm of Diogenes: ’Diogenes said to the son of a prostitute that was hurling stones into the crowd: “Watch out, young man, lest you wound your father, whom you clearly do not know”’ (Eustathius on Homer Iliad 24. 49).50 Hence such children could not have been 0 Isaeus 3. 45, 48, 52, 55, and 70-1; cf. Patterson 1990: 44 and 70-3, and Wyse 1904: 276. 44 Sealey 1984: 133-7. 45 Thus Plautus Stichus 562: ‘He refused to give a concubine with a dowry.’ 44 Plautus Trinummus 612 and 690-1. 47 Isaeus 3. 29 and 35. For a different view, see Grzybek 1989. Sealey also argues for the existence of Athenian citizen pallakai on the basis of the untenable premiss that the word eleutheros in Draco’s justifiable homicide clause (Demosthenes 23. 53) means ’citizen’. 44 On which see Aeschines 1. 14 and 184; Müller 1899: 710-32. 44 Patterson 19916: 284. 50 Cf. also Kindstrand 1990: no. 16.

i6o

Athens

recognized as bastards of two Athenian parents even if that was what they actually were in biological terms; such children must have been deemed patroxenic. And in any case, as we have already seen, hetairai were believed typically to abort their pregnancies or expose their babies. There needs to be a further caveat. Hetairai were very much an international commodity (as the speech against Neaira makes clear).51 Often, when an ethnic is used with a hetaira’s name, it may only pretend to speak of her place of origin rather than her citizenship status. Thus Alexander’s Thais, described as ‘the Attic hetaira' by Athenaeus, need merely have hailed from the city.52 However, Demetrius Poliorcetes’ ‘Athenian’ courtesan Lamia is actually said by Athenaeus to have had at least a father that was a citizen.53 The group of hetairai for whom we have the best evidence in the Greek world are the great royal hellenistic courtesans. It is surprising how frequently the anecdotes that record the adventures of these women supply their ethnics.54 Perhaps the ethnics are of more significance than they appear, and are intended to convey something of the style of the courtesan— possibly their sexual style.55 (At any rate, the phenomenon of the ethnics of hetairai seems to be somewhat distinct from that of ‘detached’ ethnics in the hellenistic world, which we shall consider in Part III.) The clearest reference to Athenian citizen hetairai is by Plutarch, who tells that Alcibiades kept hetairai, both citizen women and aliens, in his house and by so doing outraged his wife.56 There is no other equally certain reference that I know of. Socrates is made by Xenophon to ask the distinguished and beautiful hetaira Theodote whether she has a farm: since her ownership of a farm would entail that she had the right to own land in Attica, enktësis, a thing restricted to citizens, it might be supposed that Theodote is a citizen woman, or at any rate con­ sidered by Socrates possibly to be one.57 But Socrates is manifestly ” [Demosthenes] 59. 18-49. 51 Athenaeus 576d.

51 Ibid. 577c. 54 See Peremana and Van’t Dack 1950-81: nos. 14713-37. ** For the differing sexual styles of women from different parts of Greece (here citizen women), see Aristophanes Lysistrata 78-96. 56 Plutarch Alcibiades 8. 3. 57 Xenophon Memorabilia 3. 11. 4.

Bastardy and Citizenship

161

being playful here, and does not expect the answer ‘yes’ (nor does he get it). Moving away from actual particular cases, it might be felt that the existence of citizen hetairai is indicated by the hypothesis raised by Isaeus that infatuated young men sometimes try to marry hetairai (since only citizen women were even theoreti­ cally marriageable).58 But the whole point here is that marriage to a hetaira is indeed impossible: Isaeus surely has in mind fraudu­ lent marriages with non-citizen hetairai such as the one Stephanus is accused of having made with Neaira.59* Nor can anything be made of the Actional virtuous (Athenian?) citizen woman reduced to the status of a hetaira in a fragment of the comic poet Antiphanes’ Hydria: The man I’m speaking of saw a hetaira living in his neighbours’ house, and fell in love with her. She is a citizen woman, alone without guardian or relations. She has a golden and virtuous character, a hetaira in the true meaning of the word [i.e. ‘companion’].60 Other hetairai damage by their behaviour a name which is in reality a fine one. (Antiphanes F210 K-A)

She is almost certainly a ‘pseudo-Ae/aira’, the victim of an unfortunate paradox awaiting monogamous marriage with her lover.61 What of bastards of two Athenian parents produced from rape and adultery’? As for the relatively few occasions upon w’hich the rape of an unmarried woman led to conception, the child of the rapist that fled into the night could hardly be identified as the child of two Athenian citizens, whether the rapist was a citizen or not. If the rapist was caught in the act, the.n identification of the child as of two Athenian parents was possible, but it is still very unlikely that it would have been permitted to live, unless the rapist did agree to marry his victim, in which case the child would thus be legitimated. The same can be said of children produced by the seduction of unmarried citizen women by citizen men. As for children produced by adultery proper (i.e. illicit sex with married women) between citizens, the majority of these will doubtless have been mistakenly held to be the legitimate children of the husband of the adulteress, but if a child was suspected of being fathered by an adulterer, it was again likely to have been aborted 5# Isaeus 3. 17. 59 [Demosthenes] 59 passim. 00 Cf. Athenaeus 57id and Anaxilas F21. 3 for the same sentiment; cf. Brown 1990: 248. 61 Cf. Harrison 1968-71: i. 14.

Athens or exposed (we recall that abortion is particularly associated with adulteresses, as well as hetairai, by the medical writers), unless the adulterer was persuaded to marry the mother after her mandatory divorce. What of children produced incestuously? Marriages were forbidden between ascendants and descendants, and between homometric siblings. Children produced by Athenian couples within the forbidden degree of relationship must therefore have been nothoi of two Athenian parents, if for no other reason than because their parents could not be married to each other. Thus, for what it is worth, Sophocles refers to Oedipus’ marriage to his mother as a ‘marriage without marriage’, and to Jocasta as Oedipus’ ‘wife not a wife’.62 Not surprisingly, there is no attested case of an incest bastard, or even of an allegation that any indi­ vidual was the product of an incestuous union (for all Andocides’ dramatic attempts to represent the son of Callias as the product of incest, with comparisons to Oedipus and Aegisthus, there was of course nothing technically incestuous about the circumstances of the child’s production).63 Doubtless some incestuous bastards were conceived, but these too above all we can expect to have been aborted or exposed discreetly, long before their citizenship ever became an issue. Given the general invisibility of incest bastards in our sources, and the fact that the concept of incest brought with it horrors far greater than bastardy itself ever did, it need not worry us that we do not find the term nothos actually applied to an individual of the category. We do come close, however: Euripides refers to the children of the union between Oedipus and Jocasta as ‘unlawful. . . (m i nomimoi) children’.64 Perhaps one reason that the term nothos is withheld from incest bastards in the classical period is that after the citizenship law the term became heavily identified with overly exogamously produced children, i.e. with children produced from unions with aliens, and therefore seemed inappro­ priately applied to children that were produced overly endogamously.65 w Sophocles Oedipus Tyrannus 1214 and 1256; cf. Harrison 1968-71: i. 22, but he is wrong to argue that the same poet's Oedipus at Colonus 365—70 implies the children’s bastardy. “ Andocides1. 129. M Euripides Phoenissae 815-16; cf. also 'bear lawless (anoma) children’ (380) and ‘marriage of ill marriage’ (1046-7). “ Cf. Harrison 1968-71: i. 22, with references. He considers that the Athenian marriage system had an endogamous tendency, best exemplified by the epiclerate.

Bastardy and Citizenship

163

There was, just possibly, another type of forbidden union between Athenian citizens: Plutarch tells that the people of the demes of Hagnous and Pallene never intermarried.66 It is possible that this was as the result of an interdiction, but more probably it was merely an unpoliced custom. Therefore, in the case of each theoretical category of woman that could have produced a bastard of two Athenian parents, there seems to have been very little possibility of any actual bastards being both produced and allowed to live: there seem to have been very few (if any) Athenian pallakai to produce any bastards of two Athenian parents legally, whilst it is highly unlikely that those pro­ duced illegally would have been reared. To this extent the vexed question of the citizenship status of individuals of two Athenian parents seems to have concerned very few actual individuals.

THE

STATUS

OF

BASTARD

GIRLS

iNOTHAH

In his third speech, Isaeus contends, rightly or wrongly, that the girl Phile is a nothë of two Athenian parents,67 yet he does not explicitly say that the marriage in which she was given to an Athenian citizen, Xenocles, was illegal. This fact has given rise to a great deal of speculation about the legal situation of nothai. Some scholars have argued from this case that nothai of two Athenian parents were considered citizen women, and even, by extension, that nothoi of two Athenian parents were therefore citizens too.68 Others have argued that nothai of two Athenian parents were not themselves citizenwomen, but could none the less be legally given in marriage to a citizen man, and legitimately bear him legitimate and citizen children.69 A more extreme variant of this view is that all nothai, not simply those of two Athenian parents, but those of alien mothers too, could be legitimately married to citizen men.70* ** Plutarch Theseus 13.3: no epigamia. b7 Isaeus 3 passim, esp. chs. 1, 12, and 42. M Thus MacDowell 1976: 89-90, Harrison 1968-71: i. 65, Lotze 1981: 172-5. For an opposite view, see Patterson 1990: 44. * Thus Bickerman 1975: 16, Wolff 1944: 82-3, and Hansen 1986: 75. 70 Vatin 1970: 118-19. The alleged crime of Stephanus in [Demosthenes] 59 constitutes a difficulty for this view; Vatin counters, citing ch. 51 in particular, that Stephanus* crime was that he married off Phanion not as a (metroxenic) bastard, but as his own daughter when she was not.

Athens But all this is of no avail, for two reasons. First, Phile probably was given in marriage as a legitimate citizen woman, as her husband and family claim,71 whether or not she was in fact such (it is usually believed that she was indeed a legitimate citizen woman, but a defrauded heiress).72*And secondly, although Isaeus admit­ tedly does not explicitly state that the giving of an (alleged) nothê in marriage is illegal, he describes it with a phrase that does indeed strongly imply its illegality: ‘betrothed as being bom from a hetaira.’7J That this peculiar phrase denotes something illegal is shown by the fact that it is contrasted at one point with the phrase ‘in accordance with the laws’.74 This is just one of the many reasons why ‘betrothed as being bom from a hetaira' cannot have denoted, as one scholar has argued, a technical betrothal of a woman for a legally recognized concubinage-marriage.7SThe child that was acknowledged to have been born of a hetaira can of course have been in no way fit for marriage to a citizen, since, the status of her mother apart, there would have been no guarantee of her paternity. The reason that Isaeus is a little indirect about the illegality of the marriage of the allegedly bastard Phile to Xenocles is to avoid incriminating Endius, the brother of the man for whom the speech is written, and the man that gave Phile away, who would thus have been (posthumously) guilty’ under a law quoted in the speech against Neaira: ‘If someone gives an alien woman in marriage to an Athenian as if his own relative, he is to be dis­ franchised’ ([Demosthenes] 59. 52). (The law is quoted here by Apollodorus to prove the illegality of the giving of Stephanus’ supposed bastard daughter Phano by the non-Athenian hetaira Neaira in marriage to an Athenian citizen.76) There is then no good reason to think that there was anything formally exceptional about the status of nothai, those of two Athenian parents or metroxenic ones: they must have belonged, like all nothoi, to the category* of ‘alien’. However, although there may have been nothing formally superior about the status of a female bastard to that of a male, it could be argued that they may have had some informal advantages. 71 72 ” 74 75 76

See Isaeus 3. 2-3, 5-6, 41, and 60. See Wyse 1904: 2 7 6 , Sealey 1 9 8 4 : 125, and P a t t e r s o n 1 9 9 0 : 7 3 . I»««» 3- 45. 48. 52. 55. 70-« Ibid. 3. 70. Sealey 1984: 125, against whom see Patterson 1990: 42 and Wyse 1904: 277. Sec Rhodes 1978: 90-1 and Patterson 1990: 72.

Bastardy and Citizenship

165

Female bastards fell at the intersection of the two categories thought to have borne the brunt of exposure: girls and bastards. This might have led one to suppose that few would have been allowed to survive, but two factors may in fact have favoured a higher rate of survival for female bastards vis-à-vis male bastards than for female legitimates vis-à-vis male legitimates. The first factor is that procedures of legitimation and recognition were evidently less rigorous for girls than they were for boys: therefore it ought to have been easier to pass off a bastard girl as legitimate than it was a bastard boy.77 The second factor is that women in general had a fraction of men’s civil rights, no political rights, and few effective property rights. Therefore, girls had rather less to lose from illegitimacy than boys did. Their main losses would have been the right to marry and bear citizens, and the rights to priest­ hoods and general participation in family and state cults, except as metics in the latter. The speech against Neaira tells us that alien women could at least attend public sacrifices and offer prayers, though they presumably could not eat (by contrast, adulterous women were not even permitted to attend);7®and metics did have state festivals of their own, such as the skaphëphoria.7’ Vatin well suggests (though his context is somewhat different from mine) that a ’relatively privileged situation of female bastards compared to male’ was ’paradoxically the consequence of the incapacity of women in the national community’. There is of course no way of testing out these suppositions. Comparative evidence from elsewhere in the Greek world, for what it is worth, unfortunately does not support them. The Milesian inscriptions that record the enfranchisement of families from all over the Greek world in around 200 exhibit an exposure rate of Milesian female bastards vis-à-vis Milesian male bastards exactly comparable to the exposure rate of pan-Greek female legitimates vis-à-vis pan-Greek male legitimates, as we shall see in Part III. If a bastard girl was to be given to an Athenian citizen, the best that she could legally have hoped for was the status of concu­ binage. Doubtless she could have been given in marriage to a metic, whatever kind of marital forms were available to metics. We shall discuss later the means a rich man might use to palm off a bastard daughter onto a poor citizen for wife. 77 Cf. Rhodes 1978: 91. n See Whitehead 1977: 86-9.

71 [Demosthenes] 59. 85-7.

From Autochthony to Democracy

PERICLES

AND

AUTOCHTHONY

Students of the citizenship law have been too reluctant to exploit in its interpretation the abundant evidence for the Athenians’ obsession with their autochthony1 (although Loraux has seen the relevance of the citizenship law for the issue of the Athenians’ con­ ceptualization of autochthony).2 But the connection was perceived strongly by one famous mëtroxenos, the Socratic philosopher Antisthenes, who defiantly defended his metroxeny in the following terms: ‘He himself deflated the Athenians, who puffed themselves up on the basis of being earthbom, by saying that they were no better born than snails and slugs’ (Diogenes Laertius 6. i). In the light of the connection made by Antisthenes between Athenian pride in autochthony and his own disadvantage under the citizenship law, the law’s prime function appears to have been the preservation of the pure ‘autochthonous’ descent group. The Athenians’ interest in autochthony is attested as early as the Catalogue of Ships in Homer’s Iliad: ‘Great-spirited Erechtheus, whom once Athena daughter of Zeus reared, but the grain-giving soil bore him, and Athena set him down in Athens in her rich temple.’3 Even if these lines are interpolated, they must still go back as far as the sixth century.45In developed classical mythology Erechtheus (or Erichthonius) was the second autochthonous king of Athens,3 and was preceded by the ‘double-formed’ Cecrops, 1 The denial of the existence of this evidence by Boegehold 1994: 58-9 is alarming. 2 Loraux 1981: esp. 66, 214, and 219. Cf. also Rosivach 1987: 303 n. 34 and Diller 1937: 50-1, 54, and 157. 3 Homer Iliad 2. 547-9. 4 Parker 1987: 193, Loraux 1981: 41, Rosivach 1987: 294, and Kirk et al. *985-93: i. 179-80 and 205; cf. Brulé 1987: 13-18. 5 For the associations and differentiations between Erechtheus and

From Autochthony to Democracy

167

who was a twisting snake (a creature emblematic of the chthonic) below the waist.6 The Athenians saw themselves as descended from either or both of these kings (without autochthonous women!), for they considered themselves ‘Cecropids’ or ‘Erechtheids’, the latter of which terms is first attested in Pindar.7 By at least the second part of the fifth century the Athenians were putting the myth of autochthony to extreme patriotic use, as can be seen from extant Funeral Orations (it may have been in the context of this genre that the ideology of autochthony was above all hammered out).8 In these texts Athenian autochthony is conceptualized in a rather different way: the Athenian people as a whole are considered to have been bom en masse from the earth, like the Spartoi.9 Concomitantly, genealogy’ was now denied.10 Curiously, both models of autochthony, that of the single autochthonous originator, and that of the human crop, are found side by side in Euripides’ /on." The new conceptualization of autochthony came to mean that the Athenians had pure blood, whereas the rest of the Greeks had mixed and tainted blood. It also came to be intimately linked with democracy: the Athenians, being bom alike from the same earth, were bom equal and democratic.12 In the Funeral Orations the effects of autochthony are perma­ nent: Athens has always been inhabited by the same people, and is not populated by immigrants.13 (The Athenians do not seem to have been bothered here by contradictory traditions about the incorporation of immigrants,14though Lycurgus was to consider it cause for tears when one saw the Athenian people, once proud of Erichthonius, see Parker 1987: 193, 195, and 200-1, Loraux 1981: 46, and Rosivach 1987: 294 n. 4. 6 Euripides Ion 1163-4 and Aristophanes Wasps 438. Cf. Parker 1987: 193, Loraux 1981: 37 and 123, and Brulé 1987: 23-49. 7 Pindar Isthmian 2. 19; Parker 1987: 194, Rosivach 1987: 295, and Loraux 1981: 36, 45, and 132. Even the Salaminians qualify as Erechtheids at Sophocles Ajax 201-2. The Athenians are only once ever referred to as ‘children of Hephaestus', this at Aeschylus Eumemdes 869. * Rosivach 1987: 304-5. 9 For this shift see Loraux 1981: 11, 49-50, and 71, Rosivach 1987: 295-7. 10 See esp. Hyperides Epitaphios 7. 11 Euripides Ion 20-1 and 29-30. 12 Parker 1987: 194 and Loraux 1986: 193, 331. 15 Thucydides 2. 36. 1, Lysias 2. 17, Plato Menexenus 237b, Demosthenes 60. 4, Isocrates 4. 24-5, Hyperides 6. 7; cf. Euripides Erechtheus F360 N, lines 5-13. Cf. Loraux 1981: 50 and 1986: 277 and Tyrrell and Brown 1991: 195. 14 Herodotus 5. 65. 3 and Aristotle Politics 1257036-7; and cf. Connor 1994.

Athens its autochthony, voting to make strangers citizens).15 Autochthony is therefore associated with resistance to foreign domination.16 It is the common property of all the Athenians,17 and is therefore the basis of the unity of the city, and closely identified with citizen­ ship.18 But it is also conceptualized in terms of family relations: the earth is the mother of the Athenians, and they are brothers born of the same mother:19 the Demosthenic Funeral Oration asserts that the Athenians are iegitimate/of-the-blood (gnësiôs) by birth citizen-sons of the homeland’,20 and Isocrates that ‘we are bom so finely and legitimately/of-the-blood (gnësios), being autochtho­ nous, that we call the city by the same name as our closest family’.21 In all the extant Funeral Orations (except for Thucydides’) autochthony is treated as ‘good birth’ (eugeneia),22 a term Aristotle was actually to define as meaning ‘ancient or autochthonous origin’.23 The Athenians are unique in their autochthony,24 and so the peoples of other states are merely ‘adoptive’ and unable to love their land in the way that ‘children of the blood’ do.25 (Similarly, Thucydides says of the ‘mixed together rabbles’ that constitute the Sicilian democracies that they do not fight and farm as if for their own homeland.26) Thus autochthony not only justifies the classical Athenian laws of succession, but it is actually conceptualized in terms of them. The equivocation in gnësios is again significant: those of pure Athenian descent are not only non-bastard, but also metaphorically nonadopted. 15 Lycurgus Leocrates 41; cf. Rosivach 1987: 296 n. 10 and 303. 16 Lysias 2. 4. 3 and Thucydides 2. 36. 1. Cf. Aristophanes Wasps 1076, Xenophon Hellemca 7. 1. 23, and Demosthenes 19. 261. 17 Demosthenes 60. 4; cf. Loraux 1986: 277. 11 Plato Menexenus 24481—3, Lysias 2. 17, Demosthenes 60. 3, and Isocrates 4. 23 and 25; cf. Aristophanes Wasps 1075-80; cf. Loraux 1981: 49 and 1986: 278. 17 Plato Menexenus 237e4 and 23981—2, Lysias 2. 17, and Isocrates 4. 25; cf. Plato Republic 4i4C-e, cf. Loraux 1981: 67, 76, 130, and 1986: 193 and Rosivach 1987: 303. 20 Demosthenes 60. 4, cf. 60. 6. 21 Isocrates Panegyricus 24; cf. Loraux 1981: 50, 65, and 131 and Tyrrell and Brown 1991: 196. 22 Plato Menexemu 237b, Hyperides 6. 7; cf. Dionysius of Halicarnassus A rt of Rhetoric 261. 23 Aristotle Rhetoric i36obi8 and 22, Politics 1283838-9, and De nobilitate F2 Rose. Cf. Loraux 1981: 50 and 1986: 194 and Rosivach 1987: 303. 24 Plato Menexenus 24sd2-4; cf. Herodotus 7. 161; cf. Loraux 1986; 1 and 1981; 36 and 51. 25 Demosthenes 60. 4; cf. Lycurgus Leocrates 8; cf. Loraux 1981: 66. 24 Thucydides 6. 17.

From Autochthony to Democracy

169

Democracy is a necessary result of autochthony, the Athenians being democratic from the point of birth: Plato tells that ‘The natural equality of our birth (isogonia) compels us to seek legal equality in law,’27 and Lysias that ‘First and alone at that time [sc. the time of their autochthony] they cast out their tyrants and established democracy,’28 and he neatly encapsulates the link between autochthony and democracy in the phrase ‘bom finely and thinking alike’.29 The Athenians are also concomitantly free from the point of birth.30 The corollary is that other states, which are necessarily non-autochthonous and made up of mixed peoples, must be inegalitarian. Plato speaks of other states being made up of ‘men of all sorts and unequal’, and therefore having ‘similarly unequal constitutions’.31 It is hardly surprising then that auto­ chthony should be used to justify imperialism and hegemony.32 Funeral Orations associate the myth of autochthony with other patriotic legends that portray the Athenian defence of the native land or their protection of the oppressed (from the defeat of the Amazon invasion to that of the Persian invasion).33 I think it almost certain that it was in the context of the nexus of thought that constituted the ideology of autochthony that the citizenship law was passed, and that it was the prevalence of this ideology that should be looked to as the single most powerful explanation of the law. Unfortunately, a ‘strong’ reading of the significance of autochthony is not directly attested prior to 451. Such strong readings only really begin to be attested in the 420s: they are found in Herodotus,34 whose reference need only have been made in the early 420s, though it could have been made very much earlier, and in two plays from 422, Aristophanes’ Wasps35 27 Plato Mentxenus 239a. 21 Lysias 2. 18. 27 Ibid. 2. 20. Cf. Loraux 1986: 193-4, 301-2, and 1981: 50, Rosivach 1987: 304, Tyrrell and Brown 1991: 196, and Ober 1989: 261-4. who sees the concept of mass autochthony as a democratic move to appropriate ‘good birth’ (eugeneia) for the demos from the aristocracy. “ Lysias 2. 17-20, Plato Mentxenus 239a-b; cf. Demosthenes 19. 261 and Lycurgus Leocrates 41; cf. Rosivach 1987: 304. 51 Plato Mentxenus 238e; cf. Lycurgus Leocrates 47, Isocrates 4. 24 and 12. 124, Euripides F362 N, lines 7-10, Thucydides 6. 17. 2-4; cf. Loraux 1981: 51 and Rosivach 1987: 302. ,2 Plato Mentxenus 2456, cf. Isocrates 4. 25 and Herodotus 7. 161 ; cf. Loraux 1981: 35-6, 51, and 213 and Rosivach 1987: 303. H As noted by Rosivach 1987: 303. M Herodotus 7. 161. 3. ” Aristophanes Wasps 1076.

Athens and Euripides’ Erechtheus. However, in these plays the ideology is already in such a richly developed form that it must have been around for some time: One could not get a better city than this. In the first place its people are not brought in from outside, but we are bom autochthonous. But other cities were founded alike by people moving from place to place like draughts, importing people from each other. Whoever comes to live in one city from another is like a worthless peg fixed into a plank: he is a citizen in word, but not in fact. (Euripides Erechtheus F360 N, lines 6-13)

Furthermore, if the ‘strong’ reading of the significance of autochthony was resident in Funeral Orations from the beginning of the genre, then it probably goes back as far as the Persian invasion, the time at which Dionysius of Halicarnassus tells us that Funeral Orations were instituted.36 Modem scholars do in fact tend to place the institution of Funeral Orations and the ideology of autochthony alike at some point between the Persian invasion and the citizenship law.37 One can possibly detect traces of the strong reading of autochthony as far back as the law of the ‘Constitution of Draco’ that required that generals possess both land and legitimate/of-the-blood (gnêsios) children (see Chapter 1 above). By far the most interesting document of the ideology of autochthony, and one that links it very explicitly with issues of bastardy, is Euripides’ Ion, which cannot be dated precisely, but was probably written somewhat prior to 412.38 The play superimposes upon Athens’ mythic autochthonous origins some very contemporary, parochial, late fifth-century anxiety about bastardy.39 The autochthony of the Athenians is celebrated throughout the play.40 It is embodied in the person of Creusa, the daughter of Erichthonius (no mother is mentioned), and threatened by the foundling Ion, whom Apollo has pronounced to be the bastard son of Creusa’s Dorian husband Xuthus (who has 36 Dionysius of Halicarnassus Roman Antiquities 5. 17. 4. 37 Thus Ziolkowski 1985: 20, Tyrrell and Brown 1991: 190, and Rosivach 1987: 3< M - 5 38 Collard 1981: 2. 39 See the discussions at Loraux 1981: 197-253, Patterson 1990: 66-8, Seaford 1990: 158-9, Tyrrell and Brown 1991: 144, Saxenhouse 1986, and Davies 1978: 118. 40 Euripides Ion passim: see esp. 10-30, 267-70, 542-3, 721-4, 736, 987, 1038, 1060, and 1427-9.

Front Autochthony to Democracy

17*

been permitted epigamy as an ally),41 and whom Xuthus wishes to foist upon the throne of Athens. The unworthiness of both men is constantly harped upon. Xuthus himself is said to be not 'indige­ nous’ or ‘citizen’, but ‘immigrant’ and ‘alien’.42 His bastard is of course far less worthy than this: he is ‘motherless’ (antetör) and ‘fatherless’ (apatör)43 and, of course, nothos.** Two typically bastard attributes of Ion’s are focused upon: the secrecy of his birth,4546and the fact that he has never tasted the breast.44 The fear is repeatedly expressed that the bastard will drive the legitimate from her house.47 In an important passage, already referred to, Ion worries about his reception in the city’ of Athens: he knows that ‘glorious autochthonous Athens is not an immigrant race’ and that he will come to the city with two diseases—birth from an immi­ grant father and bastard-birth (nothagenës).48 He worries that he will therefore be denied participation in what he evidently con­ ceives of as a very democratic political life: ‘May the woman that bore me be from Athens, so that I may have freedom-of-speech (parrhësia) from my mother’s side. For if ever an alien falls into a pure city, even if he is a citizen in words,49 all the same he has the mouth of a slave and he does not have freedom-of-speech’ (Euripides Ion 671-5). The importance of parrhësia in the demo­ cracy, and the difficulties that nothoi and aliens had in exercising it, is something that repeatedly concerned Euripides.50 It was a point which comedians also liked to make. Menander used the phrase ‘more tight-lipped than a metic’,51 while Old Comedy con­ stantly accused prominent assembly speakers (rhetores) of slavery and alienness in order to undermine their right to speak: hence Cleon was a Paphlagonian slave,52 and Hyperbolus variously a 41 Cf. Patterson 1990: 66 n. too. 42 Euripides, Ion 61-4, 289-98, 813-16; cf. 1278. Ibid. 108 and 836-7. 44 Ibid. 545-6, 589-92, 1099-105, and 1473. 45 Ibid. 16-21, 340, 438, 816, 819, 1372, and 1543-4. 46 Ibid. 318-19, 761-2, 961-2, and 1370-2; cf. Euripides Phoenissae 30-1, 1526-7, and 1603. 47 Euripides Ion 702-4, 808-11, 836-42, 864—5, 880, and 1293-6; cf. 1044. 41 Ibid. 589-92. 44 Cf. here the fragment of Euripides’ Erechtheus, F360 N, quoted above. 50 Euripides Medea 222—4, Hippolytus 419-25, and Phoenissae 390-5; cf. also Kannicht and Snell 1981 [T. Gr. F.]: ii (adespota), no. 304 and Plato Protagoras 316C5. 51 Menander Sicyonian 167; the term used here for ’metic’ is abusive; cf. Whitehead 1977; 87. 52 Aristophanes Knights passim.

Athens Phrygian, Lydian, and Syrian.53 Forensic orators employed the same techniques: we think particularly of Aeschines’ portrayal of Demosthenes’ mother as a Scythian.54 We recall that the law quoted by Dinarchus made a connection of a slightly different kind between legitimacy and the right to speak,' requiring rhêtores to have legitimate offspring (see Chapter i).55 To return to the Ion, the boy is finally discovered to be autochthonous and the son of Creusa herself, by Apollo (the fact that he is still technically bastard even now is tactfully passed over), Erechtheus is rejuve­ nated, and the ‘earthbom house’ sees the light.56 The play func­ tions therefore very much like New Comedies (as we shall see), in which forces that seem initially to undermine the integrity of the descent group are actually revealed to support and validate it. And autochthony is shown to justify empire: not only does it give Ion the right to rule in Athens, but his descendants will found the various Ionian cities, while the Dorian race will be founded by mere younger stepbrothers of Ion.57 The play reaches its most bathetically parochial at the point at which it is explained why Apollo told Xuthus that Ion was his son when he was really Apollo’s own: the explanation is made in terms of the banalities of classical Athenian adoption law.58 It is interesting to speculate that Pericles’ own understanding of the biology of reproduction may have been at odds with the premisses of the citizenship law. The law only makes sense if we assume that children derive some of their nature or qualities from their mother. But Pericles was famously the pupil of the philo­ sopher and scientist Anaxagoras,59 and Aristotle tells us that, along with others, Anaxagoras taught that all the generative and charac­ terizing seed was provided by the father, whereas the mother merely provided a place for the nurturing of the seed (Aristotle himself agrees with this).60 This Anaxagoran theory seems to have 5Î Polyzelos F5 K-A, Plato Comicus F182-3 and 185 K-A, and Schol. Aristophanes Peace 629. Cf. Dover 1974: 32-3. 54 Aeschines 2. 78, 93, 180, and 3. 172; cf. Dinarchus Demosthenes 1. 15. For Demosthenes* corresponding abuse of Aeschines* parents, see Demosthenes 18. 129-31, 258-62 and 19. 199-200 and 281. On these see Dover 1974: 30-2, Hunter 1994: i n , and Harding 1987. 55 Dinarchus Demosthenes 71. 56 Euripides Ion 1462-7 and 1540-1. 57 Ibid. 1573-94. M Ibid. 1532-6. 59 Diogenes Laertius 2. 7 (DK 59 A i) and Plato Phaedrus 270a (DK 59 A 15). See Kirk et al. 1983: 352-5; see also Dover 1976. 60 Aristotle Generation of Animals 763631-3; see also 716a and 7266-73 ib: the

From Autochthony to Democracy

173

been in vogue in Athens shortly before the passing of the citizen­ ship law: it is found in the mouth of Apollo in Aeschylus’ Eumenides of 458, as the god attempts to mitigate Orestes’ killing of his mother.61 It is remarkable that Apollo here contends that a mother is an alien to her own son (xenôi xenë).

BASTARDY

AND

POLITICS

The citizenship law was therefore probably motivated by a desire to limit the benefits of democracy (and empire) to the ‘autochtho­ nous’ stock, and draw a hard clear line between citizen and alien, ruler and ruled. The reimposition of the Periclean law in the 403 restoration of democracy makes it appear that the law had become a democratic shibboleth, and if it did, then we may well associate the law’s neglect or repeal before 403 with the preceding oligarchic revolutions (see Chapter 1). Possibly the oligarchs permitted or even encouraged marriage with aliens, harping back to the ‘aristo­ cratic’ model of marriage. But even if they had not permitted (current) citizens to marry aliens, they will have thrown the descent group into disorder simply by their mass disfranchise­ ments, since they will not have policed the marriages of the many disfranchised former citizens that were to return to the citizenship with the restoration of democracy. It is, however, less easy to assert the existence of an oligarchic bastardy policy than it is a democratic one. I find Hignett’s suggestion that the citizenship law itself was a product of collaboration between radical democrats and arch-conservatives very improbable.62 The Ath. Pol. tells us that the oligarchs of 404 abolished restrictions on the testator, but this freedom to bequeath presumably did not go so far as to permit non-citizens to be beneficiaries, and so those currently bastard (i.e. just extramarital children, presumably) will not have been able to inherit under it, unless also given citizenship (for which there is no evidence).63 male provides ‘impulse’ and ‘generation’, the female merely ‘material’. See Sissa 1992: 69-70 and Keuls 1985: 145-6. But Kember 1973 argues that Anaxagoras did after all believe that the mother characterized the child. 61 Aeschylus Eumenides 657-66; see Kirk et al. 1983: 354 and Sommerstein 1989 ad loc. *2 Hignett 1952: 346^-7. 61 Ath. Pol. 35. 2; cf. Asheri 1963: 11, Rhodes 1981: 442-3, and Lotze 1981: 166 and 177.

Athens It is very worrying that Aristotle’s generalizations on the relationship between democracy and legitimacy diametrically contradict the Athenian case: With a view to establishing this democracy and making the demos strong the leaders are accustomed to bring in as many as possible and make them citizens, not only the gnësioi but also the nothoi and those bom of only one citizen, on either side, whether father or mother. (Aristotle Politics I3 i9 b c)w

And when, in the same text, he describes the expansion and retrac­ tion of the citizenship body by a state in crisis, he associates the enfranchisement of those with citizen mother but alien father (‘patroxenoi’) in particular with democracies: ‘for the person bom of a citizen woman [sc. alone] is a citizen in some democracies.’ Perhaps Aristotle has in mind such things as the democracies of fifth-century Sicily, of which Thucydides has Alcibiades say: ‘The cities are highly populous with mixed up rabbles, and have easy changes and successions of citizens [or constitutions]’6465 (Thucydides 6. 17). But it is strange that Aristotle should make such glib generalizations, even if they are valid, when they are so manifestly violated by the archetypal democracy itself.66

NEW

COMEDY:

THE

DESCENT

GROUP

ON

STAGE

The Greek remains of Menander and the Latin versions of his and others’ plays by Plautus and Terence provide a valuable if problematic source for the law and culture of bastardy and for anxiety about legitimacy and citizenship in late classical and early hellenistic Athens. It has been recognized that it is odd that Menander and his peers should have been so obsessed with issues of citizenship when for fifteen years of their lives the control of it was usurped by the Macedonians. Davies concludes that the drama is for this reason ‘deeply escapist’,67 while Modrzejewski believes that the Macedonian intervention did not essentially affect the marriage system in itself.68 Before proceeding with an investigation of this evidence, I wish 64 We shall return to this text in Ch. 3. 45 MS E has poiitön, others politeiön. 67 Davies 1978: 113-14.

66 Cf. Hannick 1976: 146-8. 68 Modrzejewski 1981: 247.

From Autochthony to Democracy

*75

to make two methodological points about its interpretation: I regret that pressure of space only permits me to make them dogmatically. 1. The Attic law found in Menander and in the other Greek New Comedians is basically correct.6’ 2. Plautus and Terence preserve accurately all legal principles from their Greek originals that are of significance at the level of the plot.70 References to Greek bastardy in the Greek originals will have been partly preserved from adulteration from Roman law and custom by the very different nature of bastardy culture in the early Roman Republic: in particular, bastards were citizens.71 Many of the extant plays focus on the potentially disruptive love of a young citizen man for a non-citizen woman and/or on a nothos that is legitimated by the subsequent marriage of its parents, this marriage often being made possible by the unexpected discovery of the fact that the beloved mother is a citizen. Into this category fall Menander’s Hero, Carthaginian, Citharistes, Misoumenos, Phasma, and Sicyonian, Plautus’ Casina, Curculio, Poenulus, Rudens, and Vidularia, and Terence’s Andria, Eunuch, and Heautontimoroumenos. The frequency of this sort of plot was observed by Plutarch.72 A closely related type of plot is that in which parental consent must be won for a marriage with an acknowledged citizenwoman that has already been raped/seduced and impregnated with a (hitherto) nothos. Into this category fall Menander’s Aspis, Georgos, Sarnia, Hiereia, and Fabula incerta, Plautus’ Aulularia and Truculentus, and Terence’s Adelphoe; Menander’s Epitrepontes is a variation on this same theme.72 That marriage, legitimacy, and citizenship are of greater interest to the New Comedians than love is evidenced by the total absence of homosexual adventures from their work (noted, again, by Plutarch).74* ** See Mac Dowell 19820, Brown 1983, Gomme and Sandbach 1973: 22-4, and Fantham 1975: 44-5. 70 See Paoli 1962: esp. 68-9, Fraenkel i960: 399, and Fantham 1975: 44-5. 71 Syme i960, Kaser 1971-5: i. 351-2, and Watson 1971: 177. 71 Plutarch Moralia 712c. ” Cf. Brown 1990: 243-4, 246, and 260 nn. 2, 6, and 8, who, however, empha­ sises the variety between the plots at surface level. 74 Plutarch Moralia 712c; cf. Dover 1978: 151-3 and Brown 1990: 246.

Athens The underlying principle of New Comedy is that the lives and fates of female characters must ultimately conform with the station to which they were born, despite temporary reversals of role and fortune. Thus freeborn Attic women may only be monogamous, or be inseminated by one man, and produce offspring that are (ulti­ mately) legitimate and recognized as such. If an Attic woman is raped (and necessarily impregnated), the rapist will be discovered her husband, or will become her husband. A (usually slave) hetaira that is monogamous with her lover (scholars of New Comedy apply the term ‘pseudo-hetaira’, ‘false courtesan’, to women in this role) will be discovered to be freeborn and Attic, and marry him. Sometimes the woman’s free status is emphasized at the expense of her citizen status.7S This is because New Comic plots like to play with pairs of simple, strongly polarized opposites: thus, alongside the free-slave axis, they also heavily employ malefemale, old-young and rich-poor axes.76 But usually her citizen­ ship status is indeed emphasized too.77 In either case a latent ‘freedom’ is often detected in the girl even before her background is revealed.78 Conversely, a hetaira with multiple lovers will never be discovered Attic.79 It has been argued that this principle is contradicted by the appearance of a ‘citizen hetaira' in a fragment of Antiphanes’ Hydria, but, as we argued above, there is nothing to prove that this woman was not a ‘pseudo-hetaira’.80 It is another principle of New Comedy that if a play even contemplates a marriage between a citizen and a non-fellow citizen, a marriage, that is to say, that would not have been possible in Attic law, then that play will be among the exceptional few set outside Athens (Plautus himself affirms that almost all comedies are set in Athens).81 Thus in Plautus’ Cistellaria (which was based upon Menander’s Synaristosai), set in Sicyon, the 75 Thus see Menander’s Dytcolut 50, Epitrepontes 495-6 and 568-70, Georgos F4, and cf. Citharistes 39; cf. Fredershausen 1912: 205 n. 6. 7* Cf. Webster 1980: 33-42. 77 Thus Menander Heros F9, Carthaginian 37-9, and Sicyonian 72-108, and 144, Plautus Casina 81-3, Mercator 635, Pseudolus 1231, and Rudens 1197-8 and 1268, Terence Andria 146, 221, 780, etc., and Phromio 114; cf. Brown 1990: 252 and Gilula 1980: 146-7. ” Thus Menander Heros 40, Misoumenos A38, Sicyonian F 1, and Menander F22; cf. Holzberg 1974: 62 and 74. ” Cf. Fredershausen 1912: 209 and 248, Gomme and Sandbach 1973: 420-2, Fantham 1975: 57, Henry 1985: 112-14 and 1987: 144-7, and Brown 1990: 246. “ Antiphanes Hydria F210 K-A, quoted above. " Plautus Menaechmi 8; cf. Fredershausen 1912: 208.

From Autochthony to Democracy

177

Sicyonian father of Selenium is married to a Lemnian,82 whilst the Sicyonian Alcesimarchus becomes engaged to a resident Lemnian relative.82 A marriage is also contemplated, but (significantly, as we shall see) not carried out, between a citizen and the daughter of a freedwoman;84 however, the fact that the marriage is contem­ plated is enough to show that Sicyon is not portrayed as having comparable marriage law to Athens.85 Some sort of marriage is also contemplated for the daughter of a freedwoman hetaira, conceived from fathers her mother had had sex with, but this need not be to a citizen.86 In Terence’s Phormio, set in Lemnos, an Athenian makes a marriage there with a woman whose nationality is not explicitly stated. There is no doubt that she is a full and proper wife (despite being bigamously held): she is explicitly termed ’wife’ (uxor),87 and his daughter by her, Phanium, is said to be an ‘Athenian citizen’.88 Some have argued, on the basis of an aware­ ness of New Comedy’s usual support for the citizenship law, that the wife must therefore be Attic.89 But the fact that she is resident in Lemnos and not defined as other than Lemnian leads to the pre­ sumption that she is a citizen of that state, and this impression is supported by such phrases as ‘He had another wife in Lemnos’ and ‘He married a wife in Lemnos’.90 (Concomitant with New Comic practice regarding types of marriage that would have been illegal in Athens is its practice as regards adoptions of non-fellow citizens, which would have been similarly illegal in Athens. These too are only shown to take place outside Athens. Thus in Menander’s Periceiromene, set in Corinth, Corinthian citizens adopt a foundling of unknown origin; in Plautus’ Poenulus, set in Calydon, a Calydonian adopts a slave-boy, and in the same poet’s Menaechmi, set in Epidamnus, an Epidamnian adopts an originally Syracusan slave-boy.91) M Plautus Cute liana 176. *J Ibid. 99-too. ** Ibid. 99-100, 241-7, and 499; cf. Fant ham 1975: 58-9. “ Pace Konstan 1983: 97-8. ** Plautus Cistellaria 38-40. 17 Terence Phormio 941-2, 1004-5, and >°4I " Ibid. 114. " Thus Fredershausen 1912: 209-10 and Bond and Walpole 1879 ad 114, Konstan 1983: 122-3, tn d Lefèvre 1978: 39-44. w Terence Phormio 941-2 and 1004-5. ” Plautus Menaechmi 60. Cf. Fredershausen 1912: 238-9 and Gomme and Sandbach 1973: 408 (on Carthaginian).

Athens New Comedy thus shows a very keen awareness both of the ‘sanctity’ of Athenian citizen women, and of Attic double civic ascendance principles. Indeed it carries these principles even to remote and expatriate Athenians, and beyond the Athenian citizen body itself to (supposed) metics in the city, and to citizens in and of other states. Thus, in Plautus’ Rudens an Athenian youth goes all the way to Cyrene to fall in love with a hetaira that he will discover to be a lost Athenian citizen (I shall explain below why the similarly stray Athenian man of Plautus’ Cistellaria does not likewise marry an Athenian girl). The eponymous hero of Menander’s Sicyonian, set in Athens, might have married his beloved immediately, once she was free, since they would both have been metic (whatever metic marriage consisted of) and since Sicyonians could, as we have seen, make marriages to non-fellow citizens, at least in New Comedy, but instead the poet makes him first discover himself to be an Athenian citizen, and then also that his beloved is an Athenian citizen. For its marriage law Menander’s Periceiromene, which is set in Corinth (as is now generally agreed),92 might well have been set in Athens: a monoga­ mous Corinthian courtesan discovers her parents and marries a Corinthian soldier with a very Attic engyê (admittedly, we do not know that Corinthian law did not also demand double civic ascen­ dance).93 The same is probably true of Plautus’ Curculio, set in Epidaurus. In this play an Epidaurian citizen marries the recog­ nized Planesium;94 although her nationality is not explicitly stated, we should assume that she is Epidaurian by default (similarly to the case of Terence’s Phormio), and this supposition is supported by the fact that her brother, though just arrived from Caria, had money deposited with an Epidaurian banker, and was therefore almost certainly Epidaurian himself.95 There are in fact only two plays among even those set outside Athens where a marrying hero actually marries someone other than a fellow citizen. Both these plays have already been mentioned, Plautus’ Cistellaria, set in Sicyon, and Terence’s Phormio, set in Lemnos, and in both cases it is a Lemnian woman that is married. The case of the Phormio is initially especially dis­ concerting, since the marriage is made by an Athenian citizen: why could he not find an Athenian girl to marry, as in Plautus’ Rudens? 91 See e.g. Brown 1990: 260 n. 3. 99 Plautus Curculio 660-1.

95 Menander Periceiromene 1013-14. 9S Ibid. 328-30.

From Autochthony to Democracy

179

But here lies the key, for it appears from a statement of Isaeus that Lemnian women constituted a rare exception to the double civic ascendance rule at Athens (see Chapter i ).%This explains why the children of the Phormio union will after all be good legitimate Athenian citizens. We may then extrapolate a new rule to govern the types of marriage that may be accomplished in New Comedy, a rule that also takes Plautus’ Cistellaria into account: New Comic heroes must marry a fellow citizen (whether their state is Athens or elsewhere), or else use the ‘Lemnian alterna­ tive.’ It is these two Lemnian cases that reveal that it is the project of New Comedy, even when a play is set in a state other than Athens and in which marriage laws are acknowledged or supposed to be different from Athenian ones, only to permit the completion of marriages that conform to the principles of double civic ascen­ dance enshrined in Athenian marriage law. The Athenian audience must always be presented with a play that celebrates and reinforces its double civic ascendance pieties. Love, which is initially made to appear to be a force that threatens the integrity of the descent group, is finally revealed rather to confirm it and to act only in its support.97 Behind the apparent diversity of marriages portrayed in New Comedy lurks a single, austere truth. New Comedy performs in a more subtle way an ideological function similar to that of the Funeral Orations. Before leaving New Comedy, it is worthwhile considering two more passages. Plautus’ Epidicus constitutes an exception that proves the rules that we have established. For in this play the beloved girl, Telestis, is not only an alien, but a bastard. She remains such at the end of the play, and consequently, but curiously, cannot marry the boy that loves her, although we have been led to expect that she will. The scene is Athens, and the bastard girl is the daughter of a Theban woman impregnated at Epidaurus by an Athenian man.9* The play resembles Plautus’ Captivi in having rather the restoration of lost children to their parents as its principal denouement, and the lovers are consoled, and their love for each other ‘explained’, when they discover that * Isaeus 6. 13; cf. Wyse 1904: 499. Konstan 1983: 106 n. 15 is wrong about this. ” Cf. the remarks of Fantham 1975: 45 and Henry 1985: 110-11 and 114-15. “* Plautus Epidicus 635.

Athens they are half-siblings. The play has long been at the centre of a futile controversy, with scholars attempting to explain the ‘unsatisfactory’ lack of marriage as a Plautine innovation:99 neglecting the fact that Telestis could never have married her lover Stratippocles in any case because she is an alien, they argue that there was a marriage in the Greek original, which would have been between half-siblings of the same father, and which Plautus abandoned because it would have been considered incestuous by his Roman audience.100 Also, anticipated half-sister marriage never comes to fruition in New Comedy: it is the ‘bad marriage’ that parents attempt to impose on their unwilling children, who long rather after alien women.101 Konstan, with some plausibility, sees New Comedies as enactments and resolutions of social conflicts in which the incest taboo conflicts with the demands of the consanguineal descent group.102 Secondly, there is one notorious passage of Plautus’ Poenulus that deserves brief consideration here. In this play, set in Calydon, a (presumed) Carthaginian slave-courtesan is told by another slave that his Calydonian master will buy her and get her made ‘an Athenian citizen and free’.103 How on earth could an Athenian, let alone a Calydonian, get a woman that was both Carthaginian and a slave made an Athenian citizen? Zwierlein with justification therefore proposes the deletion of the line in which this expression occurs (372).104 But I wonder whether we do not see in this passage an outrageous, exuberant, and dramatically illogical Plautine dig at the conventions of New Comic plots which so often turned slave hetairai into free citizen women of Athens.

WORLDS

WITHOUT

BASTARDY

OF

THE

ATHENIAN

IMAGINATION

The fundamental concept of legitimacy, by which I here mean the concept of the biological and social tie between father and son, and that aspect of social organization associated with it, marriage, can 99 Thus Fredershausen 1912: 204-5, amongst others. 100 This idea has been rightly squashed by Keyes 1940: 223-4; cf. Fraenkel i960: 300-6. 101 Keyes 1940: 219. 102 Konstan 1983: 17. 101 Plautus Poenulm 371-2. 104 Zwierlein 1990: i. 139 and 168.

From Autochthony to Democracy

181

be shown to have been underpinned and defined at Athens by a tradition of old myths and new ‘mythologies’ (in the Barthesian sense) in which imagined topsy-turvy worlds without concepts or practices of legitimacy were distanced from the world of contem­ porary Athens. The first of these, and a myth proper, is the myth of Cecrops. We have already seen that Cecrops was the founder of the Athenian state, and, more particularly, the autochthonous founder of the Athenian citizen descent group. The point of the city’s foundation, the selection of its patron deity, is the point at which women are subjected to men and social order is established. Illogically, Attica is already imagined to have a population which is not only distinct from the supposed originator Cecrops, and coexistent with him, but is also already democratic: When he had received this oracle, Cecrops called together all the citizens of both sexes for a vote (for at that time it was the custom here that women too should participate in public deliberations). After the multitude had deliberated the men therefore voted for Poseidon, and the women for Athena, and because there turned out to be one more woman, Athena won. Then Poseidon, in anger, devastated the lands of the Athenians with seething floods, since it is not difficult for divine powers to scatter any water they want over a wide area. In order to assuage his anger, the same author [Varro] says that the Athenian women were subjected to three punishments: that they should no longer cast votes, that no child should take its mother’s name, and that no one should call them 'Athenians*. (Augustine De Civitate Dei 18. gbc)

Other sources shed further light upon the significance of Cecrops’ subjection of women to men: Some say that Cecrops was also of double nature, since he had the upper parts of a man, and the lower parts of a beast. Or that he found many laws for men and led them from w*ildness to civilization. Or that it had been the case that men had been having sex with women randomly, and that as a result of this sons w*ere not known by their fathers, nor fathers by their sons, but he made laws that men should mix with women in a more public fashion, and be contented with one, and he discovered the two natures of the father and the mother, and was called 'of double nature* on account of this. (Scholiast Aristophanes Wealth 773V05105 105 The same ideas are expressed by Athenaeus 555d, Eusebius on Homer Iliad 18. 491 (quoting Charax) and 24. 499, and Joannis Antiochenis FHG iv. P- 547 F13. 5.

182

Athens

This myth therefore associates the institution of marriage and legitimacy, i.e. the establishment of a recognized tie between father and son, with the very founding of the Athenian state. Indeed it almost goes so far as to define the very existence of the state by marriage. Cecrops embodies the permanent yoking of two heterogeneous beings, human and snake, male and female, in his own double form (since Cecrops is evidently male on top, it is pre­ sumably his lower, bestial half that represents the female). And the establishment of the order of citizenship itself is also intimately linked with the establishment of marriage and legitimacy: the subjection of women to men, which marriage requires, entails the women’s disfranchisement and their deprivation of the right to be called ’Athenians’, and it is thus that the citizen body as it was known was defined; and the subjection of women and the institu­ tion of the legitimate tie to the father both in turn require the abolition of metronymics and their replacement with patronymics, upon which civic succession, as it was known, depended. This myth then presents as indissociable the existence of Athens, autochthony, marriage, legitimacy, and the order of citizenship: an Athens without legitimacy, consequently, is no Athens. And Athenian men (and perhaps women too) are reassured that the age without legitimacy is safely distanced to the very remote past. Another mythical society without legitimacy found in Athenian and wider Greek myth was that of the Amazons.106 The Amazons, significantly perhaps, figure largely in Athenian Funeral Orations,107 and in their partial physical correlate, the Parthenon Marbles. The Athenians tried to a certain extent to appropriate the myth of the Amazons for their own from the rest of the Greeks, with the results that the Athenian figure of Theseus came to be added to Heracles’ side or even to supplant him totally in Athenian versions of his expedition against them108 (Heracles himself had, it appears, himself supplanted Bellerophon in this role109), and that the avenging Amazon invasion of Greece, which led to their 106 On the Amazons see above all Tyrrell 1984; also just 1989: 241-51. Hartog 1988: 216-24, Leflcowitz 1986: 15-29. 107 Lysias 2. 4 (particularly rich), Isocrates 4. 24 and 68-70 and 12. 124, Demosthenes 60. 8, and Plato Menexenus 239b. ,0* Heracles alone in Diodorus 2. 46; Theseus added in Justin 2. 4; Theseus on his own (with reservations about Heracles’ role) in Plutarch Theseus 26. 109 Homer Iliad 6. 155-95, Pindar Olympian 13. 118-30, and Plutarch Moralia 248.

From Autochthony to Democracy

183

virtual extermination, was portrayed as focusing on Athens in particular,1,0 though other states also believed themselves to have been attacked, such as Sparta11011 and Megara.112 The Amazons were a tribe of warrior-women, who either eschewed sex altogether and remained virgin,113 or were highly promiscuous.114 These two qualities at first appear incoherently paradoxical, but their significance lies in the fact that they are both antithetical to marriage, which the Amazons are especially said to eschew,115 and to the production of legitimate children. It is the antithesis of the wife that the Amazons above all represent. Their rejection, to a certain extent, of the role of nurturing mothers was symbolized by their searing of their right breasts, a practice justified by folk-etymological derivations of their name from o-privative and mazos, ‘breast’116 (although the ostensible purpose of the searing was to facilitate bowmanship, and Amazons are often spoken of as rearing children). They similarly rejected the other traditional attributes of respectable wives, such as spinning and weaving, which they would force upon menfolk, whilst them­ selves rather taking on the male roles of warfare and, according to some, agriculture.117 Amazon society constituted a negative paradigm for Athens as a city. The world of the Amazons was also safely distanced from that of contemporary Athens, in a number of ways. First, it was distanced physically, for it was located at the extreme edges of the known world, and, as Athenian horizons expanded, so the land of the Amazons was pushed back ever further to the east: it began in Thrace, and ended up, in the time of Alexander, in the depth of the Persian empire, though their best-established home was at Themiscyra at the mouth of the Thermodon at the eastern end of the Black Sea.118 Secondly, it was distanced temporally, for the 110 To the evidence of Athenian Funeral Orations just mentioned, add Aeschylus Eumenides 685-90, Plutarch Theseus 27, Diodorus 4. 28, Pausanias 1.2.1 and 1.41. 7, and Apollodorus Epitome 1. 16-17. Pausanias 3. 25. 2. 111 Plutarch Theseus 27. Diodorus 3. 53 and 4. 16; cf. Herodotus 4. 117. Theseus' famous son by an Amazon, Hippolytus, also espoused virginity: Euripides Hippolytus 5—22 etc. 1,4 Herodotus 4. 113 and Strabo 11.5. 1-3. 1,5 Justin 2. 4. Ibid. 2. 4, Diodorus 2. 45. 117 Herodotus 4. 114, Justin 2. 4, Diodorus 2. 45 and 3. 53, and Strabo 11. 5. 1-3. "* Justin 2. 4, Diodorus 2. 45 and 4. 16, Apollonius Argonautica 2. 976-1000, and Pausanias 7. 2. 4.

Athens effective last stand of the Amazons, which was their disastrous invasion of Athens"9 (even though they did just struggle on into the Trojan war, under Penthesilea120), occurred in as remote a * period as the time of King Theseus. However, Alexander’s flatterers were later to pretend to produce some for him.121 Thirdly, and relatedly, it was distanced logically, for the defeat and destruction of the Amazons was an integral part of their myth:122 they constituted therefore a society that was unsustain­ able, a society that could not exist. Fourthly, they were distanced through obscurity: uncertainty over the very identity of the great Amazon queen married by Theseus (Hippolyte, Antiope, or Melanippe?) was also an integral part of the myth and should itself be considered a ‘mytheme’.123 And one source goes so far as to assert, illogically, that the Amazons were so utterly obliterated that not even their name survived.124 Fifthly, they are distanced through their very incredibility: Strabo and Arrian reject the myth utterly, the former as ‘monstrous and beyond belief’.125 These points are all confirmed when we look to the details of another race of (super-)Amazons that the Greeks later invented for themselves: the Libyan Amazons. These outdid the ordinary Amazons in all respects: for example, they seared not one but both breasts. More to the point, being in Libya, they lived in an even more remote area, explicitly described as ‘on the bounds of the inhabited world’; and they lived at a time which was even more remote, ‘dis­ appearing entirely many generations before the Trojan war’.126 All these distancing techniques served to reassure that the unsettling threat constituted by the legitimacy-less society of the Amazons was far away, and therefore to shore up the legitimacy systems of Greek society in general and Athens in particular. Let us turn to the Athenian defeat of the Amazon invasion of the city of Athens. The defeat itself is conceptualized in two ways, which again initially seem incoherently paradoxical: the women are either killed or married and settled down with.127 These "* Lysias 2. 4. 130 Diodorus 2. 46 (admitting that it was really Athens that finished them off). 131 Curtius 6. 5. 24-32, Diodorus 17. 77. 1, Justin 2. 4 and 12. 3. 5-7, but NB Arrian Anabasis 7. 13. 2-6. 122 Justin 2. 4. 122 Diodorus 4. 28, Plutarch Theseus 27, and Apollodorus Epitome 1. 16. And cf. Justin 2. 4 for uncertainty about the name of Alexander’s Amazon: Minithyia or Thalestris? 124 Diodorus 2. 46; cf. 4. 16. 125 Strabo C504-5 and Arrian Anabasis 7. 13. 2-6. 124 Diodorus 3. 52-5. 127 Justin 2. 4.

From Autochthony to Democracy

185

variants, however, appear to coincide rather better when we bear in mind the Cecropian myth which identifies the subjection of women with their marriage, and indeed the Amazon-defeat episode is in many ways a correlate of the Cecropian episode.'2® And portrayals on pots of the deaths of Amazons generally at the hands of male Greek warriors sometimes identify the penetration of their bodies by a sword with that by penis, so that their slaughter becomes a symbolic marriage;'29 accordingly, Arctinus of Miletus told that Achilles fell in love with Penthesilea at the moment that he slew her.130 We see a similar equation in that episode of the myth in which Heracles and/ôr Theseus was sent to take her ‘girdle’ (zone) from the Amazon queen:13' the girdle is a significantly ambivalent garment, being both the belt from which she hangs her arms, the removal of which symbolizes her military defeat and possibly killing (since arms are usually stripped from the dead), and also her maidenly knickers, removal of which symbolizes sexual conquest. It is significant also that the defeat of the Amazons should have occurred in the time of and under Theseus, whose reign, even more than that of Cecrops, was regarded as one defining of the city. The appearance of this Amazon episode in the Funeral Orations, those distilled doses of democratic-imperial ideology, also reveals the extent to which this myth was taken to have a defining influence upon the city. The Amazon myth encapsulates a vision of a terrible topsy­ turvy world without legitimacy, but at the same time distances it strongly from the world of contemporary Athens, and supports the system of legitimacy. More particularly, the mythical episode of the Athenians’ defeat of the Amazon invasion of the city consti­ tutes a sort of re-foundation myth, which again, like the myth of Cecrops, associates the subjection of women, marriage, and legiti­ macy with the very existence of the city itself. In many respects therefore the Amazon myth resembles the myths of ‘reversed worlds’, in which the establishment of new cities (such as Tarentum, Thera, and Epizephyrian Locri) or that of new regimes ,M Cf. Tyrrell 1984: 78-81 for the slaying and marrying of Amazons as structurally equivalent acts; cf. also Loraux 1987: 37-42. e.g. black-figure cup by Exekias: London B210 ABV 144. 7; cf. Dover 1978: 133-4, Keuls 1985: 44-8, and Tyrrell 1984: 27 with 135 n. 13. 110 Arctinus of Miletus Aethiopis F i (=Proclus Chrestomathie» 2). 1,1 Justin 2. 4, Diodorus 2. 46 and 4. 16, and Apollodorus Bibliotheca 2. 5. 9.

Athens in old cities (such as Argos and Cumae) is articulated in terms of the overthrow of disorder, embodied in the rule of women, by order, embodied in the rule of men.132 Not all the Athenians’ imaginary worlds without legitimacy were myths proper, or located in the distant past. Some were in the present or the future, or in a timeless never-never land. But they were, none the less, still distanced, and therefore, perhaps sometimes in spite of their authors’ intentions, reinforcing of the established regime of legitimacy. Of particular interest here are two texts that are certainly related, although scholars are unable to decide which has priority7: Aristophanes’ comic fantasy, the Ecclesiazusae, and Plato’s Republic. In Aristophanes’ Ecclesiazusae, written in 393 or 392, the women of Athens, led by Praxagora, are disgusted at the men’s mismanagement of the Athenian state. They therefore disguise themselves as men, pack the assembly, and propose and vote to turn the franchise over from the men to the women. The women then reorganize the state according to communal principles. The most remarkable of these is the abolition of marriage: all women and all men will be held in common, with the older and uglier of both sexes having first pick. Concomitantly with this, parentage and filiation will also now be held in common, between appro­ priately matched generation-bands.'33 The details of this scheme are worked out in quite fine detail. The play is intended to be outrageously comic, and provisions such as these to entertain by their very unthinkableness and absurdity. We are to think it as likely that such a society should come about as that the birds should found their own city and supplant the gods, or that peasants should fly to heaven on giant dung-beetles, as happens in other Aristophanic comedies. This world without legitimacy is therefore heavily distanced. In Plato’s Republic, of which the date is very7 uncertain, but usually located between 387 and 360, Socrates reveals his blue­ print for an ideal state. In this state the ruling class of the ‘guardians’ are to hold their women in common, and marriage is to be abolished for them;134 children too are to be reared and held 112 For these reversed worlds see Loraux 1978, Vidal-Xaquet 1981fr, Pembroke 1965, 1967, and 1970, Sourvinou-Inwood 1974, and Compemolle 1975. 1,3 Aristophanes Ecclesiazusae 611-50. 134 Plato Republic 449 and 457.

From Autochthony to Democracy

187

communally, with mothers not even allowed to recognize their own children;135 parentage and filiation will be held to operate communally between age-bands.136 This text too is distanced from the real world of contemporary Athens by its utopian nature. Even though Plato may genuinely have wished to see his fantastic state implemented, his work served by its outlandishness to reinforce the legitimacy system that it ostensibly sought to undermine. The similarities between the women’s programme in the Ecclesiazusae and Socrates’ in the Republic are remarkable (and there are many more close similarities between the two texts in other matters that do not relate directly to matters of legitimacy). It is very strange that the absurd and seemingly parodie comedy should precede a text that pursues such similar points in all earnestness. We must conclude that Aristophanes is parodying a very early and otherwise undetectable draft of part of Plato’s Republic, or else parodying another lost text (w'ritten or verbal) that Plato then heavily plagiarized, the work perhaps of Socrates or Protagoras.137 The classical Athenians also thought they could see worlds without legitimacy in contemporaneous alien societies. Herodotus told that the Scythian Agathyrsians had promiscuous intercourse with their women, so that they could all be brothers and love each other.138 These people lived suspiciously close to Amazon territory, and remained, conveniently, on the obscure margins of the known world: a case, no doubt, of ‘inventing the barbarian’.139 Nearer to home, there is a hint of the community of women in the treatments of Sparta by classical Athenian writers and other writers that draw upon them (as we shall see in Part II).140 But Sparta was ‘so near and yet so far’: she was a utopia to some Athenians (she is thought to have influenced many aspects of 1.5 Ibid. 460. 1.6 Ibid. 461. 1.7 Both Plato and Aristophanes claimed to be first with the idea of the commu­ nity of women: Plato at Timaeus 18c (cf. Aristotle Politics 1266834-6 and 127469-11 ); Aristophanes at Ecclesiazusae 579 and 584. Diogenes Laertius 3. 37 and 57 (quoting Aristoxenus and Favorinus) asserts that the entirety of Plato's Republic could be found in Protagoras’ Antilogica. The fundamental discussion of the relationship between these two texts remains Adam 1902: app. i; see also Ussher 1973: pp. xv-xx. Herodotus 4. 104. ,w Cf. Hall 1989. See e.g. Xenophon Lac. Pol. 1 and Plutarch Lycurgus 15.

188

Athens

Plato’s Republic), but an anathema to most. The antithesis between Spartan culture and Athenian is a fundamental axis of Thucydides’ work, and plays a significant role also in Herodotus’. These, then, were some of the imaginary and significantly distanced worlds without marriage or legitimacy that constituted myths and ‘mythologies’ with which classical Athenians under­ pinned the institutions of marriage and (general) legitimacy in their society.

Aspects of the Lives of Athenian Bastards

There is not sufficient evidence available for us to describe a typical day in the life of an Athenian bastard. In this chapter I merely concentrate on a few aspects of the lives of Athenian bastards about which we may make some tentative generalizations, supplementing the picture of political and religious exclusion that we have painted throughout this Part.

AMPHIMETRIC

DISPUTES

Athens’ laws of legitimacy and bastardy were very specific to the state, but actual attested disputes about bastardy in Athens often seem to have been occasioned not so much by the particular stipulations of Athenian law, as by the tensions inherent within Greek family structure. The structure that above all sowed discord in Greek families was the amphimetric one, i.e. that in which a man kept two women (ideally, but not necessarily, in tandem) and fathered lines of children from both. Inevitably, both women competed to be regarded as the ‘legitimate’ wife, and their respec­ tive lines of children competed for succession. Thus beneath legal disputes about legitimacy in which it is discussed as an absolute thing, there may often have lurked a more relative agenda. A classic example of this sort of dispute is the case of Socrates’ two wives, married under the late fifth-century ‘bigamy conces­ sion’ (see Chapter i). His two wives did not get on, as Porphyry tells: He says that he [Socrates] was rather keen on having sex, but did no wrong, for he only made use of women to whom he was married and common prostitutes. He says that he had two wives at the same time, Xanthippe, a citizen woman who had had a number of lovers, and Myrto, daughter of Aristides and granddaughter of Lysimachus. He took

Athens Xanthippe in marriage, after she had attached herself to him, and from her Lamprocles was born. And he married Myrto, from whom Sophroniscus and Menexenus were bom. And the women joined battle with each other, and whenever they ceased from it they attacked Socrates, because he never prevented them from fighting, and he laughed to watch them fighting each other and him himself. (Porphyry FGH 260 F 11 apud Theodoret Graecarum affectionum curatio 12. 64-5)

The pressure of such a situation may well account for the fabled ‘shrewishness’ of Xanthippe, referred to by Xenophon.' Athenaeus found it odd that despite their fondness for Socrates, the comic poets did not mention his bigamy, but the nature of this material of Porphyry’s in particular smacks of comic origin.12 One aspect of this ménage à trois which may have seemed particularly fortunate to the comic poets was the resemblance of Socrates’ situation to that of Heracles in the famous sophistic set piece, Prodicus’ ‘Choice of Heracles’, in which Heracles was depicted as having to choose between the arguments of two women, personifications of Vice and Virtue.3 Socrates had already been closely associated with Prodicus and his ‘Choice’ since 423. In Aristophanes’ Clouds of that year Socrates was portrayed as setting up just such a ‘Choice’ for Pheidippides, between personifications of the Better and the Worse Arguments.45The prize for the best comedy in 423 went to Cratinus’ Putine, and this also parodied the ‘Choice’: the playwright portrayed himself as torn between the ladies Komoidia (Comedy) and Methe (Drunkenness).3 The second place went to Ameipsias’ Konnos, which also featured Socrates.6 Aulus Gellius tells a comparable story of the two wives that Euripides enjoyed under the same concession: he hated women because he had had two wives at the same time in accordance with the bigamy concession, and he became fed up with being married to them.7 It is curious that Euripides should have taken on two wives after already writing many plays that exhibited a detailed 1 Xenophon Memorabilia 2. 2. 7 and Symposium 2. 10. 2 Athenaeus 556a. For the supposition that comic poets have influenced the evidence for Socrates* two wives, see Zeller 1919-23: ii. 1 54-6 n. 2. * Prodicus DK 84 F1-2 (F2=Xenophon Memorabilia 2. 1. 21). 4 Aristophanes Clouds 886-1112. 5 Cratinus F193-214 K-A. 4 Ameipsias F7-11 K-A; NB esp. F9. 7 Aulus Gellius Attic Nights 15. 20.

The Lives of A thenian Bastards

191

awareness of the problems of amphimetric tensions (starting with the Medea of 431).8 Perhaps we may again suspect the intervention of comic poets in our evidence for this sophist-tragedian. The two wives that Callias took under this concession, the former wife and the daughter of Ischomachus, got on so badly despite their relationship that the mother expelled the daughter from the house: He married the daughter of Ischomachus. Having lived with her for not even a year, he took her mother in marriage too, and, the most outrageous of all men, lived with the mother and the daughter—quite appropriately, since he was priest of the Mother and the Daughter, and he had them both in his house. And this man did not feel shame before and did not fear the Two Goddesses. The daughter of Ischomachus thought it better to die than to live and see what was going on, and was stopped in the act of hanging herself, and when she had recovered, she ran off from the house, and the mother drove out the daughter. (Andocides 1.124-5)’

Amphimetric disputes thrived in the lawcourts. A graphic case is Antiphon’s first speech, Against a Stepmother for Poisoning. It matters little for my point whether the speech is, as some believe, a rhetorical exercise rather than a remnant of an actual case. The speech begins with an open assertion of the hostility between the speaker and his stepmother, referred to as ‘Clytemnestra’, and her children, his ‘brothers of the same father’. One of these brothers is speaking in his mother’s defence, and may, if the case was a real one, have been the real target of the prosecution.10 Heitsch thinks the speaker illegitimate on the ground that he stresses his own extreme youth, so that he cannot have been bom of a marriage prior to that with ‘Clytemnestra’, but this is by no means com­ pelling." The speaker is probably his father’s legitimate son by a former marriage, despite the protestations of youth.12 The speaker implausibly maintains that although another woman was long ago convicted and executed for the murder of his father, this was the work all along of his stepmother, and that she had attempted to kill him many times before.13 Interestingly, the speaker accuses his opposing stepbrother of excessive loyalty to his mother, a I * 10 II 12 13

The point is perhaps implicit in Seaford 1990: 169. Cf. Harvey 1984 on this episode. Antiphon 1. 1-2. Ibid. 1. i and 30; Heitsch 1984: 22. As Lefkowitz and Fant 1992: 89. Antiphon 1. 3 and 9.

Athens phenomenon that we have already noted to be characteristic of amphimetric disputes.14 Throughout the speech the language used to discuss the stepmother and her actions is extremely hostile. The disputes between Boiotos and Mantitheus, for the latter of whom two forensic speeches written by Demosthenes survive, no. 39 of 348 and no. 40 of 347 or 345, also conform very well to the pattern of amphimetric disputes. These two men were both sons of Mantias, but by different mothers, Boiotos by Plangon, and Mantitheus by the daughter of Polyaratos. Almost certainly both women were the legitimate wives of Mantias at different times, but the picture was further complicated by the fact that having separated from the first wife, Plangon (after siring Boiotos and a full brother), and having married the daughter of Polyaratos, he continued his relationship with Plangon, which led to an effective state of bigamy.15 Mantitheus’ belief that Boiotos was wrongly recognized by Mantias, and that he is therefore nothos, is clearly the source of all the brothers’ disputes, even though Mantitheus does not make the allegation of bastardy or of alienness explicit.16 The reason why Mantitheus falls short of bringing out these allegations explicitly is, I think, the fear that they will redound upon himself: one of the reasons that he brings his first case against Boiotos, ‘Concerning the name’, is actually to stop Boiotos calling himself ‘Mantitheus’, because he himself, the real Mantitheus, keeps getting fined and prosecuted for Boiotos’ wrongdoings.17 Mantitheus explains that the possibility that the objectionable Boiotos might be accused of xenia and he himself suffer for it is one of his major concerns.18 Perhaps this first case was designed to get the problem of the name out of the way, in order to clear the ground for a full-blown prosecution of Boiotos for xenia. However, Mantitheus evidently lost his first case, since he had to bring his second case against ‘M antitheus’, and an inscription from 342 actually records two ‘Mantithei’.1’ Therefore he was never in a position to risk 14 Antiphon 1. 5 and 22-3. '* For reconstruction of the events underlying these quarrels see Rudhardt 1962, Humphreys 1989, Lotze 1981: 174-5, and Wolff 1944: 76, 80-2, and 84. 14 Pace Wolff 1944: 76, 80-2, and 84, who misleadingly attributes to Mantitheus the explicit allegation that Boiotos is a bastard. 17 Demosthenes 39. 7-19. " Ibid. 39. 18; cf. 40. i and 40. 35. '* IG [Guide nos. 57-8] iiJ. 1622, lines 435-43.

The Lives of Athenian Bastards

193

bringing the accusation of xenia. The inscription also entails that Boiotos survived the general scrutiny of deme lists of 346/5.20 Mantitheus’ allegations of bastardy against Boiotos are, then, indirect. He denies that Mantias gave Boiotos a dekatê',21 Mantias was wrong to acknowledge Boiotos and to introduce him to a phratry;22 Plangon is implied merely to have been a concubine,23 and her name is supplied in disrespect.24 From the point of Mantias’ acknowledgement of Boiotos there seems only to have been one friendly act between the half* brothers: Mantitheus consented to share the inheritance, and Boiotos and his brother came to live with him in the house his father had shared with his mother.25 The two specific issues which are addressed by the two extant speeches seem to have been among the smaller disputes between them, in a complicated series that seems to have stretched over at least seven years. In the first speech we learn that Boiotos made Mantitheus receive his summons for desertion;26 he had entered suits against him for money;27 Boiotos argues that Mantitheus induced Mantias to treat him with despite;28 Mantitheus demands of Boiotos that, if he claims to be his brother, he should start acting like a brother to him, but as it is he plots against him, brings lawsuits against him, is envious towards him, blasphemes, and acts as if he has come across the property of another and uses it as if it does not belong to him;29 Boiotos has failed to answer charges brought against him by Mantitheus.30 In the second speech the men wrangle with counter-claims over the marriage portion of Mantitheus’ mother;31 Boiotos, we learn, had accused Mantitheus of murderous assault before the Areopagus, and had tried to get him exiled;32 when he had failed his scrutiny for becoming taxiarch, he had claimed that the judgement applied to Mantitheus, and his lecherous friends had threatened to rape M antitheus’ daughter and poison Mantitheus himself.33 20 Humphreys 1989: 182-5. 21 Demosthenes 39. 22, 24, 30, 40. 28, and 59. 22 Ibid. 39. 3-4, 20, 22, 30, 32, 40. 2, 9 -1 1, 35, and 47-8; but note the caution of 39 34 -

23 Ibid. 30. 26, 40. 8, and 27.

24 Cf. Schaps 1977. 29 26 ” 32

Demosthenes 39. 6, 31, 40. 2, 13, 42. Ibid. 39. 17. 27 Ibid. 39. 25. Ibid. 39. 34. 30 Ibid. 39. 37. Ibid. 40. 32. 33 Ibid. 40. 57.

24 Ibid. 39. 27. 31 Ibid. 40. 14-18.

Athens Interestingly, Mantitheus attributes to Boiotos an argument attuned to the problems that arise from amphimetric situations: Boiotos, we are told, argued that he was at first acknowledged and then disowned by his father as a result of a quarrel with Plangon,34 that he dishonoured Plangon as a favour to the mother of Mantitheus,3S and that he wronged Boiotos himself in many ways in order to show favour to Mantitheus.36 Mantitheus contradicts the principle of amphimetric strife that so clearly does operate here with a tendentious gnome: ‘When a man and wife are at variance, they are more likely to be reconciled for the sake of the children than to hate their common children also.’37 Boegehold hypothesizes that disputes of the sort we term amphimetric, between sets of children bom from Athenian mothers and sets of children bom from non-Athenian mothers, actually occasioned the 451 citizenship law. His case is speculative and to my mind implausible as an explanation of the law, but I would not wish to rule out the possibility that there were such disputes as he describes before the passing of the law.3* It may have been from such cases of civic amphimetric disputes that Euripides developed a portrayal of mythico-royal amphi­ metric disputes in such plays as Medea, Hippolytus, Andromache, and Ion that uncannily prefigure the legitimacy disputes of the hellenistic royal families. The Medea of 431 plots the revenge of Medea upon her husband Jason for abandoning her, his alien wife, in favour of a new wife Glauce, the heiress-princess of Corinth. It will already be clear that the citizenship law partly casts its shadow over the text, but the play does not conform to its demands in the crisp way that New Comedies were later to do. While Medea is repeatedly defined as an ‘alien’ and a ‘barbarian’,39 Jason himself is not, strictly speaking, a citizen of Corinth, but rather of Iolcus. However, he is only positively portrayed as an outsider to Corinth in his own manifestly tendentious arguments.40 The play in fact tends to be written across the Greek-barbarian rather than the citizen-alien axis, although there is some blurring of the14 14 Demosthenes. 40. 29. JS Ibid. 40. 26. 17 Ibid. 39. 23; cf. also 40. 29. M Boegehold 1994: 62-3. ” Euripides Medea 222, 591, 1330-43. etc. 40 Ibid. 551-4.

M Ibid. 40. 45.

The Lives of Athenian Bastards

195

distinction. The Athenian audience is certainly invited to view Medea’s children as mêtroxenoi (Medea’s children were actually honoured at Corinth as ‘half-barbarian’, mixobarbaroi).41 But it is the dispute between the two women as wives and mothers, rather than as emblems of mixed and pure marriage, that interests Euripides more. Medea closely identifies her children's fate with her own: she herself is dishonoured;42 with Jason’s depar­ ture, the ‘house’ as a whole, as she says, no longer exists;43 her abandonment would have been forgivable had she been childless, but not after the birth of children; to father two lines of children is an outrage.44 Jason’s defence of his indefensible behaviour is intentionally unconvincing:45 he argues that he wished to rear children that were worthy of his ‘house’, and outlines a prepos­ terous scheme: It was my purpose to sire brothers for the children I have from you, and to put them together, and that we should all be happy when I had fitted my family together. For what need do you have of children? It profits me to benefit the children that are living now with those that will be bom in the future. (Euripides Medea 562-7) I wished to save you, and beget royal children of the same seed as my children [by you], as a protection for the house. (Euripides Medea 593- 4 )*

In practice different wives and their children must always be kept separately in different houses. The idea of bringing two women together under one roof is in poor taste (as we saw in Chapter 2). Far worse is the suggestion that one set of half-siblings might help and support another: this flies directly into the teeth of the inevitable hatred between amphimetric siblings in the Greek world. The emotions that underlay this amphimetric tension are well illustrated by the horror with which Glauce turns away from the sight of Medea’s children entering her palace: ‘she covered her eyes and turned away her white cheek, abominating the entrance of the children.’47 Medea’s final murder of her children merely makes explicit the social ‘murder’ to which Jason has subjected 41 42 43 44 45 44

Schol. Pindar Olympian 13. 74, quoting Eumelus. Euripides Medea 20, 33, and 255. Ibid. 1139; cf. 77, 112, 694-7, and 970. Ibid. 489-91. Pace Page 1938: p. xvi. Cf. Euripides Medea 914-19.

47 Ibid. 1148-9.

196

Athens

them and herself,48 and Jason is taught that his wife and children have an absolute, not just a relative value to him. T he Andromache of 425 refracts many of the themes that Euripides had employed in the Medea. Andromache, as a slaveconcubine to Neoptolemus, has borne him a bastard son, Molossus, who is explicitly described as nothos on several occasions.49 Neoptolemus’ new legitimate wife, Hermione, is apparently sterile. She is therefore crazed with envy towards Andromache and Molossus, and fears that they will usurp her position in the house. Accordingly, she plots their death (the pious Andromache herself claims to have behaved rather more magnani­ mously towards the bastards of her own husband, Hector).50 The insecure Hermione insists that she herself is the legitimate wife in view of the augustness of her origin and the great size of her dowry (things which, incidentally, give her the right, as she declares, to speak freely (eleutherostomein), which we saw to be the prerogative of the legitimate in the previous section): ‘But you, being a slave and a spear-won woman, desire to gain control of the house, having cast me out, and I am hated by my husband because of your drugs, and my womb is made barren by you’ (Euripides Andromache 155-8). (Like Medea, Andromache is seen, by Hermione at any rate, as an oriental witch.51) Andromache’s retort is to insist upon an absolute rather than a relative model of legiti­ macy: she is a slave, and her children could only ever be slaves, and could never usurp Hermione.52 Menelaus, arguing the part of his daughter Hermione, frets that unless Hermione bears children, Molossus, barbarian in descent (genos), will rule over the Greeks.55 His dual legitimacy concerns, his daughter’s place of honour, and the purity of the Greek race, are encapsulated in a pun: ‘hating things that are unjust/Persian’ {mi dikaia, evoking M idika).54 Both women see their fate as tied to that of their progeny. Thus Andromache: ‘The hope always led me forward that if my child had been preserved I would find some defence and assistance against evils’ (Euripides Andromache 27-8).” And Hermione, who repeatedly expresses anxiety about her childlessness:56 " Euripides M ed ea 1363-72. * Euripides Andromache 912, 927-8 and 941-2, and XB 636, ‘even if he is bom thrice nothos'. 50 Ibid. 222-3. ” Cf. ibid. 120, 159, 168-73, 203, and 359-60. !1 Ibid. 198-204. » Ibid. 663-7. M Ibid. 667. ” Cf. ibid. 198-204. M See e.g. Euripides Andromache 155-8; cf. 347-8 and 709-10.

The Lives of Athenian Bastards

197

I shall be enslaved to the bastard bed over which I formerly lorded it. (Euripides Andromache 927-8) I would have been bearing legitimate children, and she would have been bearing bastard-bom children, half-slave to my children. (Euripides Andromache 941-2)

Hermione makes the classic statement of amphimetric strife: ‘Nor in fact is it a fine thing for one man to hold the reins to two wives, but the men that do not wish to run their houses in a bad way look to one Aphrodite of the bed and cherish her' (Euripides Andromache 177-80). And the chorus summarizes the situation well: ‘I shall never approve of the twofold beds of mortals, nor amphimetric children (amphimatoras korous), strifes and hostile griefs for houses’ (Euripides Andromache 465-7). The chorus appears to have expressed some very' similar sentiments in an earlier, very corrupt passage, for w'hich Stevens offers the follow­ ing interpretation: ‘[The toils which] have involved you [Andromache] and Hermione, poor women, in hateful contentious strife over the son of Achilles who shares in the two beds’ (Euripides Andromache 122-5; Stevens 1971: ad loc.).57 This certainly gives the lie to the arguments of Jason in the Medea. We have already discussed the Ion in some detail. It is worth returning to it again for the amphimetric issue too, and in its treat­ ment of this theme it has much in common with the Andromache. The (supposedly) childless Creusa becomes crazed with envy towards Ion, whom she supposes to be her husband’s bastard, and poisonous drugs are again the solution. And superimposed on her anxieties over her personal status is the threat to Athenian autochthony, a thing that she herself embodies. From the start Ion is worried about the hostility of his stepmother, which he thinks will be aggravated by her childlessness:58 since she is childless, she will endure him with bitterness, and Xuthus will therefore have to choose between Creusa and Ion or throw his whole house into confusion.59 She is said to be envious towards Ion because of her childlessness,60 and Creusa herself notes that envy is to be ” Cf. also ibid. 21 $-21 and 909. M Creusa’s despair at her childlessness is a major theme of the play: see e.g. 65, 304-6, 618-20, 657-8, 680, 789, 817-18, 864, and 1302-3. Loraux 1981: 231 notes that childlessness is a typical affliction of the autochthonous. 59 Euripides Ion 607-15. 90 Ibid. 1302.

Athens expected from stepmothers.6' The establishment of Ion in Xuthus’ house is viewed as the ipso facto usurpation and ejection from it of Creusa.6162* The eponymous hero of the Hippolytus of 428 is Euripides’ most celebrated bastard, and the term nothos is repeatedly applied to him.61 He is Theseus’ grown son by an Amazon queen, and he is dragged into a dispute with Phaedra, Theseus’ Greek wife,64 who has young sons of her own. It is fretting for the legitimacy reputa­ tion of her own sons that impels Phaedra to act against Hippolytus, for she fears that doubt will be cast retrospectively upon their paternity once her adulterous lust is revealed (cf. Chapter 3). Again freedom of speech (parrhêsia) is mentioned as a benefit dependent upon legitimacy and one that renders legitimacy particularly important: ‘But let them inhabit the city of glorious Athens free and flourishing in freedom-of-speech, of good reputation on account of their mother.’65 Hippolytus himself is repeatedly accused of fighting amphimetric battles, and it is in this context that his bastard status is foregrounded: he is ‘a bastard that aspires to legitimacy’ (nothon phronounta gnësiaJ;66 Hippolytus is told, ‘You will say that she [Phaedra] hates you, and that that which is bastard (to . . . nothon) is naturally at war with those that are legitimate’;67 Hippolytus moans, ‘O unfortunate mother, o bitter birth! May none of my friends ever be bastard’;68 and he anticipates that he will be accused of attempting to usurp Phaedra and her children.69 Hippolytus’ bastardy salutes the theme of spuriousness and deception that runs through the play:70 women are ‘counterfeit’,71 true voices cannot be told from false,72 we are told of the ‘smokescreen of writing’,73 false and tricky writing,74 wizardry,75 and people deceived.76 Hippolytus dies with a platitude that admonishes Theseus to consider real rather than apparent worth: ‘pray to acquire legitimate children as good as I am.’77 61 Euripides Andromache 1025; cf. 1269-75 and 1328-9. 62 Euripides Ion 702-4, 808-11, 836-42, 864-5« 880, and 1295; cf. 1044. Euripides Hippolytus 309, 962-3, 1083, and 1453. 64 Ibid. 26. 65 Ibid. 421-3. 66 Ibid. 309. 67 Ibid. 962-3. M Ibid. 1082-3; cf. 1144-5, ‘O unfortunate mother, you bore profitlesslv.* w Ibid. 1010. 70 Cf. Knox 1983. 71 Euripides Hippolytus 616-17. 72 Ibid. 925-31. 73 Ibid. 954. 74 Ibid. 1311-12. 75 Ibid. 1038. 76 Ibid. 1406 and 1414. 77 Ibid. 1455.

The Lives of Athenian Bastards

199

Finally, Euripides’ Heracles, written at some point prior to 415, is also worth a brief comparison. Heracles is Zeus’ famous longsuffering bastard. Although the term nothos is not explicitly applied to Heracles in this play, he does complain that ’the foundation of my birth was not laid down aright’ (orthos).78 His sufferings are ascribed to the envy of Zeus’ wife, Hera: ‘She who begrudging Zeus the bed of a woman destroyed the benefactors of Greece, although they in no way deserved it.’79 Much is made in this play also of Heracles’ dual paternity (for which see in particu­ lar Part II).80

LIFE

AT C Y N O S A R G E S

A few scattered scraps of information permit us to put the association of nothoi with Cynosarges in context. The nothoi had evidently maintained an association there since before Themistocles’ famous gesture, as Plutarch’s words make clear (see Chapter i).8’ This gesture was presumably made at around the time of his adolescence, in the last decade of the sixth century. The shrine of the bastard-patron Heracles at any rate existed by 490, at which date it is referred to by Herodotus.82 It has been suggested that the nothoi first began their association there in the age of Solon;83 this makes some sense, since, as we have seen, the indica­ tions are that it was in the age of Solon that the nothoi first began to be seriously disadvantaged. The association came to an end at some point before 351, at which point Demosthenes referred to it as a thing of the past.84 Which nothoi went to Cynosarges? Presumably traditional nothoi, those bom of concubines (whether Athenian or not), went from the start. We have argued that mëtroxenoi, although not officially bastardized, had effectively been constrained to go there for their exercise since before the age of Themistocles; doubtless 71 Euripides Heracles 1261-2. ” Ibid. 1308-10. " Ibid. I . 339, 355-6, and 798-800; cf. Bond 1981: pp. xiv-vi. 11 Plutarch Themistocles 1 (quoted above). u Herodotus 6. 116. A festival of Heracles, Heracleia, was also associated with the temple: Harpocration s.v. Heracleia (and cf., probably, Aristophanes Frogs 651 and scholiast); cf. Kyle 1993: 47 and 91. ” Patterson 1990: 64. 14 Demosthenes 23. 213. See Patterson 1990: 63, Humphreys 1974: 88, and Versnel 1973: 276.

200

Athens

they were officially constrained to go there after 451. Photius and Suda purport to define the nothoi that enrolled there as follows: ‘The nothoi who were citizens neither on the side of their father nor on the side of their mother were enrolled there’ (Photius s.v. Kynosarges).** This is gibberish, and should not detain us: those bom of two non-citizen parents were hardly nothoi in the eyes of the Athenian state. It may be garbling an attempt to say that Cynosarges received not only those who were born of a citizen father and alien mother, but also those who were born of a citizen mother and alien father. Again, only the former category could at any time have been considered nothoi by the Athenian state. It would be interesting to know if those of citizen mother and alien father could indeed enrol; however, as I explained in Chapter 4, I very much doubt the actual existence of any such category. As to what the nothoi actually did at Cynosarges, our sources only permit us to say with certainty that, apart from exercising together, they participated in the cult of Heracles. Participation in the cult of Heracles is suggested by the statements of Plutarch and Suda, who draw the significance of the association between nothoi and Cynosarges from the figure of the nothos Heracles himself;86 and Plutarch’s phrase syntelein eis often expresses, apart from political affiliation, the payment of contributions for sacrifices.87 But such participation is actually confirmed by a fragment of Polemon that refers to a decree proposed by Alcibiades concerning the cult: In the temple of Heracles at Cynosarges is a stele, on which there is a decree of Alcibiades, with Stephanus son of Thucydides as secretary. With regard to the term parasitos, it says as follows: Let the priest make the monthly sacrifice with the parasitoi (‘companions in a sacred feast’).88 Let the parasitoi be drawn from the nothoi and their sons in accordance with ancestral customs. Let action be brought before the court concern­ ing whatever men do not wish to be parasitoi. (Polemon F78 Preller (apud Athenaeus 234e))

This decree presumably derives from the period of Alcibiades’ ascendency in Athens, i.e. c.430-415.89 Alcibiades may have 81 Cf. Suda s.v. Kynosarges. 86 Plutarch Themistocles 1 and Suda s.v. Kynosarges. 87 Humphreys 1974: 92. See also Versnel 1973: 275-6. 88 Cf. Humphreys 1974: 92 and Kyle 1993: 89. 88 The decree is dated to the 420s by Humphreys 1974: 88, but her reasons are not compelling.

The Lives of Athenian Bastards

201

legislated more than once about the Heracleum at Cynosarges, for a very fragmentary inscription from the acropolis (from which we can derive no other useful information for this study) concerns the temple of Heracles at Cynosarges, and has a rider proposed by a man whose name ended in . . . jiades.90 Perhaps Alcibiades was interested in nothoi because he had, according to our sources, at least four of his own.91 Patterson guesses that Alcibiades was trying to bolster up a by and large obsolete institution (‘in accordance with ancestral custom’) in the face of the increasing assimilation of nothoi to common or garden aliens.92 It is interesting that membership of the cult was apparently hereditary: the sons of nothoi, who could not of course have been nothoi themselves in the eyes of the Athenian state, whatever the circumstances of their birth, also belonged to the cult, and had to be prepared to serve as parasitoi. ‘Sons’ of nothoi probably denotes all descendants of original nothos members, and not just the second generation. Patterson suggests that through their association at Cynosarges the nothoi also participated in ‘civic organisation and perhaps recruitment’.931 am not sure what she means by the former, but in view of our conclusions about the status of nothoi after Solon, I think it unlikely that nothoi participated in any significant way in anything that could be called ‘civic organization’. The latter contention is also problematic. While it is true that the gymnasia were in general mustering places and drilling grounds for the army,94 and that nothoi, qua metics, will have had to serve in the army,95 there is no good evidence that Cynosarges had any military functions (or, indeed, any educational ones).96 Cynosarges also gives us valuable insights into the meaning and context of bastardy in classical Athens. It is in connection with this institution that we And our single piece of evidence for the concept of bastardy being employed in general abuse in the Greek world: the phrase ‘Go to Cynosarges’ (es Kynosarges) was used ‘as abuse w IG [Guide no. 61] iJ. 134; cf. Humphreys 1974: 89 and Kyle 1993: 89. *' Sources at Davies 1971: 19. But the ones we know about seem unlikely to have been reared at Athens as opposed to the homes of their respective mothers, namely Abydos, Melos, Sparta, and Samos. Cf. also Patterson 1990: 64 and, differently, Humphreys 1974: 94. n 1990: 64. *’ 1990: 63. ** Forbes 1945: 37-9. 45 Whitehead 1977: 82-6. * Kyle 1993: 84 and 91: we just have the encampment there in 490 to protect Phaleron (Herodotus 6. 116), and Andocides’ fall from his horse (Andocides 1.61).

202

Athens

and as a curse’,97 the equivalent of the common ‘Go to the crows [sc. as carrion].’9® That Cynosarges continued to be associated with bastardy, and particularly with generally abusive allegations of it, even after the end of the formal association of nothoi that was based there, is argued by the Athenians’ erection there of a statue of Philip of Macedon. Clement of Alexandria tells: ‘Now they maintained the custom of kow-towing (proskynein) to the statue of Philip of Macedon from Pella, the son of Amyntas, in Cynosarges, the one “with the broken shoulder, and lamed in the leg”, who lost an eye’ (Clement of Alexandria Protrepticus 4. 54). The ‘official’ reason for siting the statue at Cynosarges was doubtless Philip’s relationship with Heracles,99 but it was highly appropriate that Philip should have his statue at Cynosarges, qua ‘bastard’: Demosthenes called Philip a ‘slave or supposititious child’,100 and other sources preserve the improbable slur that his mother Eurydice was an Illyrian—most notably Plutarch’s ‘Illyrian and thrice barbarian’.101 It is not dear when the statue was put up: the year in which he was given honorary citizenship, 338/7, has been suggested.102 But if the siting of the statue was as insulting as I suggest, and if indeed it did portray Philip in all his ugliness, then a point decently after the man’s death might have been a more tactful and indeed a safer occasion. The Greeks surely only learned of proskynisis, Persian-style ‘kow-towing’, after it was taken up by Philip’s son Alexander in the course of his anabasis, and forced upon them by him to their disgust; perhaps the kow-towing to the statue was also therefore a deeply sarcastic gesture.103 Cynosarges acquired further reasons for being a place of ill fame in the fourth century when the Cynic philosophers Antisthenes, himself a nothos, and Diogenes set up their school there.104 It is* *7 Schol. [Plato] Axiochus 364a; cf. Bremmer 1977: 372 n. 17. with further sources. m Cf. Bremmer 1977: 372-3, with sources; pace Humphreys 1974: 92. ” Cf. Versnel 1973: 278. 100 Demosthenes 9. 21; cf. Suda s.v. Karanos; cf. Dascalakis 1965: 266-7. 101 Moralia 14b; cf. Suda s.v. Karanos and Libanius p. 606. 18 Foerster. 101 See Versnel 1973: 274-9 and Bremmer 1977: 374. Plutarch Demosthenes 22 records the gift of honorary citizenship to Philip in 338/7. 101 Pace Nilsson 1955-61: 142. 104 Diogenes Laertius 6. 1. 6 and 13; Suda s.v. Antisthenes; Lucian Bion prasis 548; cf. Versnel 1973: 277. It was the custom of philosophers to set up schools at gymnasia: Plato at the Academy, Aristotle at the Lyceum.

The Lives of Athenian Bastards

203

possible that the ‘Cynic’ (‘Canine’) school actually took its name from the place, the name of which was etymologized as ‘White dog’.105 It was also the home of the sixty gelötopoioi or ‘jokers’, and Philip, who was apparently very fond of jokes, had them send him their jokes written down.106 The place evidently became a haven for marginals. Antisthenes, Diogenes Laertius tells us, was ‘not legitimate’ (ouk ithagenis).107 He took a special, sympathetic interest in the nothos Heracles: he parodied the Prodican ‘Choice of Heracles’ with a debate as to whether one should have sex with women or boys (did the avoidance of bastardy figure in the arguments for the latter?).'0®He was also interested in Cyrus (known as ‘the mule’ for the imbalance of his parentage),'04 and in other people of mixed descent. He argued, against a man abusing him for his bastardy, that even the gods had a Phrygian mother, and, sarcastically, that snails and bugs were the most ‘autochthonous’ and therefore bestborn of creatures."0 Despite all this Antisthenes contrived to acquire Athenian citizenship'"—perhaps by virtue of the decree of Nicomenes (for which see Chapter i above).

SOME

ASSOCIATIONS

OF

BASTARDY

Bastardy and slavery The association between bastardy and slavery is made particularly in the plays of Menander. In his Samia Moschion, who has fathered a bastard, attempts to bring his father Demeas round to the idea that bastards are not necessarily bad things: . Which of us is gnësios, by the gods, or which nothos? We’re all human beings the same.

m o s c h io x

See Suda s.v. Kynotarget and Pausanias I. nd Medea 516-19; see Ch. 5 for the role of ‘latent freedom’ in New Comedy. 120 As noted by Amott 1975: 15 and 19.

The Lives of Athenian Bastards

205

following the Samia passage, demonstrate the assimilation of bastardy and slavery in Menandrian thought. This assimilation can be seen also in the Aspis, where Smicrines protests that his brother, in not consulting him about the disposal of an heiress, considers him to be ‘an absolute household slave or some nothos'.121 The point of the word ‘bastard’ here, as is clear from the follow­ ing lines, is that Smicrines wanted to marry the heiress himself, and in being passed over he is being treated like a nothos, who would have had no claim on an heiress.122 Smicrines then explains his remark: ‘since he behaves in the manner of an allotrios towards me.’ The term allotrios describes another man’s son, not a son of the same blood, so it is perhaps implied that a nothos does not count as his father’s son. We find nothoi more generally assimilated to slaves in Menander’s Heros, where Gorgias and Plangon, the bastard children of Myrrhine by an undisclosed father, have been farmed out to a freedman to rear and have fallen into some kind of debtslavery. The slave proper Daos considers the girl to be almost a slave (‘a fellow slave, a slave-girl. . . more or less’) and expects to marry her,123 although the technical freedom of the siblings is acknowledged, since Gorgias is referred to as Plangon’s guardian.124 And in the Epitrepontes Habrotonon asks of the obstructive Onesimus whether he would like to see his master’s presumptively bastard baby be reared as a slave.125 Rich and poor The vulnerability of poor men that cannot protect their children, or muffle their misfortunes with money, is bewailed by a slave in Menander’s Plokion, as he overhears a poor man’s raped daughter giving birth to her bastard.126 By implication, the rich can afford to protect their daughters from illicit impregnation, or use their Menander Aspis 174-80. u ' Pace Gomme and Sandbach 1973 ad loc., who think that Smicrines is refer­ ring to his brother’s alleged previous unfairness over the division of their father’s estate. 1,1 Menander Heros hypothesis 3, 6, 12, 22 and lines 19-20 and 36-8, with Gomme and Sandbach 1973 ad locc. 124 Menander Heros 43-4. 1:5 Menander Epitrepontes 470. 114 Menander Plokion F303.

2 o6

Athens

money to spirit away their bastards, or to compensate them for their bastardy, or to sue the impregnator and make him marry.127 Eyben believes that, alongside prostitutes, it was the rich that were the prime patrons of abortion in antiquity (but all his evidence is Roman).128 In Euripides’ Ion Xuthus tells his supposed bastard that he will bring him to Athens, where he will use his wealth to counteract Ion’s reputation as ill-bom (dysgenës).129 The rich are in a particularly strong position also when one of their own has impregnated a poor girl: in Menander’s Georgos the poor Cleainetos advises the poor Gorgias against trying to avenge himself upon the rich young man that raped his sister, because the poor always come off worse in any dispute.130 It is upon the poor then that bastardy inflicts particular suffering. The rich are perceived to be more likely to exploit the poor in citizenship swindles involving bastards or aliens. In Menander’s Sicyonian, when Theron wants to find an Athenian citizen to claim, fraudulently, that his beloved slave-girl is a legitimate and free Athenian, he chooses Cichesias for his poverty, and his conse­ quent supposed susceptibility to bribery.131 Demosthenes likewise talks of citizens being bribed to say they are the relatives of non­ citizens,132 and Isaeus says that poverty constrains the poor to adopt rich foreigners fraudulently.133 Possibly Stephanus was exploiting the poverty of Phrastor in palming off upon him his allegedly illegitimate daughter by Neaira, ostensibly as an Athenian citizen.134 The poor were also easily accused and convicted of being aliens. Eubulides’ mother was accused of being an alien, and he himself therefore of bastardy, because she was often in the agora, and was a wet-nurse. Eubulides observes that ‘Poverty compels free men to undertake many servile activities.’135 However, Eubulides insists that wealth could equally well be a token of alienness,136and Isaeus actually takes poverty as a token of legitimacy.137 127 Cf. Plautus Aulularia 25-36. 128 1980-1: 12 and 77. 129 Euripides Ion 576-81. 130 Menander Georgos Fi (printed after line 86 in Sandbach’s OCT edn.); cf. F2 and Dyscolus 285-6; cf. Gomme and Sandbach 1973: 33-4. 131 Menander Sicyonian 312-75, 344-5, and 375; cf. Gomme and Sandbach 1973 ad loc. 132 Demosthenes 57. 52. 133 Isaeus 12. i. 134 Demosthenes 59. 50. 135 Ibid. 40. 26. 136 Ibid. 57. 42. 137 Isaeus 6. 59.

The Lives of Athenian Bastards

207

Even in marriage a poor girl was more likely to be considered to bear a bastard. In Plautus’ Trinummus Lesbonicus is concerned that if he gives his sister in marriage without a dowry, it will be said that she has been given in concubinage rather than in matri­ mony.1MThe association between dowries and legitimacy can be made to work fraudulently: Isaeus says that disreputable women especially should be given with dowries, so that they will be less easy for their husbands to dispose of (cf. Stephanus’ daughter Phano).139 It is possible also that poverty could hinder the process of legiti­ mation. Isaeus tells that the introduction of a boy to a phratry involved considerable expense.140 Bastardy, sterility, and disease Bastardy is often found associated with sterility, as if bastards do not count as proper children, and are not the proper products of fertility. In Euripides’ Andromache Peleus, in defending Molossus, observes that ‘Even if he is three times a nothos . . . dry land often beats fertile land in sowing, and many nothoi are better than legitimates.’141 In Euripides’ Heracles the bastard Heracles is made by Hera and Lyssa to kill his own children, which leads the chorus to refer to Heracles as Zeus’ ‘descent without descent’.142 And Euripides’ most famous bastard, Hippolytus, has a horror of marriage: ‘He refuses the bed and does not touch marriage’;143 he praises virginity,144 and tells his mother, ‘You gave birth without profit.’145 In Euripides’ Ion the bastard Ion pities his mother Creusa for ‘being ill with childlessness’ (apaidiai nosein).146 Drama often makes word-play with nothos, ‘bastard’, and nosos, ‘disease’. The old sterility/pestilence association again perhaps encourages this. In the noteworthy fragment already alluded to, Euripides also plays with nomos, ‘law’: 'nothoi. . . just ail under the law (nomöi nosousin).'1*7 ‘Disease’ (nosos, nosein, etc.) appears frequently in Euripides’ Hippolytus, where it - is first used to ”* Plautus Trinummus 688-94; cf. Fredershausen 1912; 229-30 and Post 1940:

437 1,4 141 141 ,4J 147

Isaeus 3. 28. Euripides Andromache 636-7. Euripides Hippolytus 14. Ibid. 1144. Euripides F141 N.

140 142 144 144

Ibid. 12. 3. Euripides Heracles 832; cf. 901—3. Ibid. 58-87. Euripides Ion 620.

2o8

Athens

describe Phaedra’s longing for Hippolytus;148 adulterous liaisons are described as ‘sick beds’;149and the unjustly accused Hippolytus complains, ‘I am sick despite being in no way responsible.’150 And as we have seen, in Euripides’ Ion Ion complains that he suffers ‘two diseases’: birth from a foreign father, and the fact of being bastard-bom (nothagenès).m 14* 141 Euripides Hippolytus 40; cf. 283, 730, and 764-6. Ibid. 464. 1,0 Ibid. 932-3.

151 Euripides Ion 591—2; cf. 1520-1. Cf. also s. 1 of this chapter for Pericles’ word-play between ’bastard* (nothos) and ’foreign’ (othneios).

Summary SUMMARY

AND

209

CONCLUSION

In Chapter 1 we charted the diachronic development of the law of bastardy at Athens from the archaic to the hellenistic period. This study highlighted two important points that can easily be obscured by purely synchronic treatments of the subject: first, it indicated strongly that all bastards were disfranchised from as early as the time of Solon, which in itself suggests that the question as to whether bastards of double civic ascendance enjoyed the franchise after Pericles’ citizenship law is a non-issue; and secondly it indicated that Pericles’ citizenship law should be seen as part of a long-established tendency to discriminate against the metroxenic, which suggests that explanations of the citizenship law that focus heavily or exclusively upon its immediate context in 451 are inadequate. We also suggested that it was misleading to think that all the organs of a complex state such as Athens should have implemented the central state’s bastardy policy as with one mind and with equal levels of rectitude and efficiency: in particular we tried to detect institutional conflict in bastardy policy between gene and phratries, as each pursued agendas appropriate to their historical interests, functions, and social compositions. The hypothesis of struggle between different interest groups in different institutional power-bases also has the merit of suggesting solutions to a particular puzzle about the history of bastardy at Athens, namely the nature of the association of Themistocles with Cynosarges. From Chapter 2 onwards we turned to. a consideration of issues of bastardy and legitimacy in classical Athens from a synchronic perspective. In Chapters 2 and 3 we examined the surveillance of legitimacy in classical Athens. In Chapter 2 itself we reviewed the institutions involved in the recognition or bestowal of legitimacy, and argued that legitimation was better viewed as a continuous and almost lifelong process rather than as a single hurdle to be jumped on a single occasion (i.e. enrolment in the deme). We charted the process from mother’s betrothal and on through ekdosis and gamëlia, amphidromia and dekati, phratry meion and registration, phratry koureion, phratry scrutinies, and deme registration, and finally arrived at the indefinite series of deme scrutinies and office scrutinies which an individual could face. If this perspective is a helpful one, it suggests that legitimation might be as profitably

210

Athens

investigated from sociological as from legal perspectives. A point of particular interest that emerged from this review was the role of the oikos as the privileged site of legitimacy. In Chapter 3 we turned to a second aspect of the surveillance of legitimacy, the measures controlling sexual access to women. Reviewing the classical Athenian customs of seclusion, and laws of adultery, seduction and rape, we concluded that virtually all aspects of them could be explained with primary reference to the desire to protect the integrity of bloodlines. Having thus laid the groundwork, we turned to a series of more specific investigations in the rest of the chapter. In Chapter 4 we considered further the vexed question of the relationship between bastardy and citizenship in classical Athens. Building on conclu­ sions reached in Chapter 1, we compiled additional arguments, this time from a synchronic perspective, against the possibility that bastards of two Athenian parents were permitted citizenship, and thus concluded that the classical citizenship was ultimately defined by marriage rather than by descent. We also dismissed the possibility that female bastards, whether of double civic ascen­ dance or metroxenic, enjoyed any formal legal advantages over male ones, though we conceded that they may have enjoyed some informal ones. In Chapter 5 we investigated the relationship between bastardy and politics, particularly democracy. Wre argued that the most powerful explanation of Pericles’ citizenship law was the ‘ideology’ of autochthony’ that underpinned Athenian democracy and imperialism. We argued that the citizenship law became a demo­ cratic shibboleth, and asked whether it was possible to define an oligarchic bastardy policy against it. We also investigated the ways in which the ideology of autochthony and the citizenship law more generally was promoted in two literary genres: openly and uninhibitedly in Funeral Orations, and more subtly and insidiously in New Comedy. And we considered ways in which the organization of the system of legitimacy more generally at Athens was under­ pinned and defined by myths and ‘mythologies’, both ancient and contemporary, about significantly distanced worlds without a principle of legitimacy. In Chapter 6 we investigated aspects of the lives of Athenian bastards. We argued that allegations about bastardy, true or false, may in practical terms often have been brought to the fore by the

Summary

211

tensions inherent in amphimetrically structured families: these were the situtations in which the legitimacy status of others most affected the lives of individuals, and therefore these were the situations most likely to spur individuals to flush ‘bastards’ out. We saw that Euripides was particularly fascinated by the problems of amphimetric families. We turned then to various further aspects of the marginalization of bastards in classical Athens: their confinement to Cynosarges, home of marginals of various sorts, and their popular associations with slavery', poverty', and disease. At various points in this Part I have tried to shift the debate about Athenian bastardy beyond the confused, though, I think, relatively resolvable, question, ‘What did the classical Athenian law of bastardy actually say?’ Inspired in part by the issues raised by the work of Laslett and his team, we have looked in particular at factors that may have complicated the effective sociological picture of Athenian bastardy after the law of the central state has been taken into account: first, the varying degrees of effectiveness with which different grass-roots institutions, for differing reasons, implemented the policies of the central state; and secondly, the varying degrees to which the internal pressures on individual families led them to defend or impugn the legitimacy of their members, and bring issues of the legitimacy of their members into the open. After all, even when all the complex and intrusive surveillance mechanisms of the state are taken into account, the members of one’s own family still possess an order of knowledge about and interest in each other’s origins that is out of all propor­ tion to that of any outsider. A competitive model of legitimacy may seem more appropriate to the understanding of the workings of the households of hellenistic kings, where might more often than not settled questions of legitimacy and succession, in the dearth of any externally imposed and regulated principles, than it does to the workings of legitimacy among common families in the context of a supposedly stable and highly regulated code of legiti­ macy, but it does after all have its role to play here too. I hope also in this chapter to have laid the foundation for dis­ tinctions between the Athenian bastardy system and those of other Greek states. In classical Athens, as we have seen, there coexisted both a strong family organization and a strong and intrusive state organization (by ‘family’ here I mean a man and the woman or women he gathers around him, and the children he has of them; by

212

Athens

‘state’ I mean the combined apparatus of the central lawcode and the grass-roots institutions of its administration—phratry, deme, etc.)- The strong differentiation of bastardy from legitimacy in classical Athens, in terms both of its definition and its ensuing disabilities, can be understood to be a function of the conflict between the two organizations: the oikos is not a man’s actual family, but his actual family recut to fit the pattern approved by the state. The usefulness of conceptualizing Athenian bastardy in this way will become apparent when we come to investigate bastardy in places in which one of the two organizations is very weak, such as Sparta, in which family organization was weak, and the chora of hellenistic Egypt, in which state organization was weak.

PART

II

Sparta

The archaic and classical Spartan construction of bastardy is particularly interesting: first because it evidences radically different constructions of bastardy at common level and royal level, and secondly because, at common level, the Spartans employed a fairly minimal concept of bastardy. This, we shall argue, was mainly because reproduction at Sparta, like so many things, was directed more for the good of the state than for that of individuals or families, in both ideology and practice. The social history of Sparta is frustratingly complicated by a number of difficulties of evidence. The first is that Spartan ‘laws’ (nomoi) were for the most part unwritten, and so our investigation must deal primarily in terms of (sometimes shifting) customs and duties, rather than specific interdictions.1 To complicate matters further, while Herodotus and Thucydides had earlier stressed the obedience of the Spartans to their law,2 Xenophon thought he saw a discrepancy between what was considered ‘law’ and actual practice.3 Both views are of course the stuff of untestable social mythology. But in any case, there is little surviving that resembles a prescription, written or unwritten, formal or informal, observed or unobserved, relevant to the subject of bastardy. The second difficulty is that much of our evidence for classical Spartan customs is refracted through the obscuring lenses of Athenian idealizers of the city, or through those of the ‘revivalist’ hellenistic kings of Sparta, Agis and Cleomenes.4 Some scholars ascribe some of the apparently outlandish details of Spartan life that we are given to such a Spartan ‘mirage’. But Sparta certainly was a strange society by the standards of the other Greeks (quite apart from our own), and in most cases we have no formal way of making distinctions in truthfulness between the various seemingly fantastic assertions about Spartan life that we find in our sources, examples of which we shall consider shortly. We are faced thereThis part does not include treatment of the mythical 'Bastard' Spartan founders of Tarentum, the ‘Partheniai’: they will be dealt with in my forthcoming Crooked Kings of Ancient Greece. ' Plutarch Lycurgus denies that Sparta had written laws at 13. 1 and 3 and Moralia 227b (however, he claims to have researched in Spartan records at Agesilaus 19. 10). See Cartledge 1987: 106 (qualified at 123) and 1978: 35 and Boring 1979: 24-31; pace MacDowell 1986: 1-5. 2 Herodotus 1. 65. 4 and 7. 104. 4-5; Thucydides 1. 18. 1 and 5. 26. 5. 3 Lac. Pol. 14; cf. MacDowell 1986: 8-11 and 14. 4 See Tigerstedt 1956-74: parts iii and iv, Rawson 1969: chs 3 and 5, and Ollier « 9 3 3 -4 3 -

2i6

Sparta

fore with an unwelcome dilemma: we either take the things our sources say about the organization of Spartan life as for the most part true, or as good as true, and attempt to construct a picture of a coherent society from them, or we confess that virtually nothing can be known about the state. As the existence of this chapter testifies, I have taken the former option. A third difficulty is that much of the evidence relevant to this study hails from a period of undoubtedly significant yet obscure social change, in which the decline of the Spartiate population was a major factor. In particular, there may or may not have been in the early fourth century a ‘rhetra of Epitadeus’ that overhauled inheritance and perhaps other institutions too. It is hard to contextualize evidence in such shifting sands.

Common Bastardy

S OTHO I

The usual Greek word for ‘bastard’, nothos, appears in our Spartan evidence only once (other than in royal contexts); it has been interestingly suggested that it may not be a Doric word.' The single usage is in a passage referring to a campaign in 380: ‘Many were accompanying him [Agesipolis]: fine volunteers from the perioeci [i.e. free non-citizens dwelling around the city of Sparta], aliens from the so-called ‘reared boys’ (trophimoi), and nothoi of the Spartiates, very fine looking, and not inexperienced in the fine things in the city’ (Xenophon Hellemca 5. 3. 9). It is clear from the phrase 'nothoi of the Spartiates’ itself that the nothoi were sons of Spartiate men but not themselves Spartiates, and this is confirmed both by the company with which the nothoi are here associated, aliens and perioeci, and by the fact that Agesipolis’ band of Spartiate soldiers has already been mentioned separately.2 However, they clearly do share much of the citizens’ life, for they have participated in agôgë, the citizens’ education system, and are members of the common messes; this much at least is meant by the phrase ‘not inexperienced in the fine things in the city’.3 It is appropriate that they be associated with aliens from among the ‘reared boys’ (trophimoi), for these too had been educated in agôgë.* A fragment of Teles strongly suggests that these nothoi were such as being bom of helot women: ‘The Spartans honour the man that has taken part in and remained in agôgë on a par with the best, 1 Patterson 1991a: 54.

2 Xenophon Hellemca

5. 3. 8. * See Mac Dowell 1986: 42 and 46-7; cf. Xenophon Lac. Pol. 3. 3 and Plutarch Agis 5. 5. 4 See MacDowell 1986: 47, Cartledge 1979: 314, Lotze 1962: 432, Michell 1952: 89, Ehrenberg 1939, and Kahrstedt 1922: 53.

2i 8

Sparta

even if he is an alien or born of a helot woman (ex heilötos)' (Teles apud Stobaeus Anthologia 3. 3. 40. 8).5 Here the subject is again those, other than the Spartiates themselves, that gain citizenship via agôgë. Again we have the aliens, and this time not the nothoi but those ‘bom of a helot woman’. The two groups appear identical. The phrase ex heilötos literally means just ‘out of a helot’, but cannot denote ‘those bom of a helot man’, for they would then simply be helots themselves, and the imagery of ex, ‘out o f, evokes the female part in procreation, as with racehorses. The unspecified fathers of these children must be the Spartiates, for there would otherwise be no need to focus upon the status of the mother.6 There is then a strong likelihood that Xenophon’s nothoi are children fathered by Spartiate men on helot mothers. These nothoi should almost certainly be identified with another shadowy Spartan group, the mothakes, who, like the nothoi, appear to have been reared in agôgë and to have been, at least for the most part, the sons of Spartiate men by helot women. There are both positive reasons for this identification (as we shall consider next) and a negative one, this being that there seem to have been effectively no circumstances under which a Spartiate citizen woman could have given birth to a child that could have been considered nothos.

MOTHAKES

The chief reason for identifying the mothakes with Xenophon’s nothoi is the fact that Aelian discusses three particular famous mothakes in the context of a chapter which is otherwise devoted to famous men reputed to be nothoi or low-bom, such as Archelaus of Macedon, Menelaus (the ‘nothos’ grandfather of Philip of Macedon), and Themistocles, which suggests that Aelian saw nothoi and mothakes as more or less the same thing:7 Callicratidas and Gylippus and Lysander were called mothakes in Sparta. * Cf. Plutarch Moralia 238e for a similar remark, which however only explicitly addresses the status of aliens: 'And some said that even aliens, if they bore up to a regime of this kind, could have a share of the originally prescribed portion, in accordance with the will of Lycurgus’; cf. also [Heraclitus] Letter 9. 2 (Hercher 1871: 286-7), and Mendels 1979. 6 For a discussion of the significance of helot status, see Talbert 1989. 7 Pace Oliva 1971: 176-7.

Common Bastardy

219

This was a name for {foster-brothers (syntrophois))* of the rich boys, and the rich boys’ fathers used to dispatch the mothakes with their sons to compete alongside them in the gymnasia. The man who made this concession, Lycurgus, gave a share of the Spartan state to those who remained in agôgê. (Aelian Varia historia 12. 43)

Perhaps the oldest and best source for the mothakes is Phylarchus: The mothakes are foster-brothers (syntrophoi) of the Lacedaimonians. The boys of citizen status each . . . make some boys their foster-brothers— some one, others two, and some more. The mothakes are free, though not Lacedaimonians. But they all share in the education. They say that one of these was Lysander, who defeated the Athenian navy, after he had been made a citizen for his courage. (Phylarchus FGH 81 F43)

If we accept Lotze’s supplement to the Aelian passage, then Aelian and Phylarchus agree on essentials. Lexicographical sources pro­ vide similar definitions to that of Phylarchus, under mothax and mothöh9(a term they confuse with mothax, which in fact denoted a licentious dance):10 they emphasize the facts that the mothakes were young, free, and were reared alongside the Spartiates {paratrephesthai). Plutarch apparently mentioned that Cleomenes III had two foster-brothers (syntrophoi) that were called mothakes.n It is clear that being reared alongside the Spartiate boys was a primary characteristic of a mothax\ while Xenophon’s nothoi are not explicitly said to have been reared alongside Spartiate boys, they are none the less associated closely with a group of aliens of which this is explicitly said.12 And certainly both Xenophon’s nothoi and the mothakes are said to be non-citizen and brought up in agôgê. For these or similar reasons a number of scholars have identified the mothakes with the nothoi of Xenophon.11 I Syntrophois is the supplement suggested by Lotze 1962: 429. It has been generally accepted: see MacDowell 1986: 48 and Oliva 1971: 175. 9 See Hesychius, Harpocration, and Suda s.w .; cf. also Schol. Aristophanes Wealth 279, Schol. Aristophanes Knights 634; pace Etymoldgicum magnum s.w . See Lotze 1962: 428. 10 See Euripides Bacchae 1060, Pollux 4. 10, and Athenaeus 618c; cf. Bommelaer 1981: 37. II Plutarch Cleomenes 8. 1. T he MSS actually have Samothrakas (‘Samothracians’), but Vackenaer's emendation to mothakas is generally accepted; cf. MacDowell 1986: 50. 12 Cf. Lotze 1962: 428. MacDowell 1986: 46-9 thinks ‘reared-boy’ (trophimos) may be an older term for mothax; but this is unlikely if Lysander, Gylippus, and Callicratidas were mothakes. 11 Schoemann and Lipsius 1897-1902: 206, Busolt and Swoboda 1926: 675, and Cartledge 1979: 315 simply identify* the two groups. Lotze 1962 and Oliva 1971:

220

Sparta

Where did the mothakes come from? Our sources give no general indication of the class from which their fathers were drawn. However, Lysander, the man identified as a mothax by both Phylarchus and Aelian, was the son of Aristocleitos, a man who was certainly a citizen, indeed a Heraclid.14 We may then assume that mothakes were in general born of Spartiate fathers. Their mothers were almost certainly helot women, not only because, as we shall see, the possibility of their mothers being Spartiate citizen women is excluded, but also because Phylarchus and the lexicographical sources stress the freedom status of the mothakes. This surely implies that they had slavery in their background.15 The assumption that the mothakes had helot back­ grounds also usefully explains Isocrates’ accusation of the aides of the decarch-harmosts of being slaves to a helot: ‘They chose to be slaves to one of the helots, with the result that they insult their own fatherlands.’16 Since ‘fatherlands’ is plural, it seems that the one helot to which the aides are slave is less likely to be their individual fatherland’s respective harmost, than the boss of the harmosts of all the fatherlands himself—the mothax Lysander. Lotze believes that there were other groups than nothoi also among the mothakes. The reason for this is the sheer number of mothakes that he thinks Phylarchus and Aelian imply there were: Phylarchus arguably implies that all Spartiate boys had mothakes to accompany them, and Aelian arguably implies that all the rich ones did. Lotze considers it absurd that all Spartiate fathers should have attempted to father nothoi on helot women at the same time as fathering legitimate children on their Spartiate wives, to provide the legitimate children with companions.17 He also thinks it inconceivable that the Spartan king Cleomenes can have had helot-born children for his companions18 (however, those ‘reared alongside’ a king are in any case in a peculiar situation, since the 175-6 think that the nothoi were a subset of the mothakes, and that other groups, in particular impoverished Spartiate boys of full Spartiate blood, may have been among them (Lotze himself in fact explicitly excludes nothoi from the group of mothakes, but by nothos he only denotes the extramarital children of two Spartiate citizen parents). Jones 1967 actually believed all mothakes to be impoverished ‘legitimate’ Spartiate citizens.

14 P lu tarch 15 16 17 18

L y sa n d e r 2.

Pace Lotze 1962: 428; cf. MacDowell 1986: 49. Isocrates 4. 111; cf. also Xenophon Hellenica 3. 5. 12. Lotze 1962: 429-32; cf. Oliva 1971: 175-6 and MacDowell 1986: 50. Lotze 1962: 430.

Common Bastardy

221

kings did not themselves undergo agôgë).''* He therefore suggests, without direct evidence, that the (legitimate) sons of impoverished Spartiates may also have been among the mothakes.1 920 The argu­ ment is not compelling. First, to believe that all the mothakes were nothoi is not tantamount to believing that the particular mothakes allocated to any one Spartiate boy were draw-n from among that boy’s own nothoi half-brothers. Secondly, although Phylarchus implies that the keeping of mothakes was a general custom, and Aelian implies that it was a general custom among the rich, neither author really does comment on the extent to which the custom was practised. Since the fathers of the Spartiate boys evidently paid for the education of their respective mothakes, Aelian’s limitation of mofAax-keeping to the rich reads very plausibly. Thirdly, the systematic mass-generation of nothoi should not be ruled out: it will be clear from what follows that the Spartans in the classical period were in constant panic about their population level and happy to take any number of extreme remedial procreative measures of the sort that would have been intolerable to families in other Greek states. It is even possible that Spartiate men were directed or encouraged to father mothakes by the state. The prospects for a mothax were good. Aelian says that they received citizenship upon completion of agôgë; Phylarchus thinks that this wras not statutory, but shows that mothakes could win citizenship by merit through the example of Lysander; Teles implies that those born of helot women that completed agôgë could gain either citizenship or something equivalent to it.2' We must conclude that most mothakes did indeed eventually enjoy citizen­ ship or something very similar. Those that did not achieve citizenship will have belonged to the ‘other crowd’ of men in Sparta’s complex hierarchy of classes who were free but not citizen.22 It is conceivable that the term mothax only defined a 19 See Plutarch Agis 4. 2; cf. MacDowell 1986: 48. 20 Lotze 1962: 430. He notes that the revivalists Agis and Cleomenes did later put perioecic children through agôgë to swell the numbers of warriors (Plutarch Agis 8. 3 and Cleomenes n . 3). He could have adduced, with greater relevance, Xenophon Lac. Pol. 5. 3 and Athenaeus I39b-i4ie, according to which land-rich Spartiates could gain status by patronizing their mess mates with extra donations of produce, animals and game from their estates, and Xenophon Lac. Pol. 6. 3 and Aristotle Politics 1263335-7, according to which the rich lent their horses and dogs for the use of poorer men. Cf. Hodkinson 1989: 96. 21 Lotze 1962: 432; cf. Mendels 1979: 114-15. 22 The quotation comes from Plutarch Agis 5. 7; cf. MacDowell 1986: 51.

222

Sparta

boyhood status (Sparta had many age-class divisions for Spartiate boys, each with its own name), and that those mothakes that did not become citizens entered one of the obscure lesser groups, such as the neodamödeis,21*2324*hypomeiones,2* and Brasideioi2i Let us turn to the three specific examples of mothakes with which Aelian and Phylarchus present us. What Plutarch tells us of Lysander’s origin certainly conforms with the profile of the mothax we have drawn up: he tells that he grew up in poverty, although his father was descended from the Heraclidai.26 So we have here a father of distinguished descent and an apparently obscure mother. Phylarchus tells that he was made a citizen for his courage, and we have no firm reason to disbelieve this.27 However, an interesting argument has been put forward by Bommelaer. Noting that Phylarchus’ attribution of the mothax-status to Lysander is introduced by ‘they say that’, he suggests that Lysander may have been only a mothax by the tendentious representation of his political enemies. He also thinks that the term mothax may indeed have acquired pejorative conno­ tations through being associated with the term mothön, the licentious dance with which it is confused by the lexicographical sources.28 Did Leotychidas then perhaps pay Lysander back in kind when Lysander was attempting, with Agesilaus, to dis­ lodge him from his throne with an accusation of bastardy?29 (The background to this suggestion is discussed below.) Corresponding counter-accusations of bastardy had, arguably, likewise developed between the rivals Cleomenes and Demaratus (also discussed below).20 If this were indeed the origin of Lysander’s representation as a mothax, then we should have lost one particular example of a mothax, but gained in its place further confirmation that it was indeed to notheia that the mothax-status corresponded. Gylippus was the son of the distinguished Cleandridas; his mother is again unknown. In the case of this man there is 21 As argued by MacDowell 1986: 51; cf., for this group, Oliva 1971: 166-72. 24 As argued by Oliva 1971: 175 and 177. 29 As Michell 1952: 40; cf. Oliva 1971: 170. 24 Plutarch Lysander 2. 27 Cf. MacDowell 1986: 49-50. 29 Bommelaer 1981: 36-8; cf. Oliva 1971: 177. 24 Xenophon Hellenica 3.3.1-4. 20 Cf. Griffiths 1989: 55.

Common Bastardy

223

circumstantial evidence that vaguely supports Lotze’s hypothesis that ordinary impoverished Spartiate boys could be found among the mothakes. Cleandridas had gone into exile after accepting a bribe from Pericles in 446,31 and at this time Gylippus can only have been a child (for he was not 60 by 404). He may therefore have had to complete his education funded by another.32 Callicratidas’ background is completely unknown. If these men were mothakes, then the status seems to have operated from at least the early 430s. Since agôgê began for children at the age of 7, the mothax-status must have operated from at least seven years after the last possible point at which these men could have been bom. Gylippus must have been bom before 446, for the reasons given above. Callicratidas was an admiral in 406, by which time he was doubtless well into his thirties. Lysander is difficult to date, but Bommelaer estimates that he was born in around 445-4.33345These three men may therefore have been almost exact contemporaries. It has been suggested that the status may have been developed in response to Spartan worries about population decline, and such a belief is compatible with such a terminus ante quem.u The status was apparently still in operation in some form during the youth of King Cleomenes III, who was born in around 260. Doubtless ttyere were female mothakes, whether or not they were known by the same or a similar name. Their fate is uncertain. Presumably they were either marriageable as if they were Spartiate citizen women, or merely fell back among the class of helot women, though in this case they would doubtless become the Spartiates’ concubines of choice, and mothers to further mothakes, male or female. It is worthwhile, briefly, to speculate on the possible etymology of the term mothax. It is often thought to be built on the root mothfound in mothos, ‘battle’ (cf. the similar pairs kömos/kömax and bömos/bömax). The term will thus have formerly meant ‘warrior’, which is quite appropriate to those reared in agôgé.is Possibly the 31 Thucydides 6. 93. 2, Diodorus 13. 106. io, Plutarch Pericles 22, Nicias 28. 5, and Suda s.v. es to deon. 32 Sec Lotze 1962: 434; cf. Mac Dowell 1986: 44-6. 33 Bommelaer 1981: 12. 34 Lotze 1962: 435. 35 See Chantraine 1968-80 and Boisacq 1950 s.v. , and Chrimes 1949: 223; pace Frisk 1960-72 s.v. It is remotely possible, as these scholars suggest, that mothön

224

Sparta

term should be compared with another glossed by Hesychius, mousax. He defines it as ‘one reared (trephomenos) by a boagos' .}6 A boagos, or, in Spartan dialect, bouagör, was a leader of a herd (iagelê) of boys.17 This comparison is particularly enticing because, as we saw, ‘being reared’ was a primary characteristic of the mothax, but unfortunately the assibilation of the theta in mousax is very difficult to account for. Chrimes would wish to go further and compare the mothakes with a shadowy group only found in inscrip­ tions from the imperial period, the ‘kasens*.18 She explains this term as meaning ‘adoptive brother,’ relating it to the kas- element of kasignötos, and to the terms kasis and kasis, which Hesychius glosses with ‘age-peer’ (hëlikiôtës), and to the term kasioi, which he glosses as ‘brothers and cousins from the same herd (agelë)'. Now the kasen inscriptions from the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia do reveal a boagos in charge of an age group, the mikichizëmenoi, to which a kasen is recorded as belonging (boagos mikichizëmenôn, kasen mikichizimenos).39 The hypothesis is suggestive, but too pre­ carious for us to build on. We certainly cannot follow Chrimes in believing that kasen denoted a childhood status to which mothax corresponded as an adult status.40 We have seen that, if anything, it is more likely that mothax itself denoted a childhood status.

SPARTIATE

WOMEN

AND

THE

LIMITS

OF

MARRIAGE

There were virtually no circumstances under which a Spartiate woman could give birth to a child that could be considered nothos. Marriage at Sparta was not on the whole circumscribed by legal processes, or by a defined marital group, and various types of polyandrous union were actually encouraged by the state. Although Sparta had some very distinctive wedding rituals, there does not seem to have been any actual process that was in derives ultimately from the same root as mothax and mothot, which may have in origin denoted 'whirling rapidly’. M Cf. Bourguet 1927:99-100 (w'ith n. 4); cf. Chantraine 1968-80 s.v. mothax and Ehrenberg 1933. ” Cf. Hesychius s.vv. boua and bouagör. “ e.g. IG [Guide nos. 57-8] v. 1, nos. 60, line 4, 71a, line 7, etc.; further refer­ ences at Chrimes 1949: 452-4. M Cf. Chrimes 1949: 94-100. 40 Ibid.: 100, 220-3; cf. Lotze 1962; 427.

Common Bastardy

225

itself constitutive of m arriage or a sine qua non of it, in the way that betrothal was a sine qua non of legal m arriage in A thens after Solon. Some have attem pted to caique Spartan marriage custom s on A thenian ones, and argued that at Sparta as at A thens ‘b etrothal’ (in Sparta known as harmozein )41 was indeed a sine qua non of legitim ate m arriage, which was duly com pleted by the act of ritual snatching or ‘rape’ (harpazein, harpage),42 which in turn corresponded to the actual giving of the bride in m arriage at A thens. A tale told by H erodotus suffices to show that this was not the case: L eo ty ch id as had becom e very hostile to D em aratus because of the follow ­ ing affair: w hen L eotychidas had b etro th ed him self (h a r m o s a m e n o u ) to Perkalos, d au g h ter of C hilon th e son of D em arm enos, D em aratu s p lo tted and d ep riv ed L eotychidas of his m arriage, having got in first and snatched ( h a r p a s a s ) Perkalos and taken her to wife. (H e ro d o tu s 6. 65. 2)

H ere the girl Perkalos ends up m arried to a m an simply by being snatched, and the m an to whom she had been engaged has no m arriage. Also, a m ethod of marriage at Sparta recounted by A thenaeus, if true, is incom patible w ith a legally significant betrothal: he tells that all the young unm arrieds would be shut in a dark room , and the young m en would each catch a girl, being bound to m arry w hichever one they caught w ithout a dowry (L ysander was punished for abandoning the first girl he caught and attem pting to m arry a prettier one).43 H ere the m arriage evidently has taken place as soon as the young m an has snatched his girl. A nd the fact that one could borrow other m en’s brides for the procreation of non-bastard children (on which see below) also tells against any legitim izing significance in or connected w ith the snatching ritual. T h e snatched girl was subjected to further distinctive rituals on her ‘w edding n ig h t’: after she had been snatched, her head was 41 F o r ‘b e t r o t h a l s ’ a t S p a r t a ( f u r t h e r t o t h a t o f L e o t y c h i d a s , d i s c u s s e d b e l o w ) s e e H e r o d o t u s 6 . 7 1 . 2 a n d 6 . 5 7 . 4 ; s e e o n th e s e M a c D o w e l l 1 9 8 6 : 7 7 - 8 a n d 81 a n d C a r t l e d g e 1 9 8 1 a : 9 9 - 1 0 0 , p a c e w h o m X e n o p h o n L a c . P o l. 9 . 5 is i r r e l e v a n t t o t h e d e b a te ,

as

M a c D o w e ll

rig h tly

n o te s .

B ic k e rm a n

1975:

1 0 -1 1

b e lie v e d

th a t

b e t r o t h a l s a t S p a r t a w e r e le g a lly b in d in g o n th e b a s is o f P l u t a r c h L ysa n d er 3 0 . 5

(m n êsteu sam en ou s).

42

F o r a g e n e ra l d e s c rip tio n

o f m a rria g e by s n a tc h in g a t S p a rta see P lu ta rc h

L y c u rg u s 1 5 . 4 ; c f . M a c D o w e l l 1 9 8 6 : 7 8 - 9 , C a r t l e d g e 1 9 8 1 a : 1 0 0 , a n d D e n B o e r 1954: 215 an d 227. 43 A t h e n a e u s a n d 100.

555bc;

c f.

M a c D o w e ll

1986:

8 0 -1 ;

pace C a r tle d g e

1981a:

98

226

Sparta

shaven, she was dressed as a man and laid on a pallet in the dark in her husband’s house. He would sneak away from the mess in the middle of the night in order to return to his bride and consummate the union.44 Again though, no part of this ritual appears to have been constitutive of marriage.45 (The ritual is best understood as a rite de passage for the bride between girlhood and womanhood, involving, as rites de passage often do, a symbolic sexual symmetri­ cal inversion.46) Nor does marriage at Sparta seem to have been very much limited by group, that is to say, there were apparently few restric­ tions on whom a Spartiate man or woman could marry. The closest we come to a Spartan interdiction on marriage outside a defined group is in a passage of Plutarch which tells that, in order to indict Leonidas II, another Lysander produced ‘some ancient law that forbade a Heraclid to have children by an alien woman,’ and also required that anyone who left Sparta to go to live with other peoples be put to death.47 The context shows that this law, if it had ever existed, was long in disuse. And indeed the law may only ever have applied to a few families. The ‘Heraclids’ that were subject to this interdiction may not have been the entire Spartiate community, but just those families in Sparta that did indeed claim Heraclid descent for themselves (like Lysander’s own): we know for example that the Aigeidai and Talthybiadai were not con­ sidered Heraclid.48 Or it is possible that it only bound the kings, since ‘Heraclids’ was sometimes used to define the Spartan royal families alone:49 ‘descendants of Heracles’ is used to denote the kings of Sparta alone by Plato50 and Xenophon.51 In practice the Spartan royal families did tend to be highly endogamous, with the 44 Plutarch Lycurgus 15. 5-9. 45 See Den Boer 1954: 227-8. Cartledge 1981a: 101, and MacDowell 1986: 8-9. 46 Cf., in general. Van Gennep i960, and in particular Calame 1977: i. 350-7 and Cartledge 1981a: 101. 47 Plutarch Agis 11. z; cf. Xenophon Lac. Pot. 14. 1, again clearly long in disuse. 44 See Herodotus 4. 149. 1 and 7. 134. 1, and cf. 6. 60. Cf. Cartledge 1987: 102, Chrimes 1949: 96 with n. 76 (and cf. chs. 3-6 and 10-11 in general), Oliva 1971: 118-22 and 36 and Ste. Croix 1972: 137-8. " See Carlier 1984: 247, Cartledge 1981a: 96, and Kahrstedt 1922: 133. w Plato Alcibiades 1. i2 id . 51 Xenophon Hcllemca 3. 3. 3. The context here seems to imply that Leotychidas is non-Heraclid simply because not the son of a king. It is difficult to read the ‘nonHeraclids’ as, more narrowly, just non-Spartans, because Xenophon here gives no indication that the man that cuckolded Agis was not a Spartan (though he must have been aware that this man was reputed to have been Alcibiades).

Common Bastardy

227

kings often marrying their nieces (cf. the marriages of the Agiads Anaxandridas II and Leonidas I, and of the Eurypontids Archidamus II, Eudemidas II, and Archidamus V52); and royal reproduction in any case usually operates to its own rules (as will be seen in Chapter 8). It is not clear whether ‘alien’ (allodapës) here means ‘non-Heraclid’, and therefore possibly defines most of the citizens (as well as the other inhabitants) of Sparta as much as anybody, or ‘non-Spartiate’ (so as to be equivalent to the females among the other peoples amongst whom one is also forbidden to emigrate). At least we can say that if ‘Heraclid’ here does mean ‘royal’, and allodapës means ‘non-Heraclid’ and therefore ‘nonroyal’, that the law was sometimes flouted, as at least three Spartan kings are known to have taken non-royal brides (the Agiad Anaxandridas II and the Eurypontids Leotychidas II and Archidamus II).53 ‘Have children’ (teknousthai) is presumably to be read to mean what it simply and literally says, and not with the added implication of have ‘legitimate children’, a meaning which we saw that the rather similar Attic word paidopoieisthai can some­ times possess.54 The literal meaning does indeed make reasonable sense in the light of later Spartan culture, since the classical Spartans clearly believed that not a drop of seed should be wasted. However, as we said, the law was evidently long in disuse in the classical period, and it should not detain us further. There is nothing else that really indicates that the Spartans had a restricted marriage group. It has been speculated that some non­ royal Spartan families exhibit endogamous tendencies, but this is far from proven, and in any case does not in itself indicate that the descent group was formally closed.55 Sparta did notoriously engage in mass expulsions of foreigners (xenêlasiai), but the apparent purpose of these was to protect the Spartan order and life-style, rather than the purity of the descent group.56 We have 52 Cf. Cartledge 1981a: 99, How and Wells 1912 on Herodotus 5. 39, and Hodkinson 1989: 92-3. 53 Cf. Hodkinson 1989: 91-2. 54 As at [Demosthenes] 59. 17 and 122. 53 For the arguments for endogamous tendencies see Ste. Croix 1972: 353-4 and Cartledge 1987: 121-2 and 131; against these see MacDowell 1986: 25-6, Michell 1952: 43, Lewis 1977: 43, and Willetts 1954: 30. 54 See Plutarch Lycurgus z"j. 6—7 (cf. 9. 5), Plato Protagoras 342d, and Xenophon Lac. Pol. 14. 4. Plutarch Moralia 238e shows that xenêlasiai and the enfranchise­ ment of foreigners were not actually incompatible. Cf. Gomme et al. 1945-81 ad Thucydides 2. 39. 1 and Cartledge 1987: 108, 128, and 243-4.

228

Sparta

already seen that the Spartans found aliens that had completed agôgè highly acceptable,’7 and indeed Aristotle tells us that before the fifth century aliens were sometimes enfranchised to make up the number of Spartiates’8 (though the case of Athens in the years after the Periclean citizenship law shows that the mass enfran­ chisement of aliens is compatible, at any rate theoretically, with the maintenance of a closed descent group). It has also been argued that the misdemeanour of ‘bad marriage’ (kakogamion) covered marriage to aliens.” There is no evidence for this. We shall locate the misdemeanour in its proper context below. There is some vague indication that the Spartans did indeed practise intermarriage. Nicolaus of Damascus, a source of variable reliability, says: ‘The Spartans exhort their women to conceive children by the best-looking men, both citizen and alien’ (Nicolaus of Damascus FGH 90 F103Z).40 The encouragement of wives to get children from other citizens may seem bizarre and incredible enough in itself, but is in fact confirmed by other more definitely reliable sources, and indeed it fits very well into the Spartan ideology of procreation (as we shall see below). It therefore seems quite probable that the wives were indeed encouraged to get children from aliens also. If so, then one might suppose a fortiori that Spartan women were allowed to marry alien men, and that Spartan men were allowed to marry alien women. The case of the Athenian Alcibiades might initially appear to contradict Nicolaus’ assertion: he was reputed to have fathered the would-be king Leotychidas on the wife of Agis, and Leotychidas was eventually deprived of his crown because of this. But royalty’ is, as ever, a special case. Leotychidas had to lose his crown because Lysander persuaded the people that an oracle forbade nothoi to be kings, and possibly because he was not the son of a king, as a king had to be. There is no reason to think that Leotychidas lost his citizenship. (The incident is discussed in Chapter 8.) Intermarriage may never have occurred on a large scale in Sparta, and in that sense it may never have become what could be called a ‘custom’, but it seems7 S7 Teles apud Stobaeus Florilegium 40. 8. M Aristotle Politics 1270«34-6, but Cartledge 1987: 24-5 and Kelly 1979 are sceptical. Herodotus was wrong to claim at 9. 35. 1 that ‘of all mankind only Teisamenos and Agias of Elis have been made Spartiates’, since Cleomenes I had given citizenship to Isagoras (Lysias 12. 72). H T hus Mac Dowell 1986: 74. “ Cf. Den Boer 1954: 217.

Common Bastardy

229

unlikely that it was forbidden, and very unlikely that either the children of Spartan men and alien women (mitroxenoi) or the children of Spartan women and alien men (‘patroxenoi’) were con­ sidered anything akin to nothoi. There remains one further theoretical limitation on the marriageable group to consider: incest. The one thing we know about the conceptualization of incest at Sparta comes from Philo: ‘The lawgiver of the Spartans by contrast [sc. with Athens] allowed marriage between maternal half-siblings, but forbade marriage between those of the same father’ (Philo Special Laws 3. 22).61 This seems quite compatible with what we know of the Spartan marital system, since its wife-sharing practices (discussed below) ought to have made maternal half-siblings especially common. It is also quite compatible with the fact that the Spartans apparently attributed the more active role in reproduction to the male sperm.62 However, we do not know of any Spartan paternal half-siblings, and therefore cannot comment on their fate. Although incestuous birth was not in itself a criterion for the exposure of babies by the tribal elders that scrutinized all the new­ born for fitness to live, weakness was (see below).65 Hence it is conceivable that incestuous babies (by the Spartan or indeed the Athenian definition) tended to be exposed at a higher rate than non-incestuous babies because of genetic weaknesses caused by inbreeding.

THE

IDEOLOGY

OF

PROCREATION

tTEKSOPOIIA>

The Spartans employed a number of practices within and around marriage that were bizarre by the standards of the other Greeks. Consideration of these practices will make clear how unlikely it is that any child borne by a Spartan woman would have been considered in any sense bastard. Before examining these practices themselves, and their implications for bastardy, it will be helpful to investigate the ideology that underpinned them: the ‘ideology M Cf. Mac Dowel I 1986: 82 and Cartledge 1981a: 98. Erdmann 1934: 183-5 dis­ believes Philo here. 62 See Herodotus 6. 68. 3, and cf. 6. 61. 2, with the discussion below. See also Cartledge 1981a: 98 and 102-3. *5 Plutarch Lycurgus 16.

230

Sparta

of procreation’ (teknopoiia).M This ideology was based upon a number of related tenets: 1. That the state of Sparta needed to produce as many children as possible, whatever measures were necessary to achieve this; 2. That the martial might of Sparta, both in terms of the size of its manpower and in terms of the vigour of individual warriors, was transmitted in the sperm of its men; 3. That the sperm of two men might mingle in the womb and create a child to which both men were biological fathers; 4. That the contingent qualities of their parents at the time of conception, in particular those of their fathers, were passed on to children as inherent qualities. Let us consider the evidence for each of these tenets in turn. i. Since the Messenian wars the Spartans had been anxious about their relatively small numbers by comparison with the mas­ sive and simmeringly rebellious helot population over which they presided. Throughout the classical period the Spartans faced a ter­ rible decline in the citizen population, of which the causes are not altogether clear, though wars and frequent earthquakes certainly contributed to it.65 It is hardly surprising therefore that parent­ hood was in general celebrated and rewarded in Sparta. As for the women, Spartan mothers were famously idealized, and this fact is best reflected in Plutarch’s collection of Sayings of Spartan Women.66 It was their boast that they alone were mothers of ‘real men’.67 Women that died in childbed were the only ones, alongside men that died on campaign, excepted from the bar upon named tombstones.68 As for the men, Aristotle tells: For the lawgiver, intending that there should be as many Spartiates as 64 Brilliantly analysed by Den Boer 1954: 214-32. 65 The evidence is assembled by Cartledge 1979: 307-18, Ste. Croix 1972: 331-2, and Hodkinson 1989: esp. 82-9. Cf. also Cartledge 1976 for earthquakes. The chief evidence is as follows: 480: 8,000 (Herodotus 7. 234. 2); 479: 5,000 (Herodotus 9. 10. 1, 11. 3, 28. 2, and 29. 1); 418: 3,500 (Thucydides 5. 64 and 68); 394: 2,500 (Xenophon Hellenica 4. 2. 16, extrapolated); 371: 1,500 (Xenophon Hellenica 6. 1. 1, 6. 4. 15, and 6. 4. 17). 64 Moralia 240-2. 67 Plutarch Lycurgus 14. 4; cf. Den Boer 1954: 216-18. 68 See Plutarch Lycurgus 27. 2; IG [Guide nos. 57-8] v. 1 713-14 exemplify tombstones for women that have died in childbed. See Cartledge 1981a: 95 and 1979: 309.

Common Bastardy

231

possible, encourages the citizens to beget as many children as possible. For they have a law that states that the man that has fathered three sons should be exempt from military service, and that the man that has fathered four should be exempt from all taxes. (Aristotle Politics 1270b i-4)69

Perhaps the most significant indication that the production of children was organized for the benefit of the state rather than individual fathers or families is the fact that the right to choose whether to rear or expose children, which usually lay with the father in the Greek world, was at Sparta withheld from him and given rather to agents of the state, the elders of the father’s tribe. The father of a new-born child did not have the right to choose whether or not to rear it, but he had to carry it and take it to a place called a lescht, sitting in which the elders of the tribesmen examined the child, and if it was well-made and sturdy, they bade him rear it, allocating to it one of the 9,000 lots. But if it was mean and misshapen, they sent it away to a place called Apothetai, a crevasse-like place beside Taygetus, on the ground that it was better neither for the child itself nor the city that a child that was not born with an originally healthy and strong constitution should live. (Plutarch Lycurgus 16. i)70

This passage shows that neither bastardy nor anything akin to it was a criterion in the decision whether or not a child should be reared. 2. That the martial might of Sparta was transmitted via sperm is in the first instance best illustrated in the context of Spartan homosexual practices. It has been shown that the Spartans considered that the semen injected during sodomy (or possibly fellatio) transmitted the lover’s military prowess to the beloved.71 Likewise in heterosexual and potentially fruitful liaisons Spartan men were to use their precious seed for the good of the state: M Cf. Aelian Varia historia 6. 6. Cf. also MacDowell 1986: 76-7 and Cartledge 1981a: 89 and 95, and 1979: 311. 70 Cf. Roussel 1943; I discuss this passage in some detail in Ogden 1994. 71 Aleman F34 Page, Theocritus 12. 13, Callimachus F68 Pfeiffer, with scholia, Plutarch Cleomenes 3. 2 and Agis 24, Aelian Varia historia 3. 12, Hesychius s.v. empnei moi. Et. gen. s.v. eispnélis, Etymologicum magnum 43. 31 and 306. 22, and Choeroboscus on Theodosius Canones 166. 33. See Bethe 1907, Bourguet 1927: 151-2, Ruppersberg 1911, Jeanmaire 1939: 456-8, Dover 1964: 37, 42 n. 35, 1978: 187-9, 193-4, and 202 n. 13, Williams 1969: 148-9, Bremmer 1980: 280-3 and 293, Buffiere 1980: 56-7 and 69-73, Cartledge 19816: 19-20, 23-5, and 31 n. 18, and my forthcoming article ‘Homosexuality and Warfare in Ancient Greece*.

232

Sparta

First, Lycurgus did not consider that children belonged to their fathers personally, but were the common property of the city, wherefore he wished that those who were to be citizens should be born not from any chance parents but those that were the best. And then he observed a great deal of folly and blindness in the practices of others in these matters, since they had their bitches and mares mounted by the best studs, persuading their owners by favour or pay, but shut up and guarded their womenfolk, claiming the sole right to produce children from them, even if they were senseless, or beyond the prime of life, or sickly, as if the baseness of children that were bom of base men did not affect in the first instance those that possessed and reared them, and likewise the goodness of children that were bom of good men. (Plutarch Lycurgus 15. 14-15)

The importance of sperm in this process is noticed by Plutarch in this same chapter, where he talks of the ideal of a well-bred (kalos kai agathos) young man filling a woman with his ‘noble sperm’.72 The principle that all heterosexual sex was good so long as it was prospectively to enhance the martial might of the city is well illus­ trated in the admiring chant that the older Spartans raised when the young Acrotatus, who was having an ‘adulterous’ affair with Chilonis, wife of King Cleonymus, displayed brilliant valour in battle: ‘Go Acrotatus, and screw Chilonis: just make sure you beget brave children for Sparta’ (Plutarch Pyrrhus 28).73 Plutarch tells of three marriage-related misdemeanours that men could commit at Sparta: ‘non-marriage’ (agamion), ‘late marriage’ (opsigamion), and ‘bad marriage’ (kakogamion): The Spartans fined the men that wooed the daughters [of Lysander] for giving up their suits upon their discovery of his poverty after he died, because they courted the girls whilst they thought he was rich, but abandoned them on discovering that he was just and good through poverty. For there was it seems at Sparta a crime (dike) of ‘non-marriage,’ ‘late marriage’, and ‘bad marriage’. They punished under this crime those in particular that sought rich in-laws instead of good ones from their own class. (Plutarch Lysander 30. 6-7)74

‘Late’ and ‘bad marriage’ we shall discuss shortly, but it is the first, ‘non-marriage’, that is of interest here. The unmarried were clearly felt to be betraying Sparta’s posterity by not contributing 72 Plutarch 15. 12. See the important exegesis of this term by Den Boer 1954: 216-17; cf. also Cartledge 1981a: 102 and MacDowell 1986: 86. 73 The story of the affair is told in chs. 26-8 of this work. 74 So too Pollux 3. 48 and 8. 40. Cf. Cartledge 1981a: 94 and MacDowell 1986: 73- 4.

Common Bastardy

*33

their vigorous seed to its strength. They were ritually humiliated at the annual festival of the Gymnopaidiai, at which they had to parade naked and sing derogator)- songs about themselves; they also forfeited the traditional Spartan reverence of youth for age, and their status was assimilated to that of the ‘Cowards’ (tresantes, discussed below).7S It seems likely that, for all that the misde­ meanour was entitled ‘non-marriage’, the real point at issue was not simply the lack of marriage but the wider one of the lack of children fathered.76 But failure to make a marriage when given an opportunity was probably none the less punishable under the mis­ demeanour: hence the punishment of thé suitors of the daughters of Lysander. Plutarch invokes the triad of ‘non-marriage’, ‘late marriage’, and ‘bad marriage’ to explain the fine, mentioning ‘non­ marriage’ first.77 It may, however, be felt that we are stretching the apparent meaning of the term too far, if we attempt to make it cover the refusal of young men to make one particular marriage, rather than to marry in general, and a case can be made for their misdemeanour falling rather under the category of ‘bad marriage’ (see below). The unmarried could however still reach high office: the unmarried Dercyllidas became a respected general.78 It is perhaps to the fine for non-marriage that Xenophon refers when he explains that Cowards must go without a wife and yet pay a fine for this.76 Significantly, the 400 Spartans that were selected for what was known to be the suicide mission of the defence of Thermopylae in 480 had all produced male issue.80 These men were in a sense expendable since they had already contributed their seed to posterity. A similar thought may underlie the exemption of those men that had fathered three sons from military service.81 Indeed, in this case it may have been felt that, since the men had already transmitted their might to three sons, they may have had insufficient left to remain first-class warriors themselves. 75 Plutarch Lysander 30. 7, Lycurgus 15. 1-3, Stobæus Florilegium 67. 16 Menecke, Pollux 3. 48 and 8. 40, and Xenophon Lac. Pol. 9. 4-5. Cf. Cartledge 1981a: 95.1979: 310, 1987: 110, MacDowell 1986: 76, and Den Boer 1954: 218-27. 76 This is suggested by the existence of customs such as those described at Xenophon Lac. Pol. 1.7-9, quoted and discussed below; cf. Den Boer 1954: 222-7. 77 Plutarch Lysander 30. 7. 7* Plutarch Lycurgus 15. 3. n Lac. Pol. 9. 5. *" Herodotus 7. 205. 2; cf. Cartledge 1979: 309 and Hodkinson 1989: 101. " Aristotle Politics 1270b 1-4, quoted above.

234

Sparta

3. The third tenet of the ideology of procreation was the belief that if two men slept with a woman at around the same time, their seed could mingle in her womb and beget a child to which both were biological fathers: for convenience, we shall term this concept ‘parallel insemination’. This concept seems to underlie some Spartan myths, most notably that of the ‘Tyndaridai’. Immortal Zeus and mortal Tyndareus, sleeping with Leda at a close interval, jointly fathered on her the twin pairs of the Dioscuri (Castor and Pollux) and Helen and Clytemnestra. In the case of each of the two pairs of twins one was immortal and the other mortal, though the former pair finally contrived to share their immortality.82 So too Heracles was apparently sired both by the mortal Amphitryon and by Zeus, disguised as Amphitryon, after they had both slept with Alcmene on adjacent nights.83 As a result, Heracles’ status was ever ambivalent between mortal and divine.84 In what appears to have been a very similar episode, it seems probable that both the mortal king Ariston and the demon Astrabacus, disguised as Ariston, were believed or at any rate argued by some to have slept with Ariston’s wife on the same night to produce king Demaratus (see below).8S It has been interestingly suggested that tales of this kind may relate to ‘sacred marriage’ rituals, in which a mortal man is held to embody a god as he makes love to his wife.86 Moving on from myth and legend to actual Spartan practice, it seems probable that a belief in parallel insemination underpinned a practice recounted by Xenophon: ‘Lycurgus allowed an old man, bringing in in addition the sort of man whose body and soul he admired, to procreate children’ (Xenophon Lac. Pol. 1. 7-9). It is 82 Lactantius i. 21, Hyginus Fabulae 77 and 80, Homer Odyssey 11. 299, Iliad 3. 426, Euripides Helen 254, 1497, 1680, Pindar Nemean 10. 80, and Apollodorus Bibliotheca 3. 10. 6-7. 83 The tale is told, with humorous embellishments, in Plautus* Amphitryo. Other sources for the tale: Hesiod Shield of Heracles 27-56, Apollodorus Bibliotheca 2. 4. 8, Hyginus Fabula 29, Tzetzes On Lycophron 33 and 932, Pindar Isthmian 7. 5, Diodorus 4. 9, Schol. Homer Iliad 14. 323 and Schol. Homer Odyssey 11. 266. 84 Heracles ponders his paternity in Euripides’ Heracles 1258-65 (cf. 353-4, 696, 1341-6), on which see Bond 1981 ad loc. Herodotus 2. 42-5 is much exercised over the question of Heracles’ status and posits that there were two Heracleses, a mortal and a divine one. 85 Herodotus 6. 67-9. Herodotus tells that Ariston visited his wife after Astrabacus had slept with her, though he does not explicitly say that he slept with her. 86 Cf. Seeberg 1966: 63 (on the Astrabacus episode as 'sacred marriage’) and Burkert 1985: 108-9 (for 'sacred marriage’ in general).

Common Bastardy

235

clear from the w ording of this passage that both the old m an and the younger one slept w ith the old m an’s wife at the same time. T h a t it is not simply a case of the old man standing im potently to one side is indicated by the fact that it is the old man him self that remains the gram m atical subject of the verb ‘to procreate ch ild ren ’ (teknopoiësasthai), and by the fact that the word ‘bringing in in addition’ (epagomenöi) is normally used of one army bringing in an allied one to fight battles side by side with it.87 T h e young m an ’s role is apparently to provide Zeugungshilfe for the old man, to support his weak seed with his own younger and more vigorous seed.88 4. T h a t the contingent qualities of a child’s parents at the tim e of his conception, particularly those of the father, were believed to be passed to the child as inherent qualities can be illustrated in a num ber o f ways. It was considered to be a Lycurgan principle: L y cu rg u s con sid ered the m ost im p o rtan t task for free w om en to be th e b earing o f ch ild ren ( t e k n o p o i i a ), so he com m anded th e fem ale sex to exercise th e ir bodies no less th an th e m ale . . . considering th a t children th at are b o rn o f two strong parents are b o rn stronger. (X enophon L a c .

Pol. 1. 3)89 Plutarch also tells that it was custom ary for girls not to be m arried until they were ‘in their prim e and ripe for m arriage’.90 T h ere is, however, no reason to think that there was actually a legal bar on the m arriage of younger women, or, for that matter, younger men.91 As we have m entioned, beside the m arriage-related m isde­ m eanour o f ‘non-m arriage’ was one of ‘late m arriage’ (opsigamion), for which the penalties are unknow n. Plutarch implies that the Spartans considered children fathered by m en past their prim e (parëlikes ) to be of inferior quality, in w hat may be a veiled 87 S e e

L i d d e l l et a l.

1968

s .v .

ep a g ô ii. 2 . X e n o p h o n ’s i n f o r m a t i o n h e r e

is

r e w o r k e d b y P l u t a r c h a t L ycu rg u s 1 5 . 1 2 , b u t P l u t a r c h ’s p h r a s e o l o g y i m p l i e s t h a t t h e y o u n g e r m a n f a th e r s t h e c h i l d r e n c o m p le te l y o n h is o w n in th i s s itu a tio n . 88 S e e D e n B o e r 1 9 5 4 : 2 1 7 . 89 C f . C r i t i a s D K 8 8 F 3 2 . 90 P l u t a r c h L ycu rg u s 1 5 . 4 ; c f . X e n o p h o n M e m o r a b ilia 4 . 4 . 2 3 . S e e C a r t l e d g e 1 9 8 1 a: 9 4 -5 , M a c D o w e ll 1986: 7 2 -3 a n d 7 8 , a n d D e n B o e r 1954: 2 2 9 -3 0 . 91 F o r t h e l a c k o f a l o w e r l e g a l m a r r i a g e a b l e a g e f o r m e n , s e e M a c D o w e l l 1 9 8 6 : 7 3 . C a r t l e d g e 1 9 8 1 a : 9 4 b e lie v e s t h a t t h e r e w a s in d e e d a lo w e r le g a l lim it f o r m e n o n t h e b a s i s o f P l u t a r c h C leom enes 1. 1 , w h i c h t e l l s h o w L e o n i d a s m a r r i e d a w o m a n to h is s o n C le o m e n e s , e v e n th o u g h h e w a s n o t q u ite o f a s u ita b le a g e to m a rry ; th e p a s s a g e c o u l d e q u a l ly w e ll s u p p o r t t h e o p p o s i t e a r g u m e n t .

236

Sparta

reference to the misdemeanour.92 Clearly the Spartans disap­ proved of old men marrying because their seed was believed to be past its most vigorous, and so by fathering children an old man was debilitating Sparta’s posterity. The Spartans may also have worried that by marrying an old man was ‘hogging’ a womb that could be put to better use with a young husband (but there were remedies for this situation, as we shall see). There may appear initially to be an inconcinnity between penalizing men both for not marrying and also for marrying late, but the point of both measures was to direct as exclusively as possible the young and vigorous warriors towards the women: we must assume that while ‘late marriage’ was evidently an old man’s crime, ‘non-marriage’ was a young man’s. We have seen that Nicolaus of Damascus tells that Spartan men would encourage their wives to conceive children by citizens and aliens—specifically by the ‘good looking’ of these.93 A good physique, again, was only a contingent quality, but one that was evidently held to be passed on to a child. It was probably the belief that parents passed on their contin­ gent properties to their children as inherent ones that led to the unfortunate situation of the ‘Cowards’ (tresantes, literally ‘those that fled fearfully in battle*): ‘He must keep his unmarried female relatives at home and account for their unmarried state, and must put up with having a hearth without a wife, and at the same time pay a fine for that’ (Xenophon Lac. Pol. 9. 5). They suffered various other public humiliations also: they were excluded from sport, relegated to insulting positions in the dance, and required to pay to the young the respect that the young paid to the old; they were beaten if they appeared cheerful, and had to shave off half of their beards.94 It is conceivable that the third marriage-related misdemeanour in the series mentioned above, ‘bad marriage’ (kakogamion), related to the Cowards: since kakos can mean cowardly, the term kakogamion may have meant marrying as a Coward, or marrying the daughter of a Coward. Alternatively, kakos may have been used here in its related sense of ‘low-bom’ or 'physically mean’, so that kakogamion would have been ‘marriage to a low-born woman’, or 'marriage to a physically mean woman’, n Lycurgus 15. 15. *’ Nicolaus of Damascus FGH 90 F 103z. * Xenophon Lac. Pol. 9 and Plutarch Agesilaus 30. 4. See MacDowell 1986: 45.

Common Bastardy

237

or even ‘marriage by a physically mean man’.95 The second of these in particular would accord well with the Spartan eugenic ideals we have already discussed, and would nicely explain why the ephors fined Archidamus II (c.469-427) for marrying a short or ugly wife96 (short pelvises can indeed complicate pregnancies).97 The third of these meanings, ‘marriage by a physically mean man’, might be supported by the fact that in the passage referred to above, in which Plutarch recounts the Spartan disapproval of old men siring children, which is apparently a veiled reference to the misdemeanour of ‘late marriage’, he also adjacently mentions Spartan dispproval of marriage by sick men, and this could well therefore be a veiled reference to the misdemeanour of ‘bad marriage’. Or again, reading kakos as simply ‘bad’, the mis­ demeanour may have covered, more widely, ‘bad behaviour with regard to marriage’. The reason for thinking this is that Plutarch invokes the triad of ‘non-marriage’, ‘late marriage’, and ‘bad marriage’ to explain why the suitors of Lysander’s daughters were penalized for abandoning their suits upon the discovery that the girls’ father was poor.98 The suitors were clearly not guilty of ‘late marriage’; it is just possible, as we saw, that they were guilty of ‘non-marriage’, but if this supposition is after all felt to stretch the apparent significance of the term too far, then they must have been guilty of ‘bad marriage’. It has in fact been argued on the basis of this case that it was the ‘bad marriage’ misdemeanour that addressed specifically the privileging of economic criteria in the search for marriage.99 But other suggestions can be made as to what may have constituted bad behaviour with regard to marriage—sexual abstinence, for example. Whatever ‘bad mar­ riage’ covered, there is no reason to think that the offspring of a ‘bad’ or 'late marriage’ were accorded a status that was ‘bastard’ or inferior in any way (clearly there was no issue of anything like ‘bastardy’ in the case of agamion). A further but unfortunately controversial example of the operation of the principle that fathers passed on their contingent qualities to their sons as inherent ones is to be found in the ** Cf. Mac Dowell 1986: 74 and 87, who considers that kakogamion covered the categories so far discussed. * Plutarch Agesilaus 2. 6 and Moralia id. Cf. Cartledge 1981a: 96. 97 See Gill 1977: 44. " Plutarch Lysander 30. 7. 99 Cartledge 1981a: 96.

238

Sparta

principle of royal succession at Sparta. Herodotus explains it, in the mouth of Demaratus, as he supports Xerxes’ claim to succeed to the Persian throne: Since also at Sparta, said Demaratus, giving his advice, it was the practice that, if there were children bom before their father came to the throne, and a later-bom child was bom to him afterwards whilst he was on the throne, the succession to the throne belonged to the one that was bom after. (Herodotus 7. 3)

The succession principle outlined here is conveniently termed ‘porphyrogenesis’, literally ‘birth in (royal) purple’, by anthropo­ logists. The underlying belief is that to have the nature of a king, one must be bom to a man that contingently is king. Many scholars mistrust Herodotus’ claim that this principle operated in Sparta, which is odd, since no source actually contends that the royal succession worked any differently. Unfortunately, we have too little evidence for exact accession dates of Spartan kings and birth dates of Spartan princes to test the principle directly for our­ selves. However, it has been cleverly argued that a version of the principle can be detected operating in some cases of successions to kings that died without sons. In these cases the successor appears not to have been the dead king’s closest male agnate, but the most direct descendant of the most recent exerciser of the royal power.100 And even if one were to doubt that the principle of porphyrogenesis was actually invoked in any actual royal succes­ sions, it could still be argued that the idea significantly originated at Sparta.101

POLYANDROUS

FORMS

AT

SPARTA

The Spartans practised various forms of polyandry, and the preceding review of their ideology of procreation will help us make sense of them. Spartan men did not formally practise polygyny, 100 Carlier 1984: 240-7. Thus Pleistarchus was succeded in 458 by Pleistoanax, great-grandson of the last common relative Anaxandridas, despite the existence of Nicomedes, who was a grandson of Anaxandridas, because Pleistoanax was the son of a more recent occupant of the throne, Pausanias, and conceived during his regency. The successions to Cleomenes I and Cleomenes II can be similarly understood. 101 As Macan 1895-1908 ad loc.

Common Bastardy

239

as is indicated by the exceptional case of Anaxandridas, whose bigamous adventure, described by Herodotus as ‘in no way a Spartan act’, had to be specially sanctioned by ephors and gerousia (senate).102 Perhaps the lack of polygyny was due to a relative shortage of Spartan women.103 We might have expected that there would have been rather a superfluity of women because, as Plutarch tells us, the state decided whether any given child should be reared on the basis of its health and strength.104 Sex is not said to have been a factor, so that as many girls should have been reared as boys, with the latter being more subject to the wastage of war. However, Plutarch refers to the allocation of land-lots to the successful babies, which may imply that the provisions only applied to males (he uses the grammatically neuter terms gennëthen and to paidarion); the rearing of girl babies may after all then have been left to the discretion of their father, and there may indeed have been an overall shortage of women. But Spartan men could enjoy a quasi-polygyny: as we saw, at least some of them did in addition to their wives take on helot women as concubines, and father the so-called mothakes by them (see above). The main sources for polyandrous practices at Sparta are passages from Polybius, Xenophon, Plutarch, and Nicolaus of Damascus. Polybius says: [a] Amongst the Spartans it was ancestral and customary for three or four husbands to keep a wife, and even more if they were brothers, and the children of these people were held in common, [6] and it was a fine thing and customary that, when a man had begotten sufficient children, he should hand his wife over to one of his friends. (Polybius 12. 6b. 8)105

The key Xenophontic and Plutarchean passages have already been referred to: [c] Lycurgus allowed an old man, bringing in in addition the sort of man whose body and soul he admired, to procreate children, [d] Moreover, if anyone did not wish to marry a wife (gynaiki . . . synoikein), but desired children worthy of account, he made this also lawful, that, if the man saw a woman that had fine children and was noble, he might procreate 102 H e r o d o t u s 5 . 4 0 ; c f . P a u s a n i a s 3 . 3 . 9 . 103 C f . C a r t l e d g e 1 9 8 1 a : 9 0 ; p a c e P o m e r o y 1 9 7 5 : 3 6 a n d 2 2 7 - 8 . 104 P l u t a r c h L ycu rg u s 1 6 . 1. 105 C f . M a c D o w e l l 1 9 8 6 : 8 5 , C a r t l e d g e 1 9 8 1 a : 1 0 2 , W i l l e t t s 1 9 5 4 : 3 0 w i t h n . 4 3 a n d H o d k in s o n 1989: 112. C a r tle d g e

thinks fraternal polyandry was

to in a c ris is , b u t th is d o e s n o t e m e rg e fro m P o ly b iu s .

o n ly

resorted

240

Sparta

children from her, having persuaded her husband. And he agreed many such things. For the women want to preside over two households, while the men want to get for their sons additional brothers that share in the family and its power, but do not make a claim on the estate. (Xenophon Lac. Pol. i . 7 - 1 0 ) [c] It was possible for the older husband of a young wife, if he admired and respected one of the well-bred young men, to introduce him to her, and having filled her up with noble sperm (getmaion sperma), to make the child his own ( hautou) . 106 [d] Conversely, it was possible for a good man that admired a woman that had fine children and a temperate nature, but was married to another man, to persuade her husband and have sex with her, sowing his seed, as it were, in fruitful soil and making good children who would share the blood and be relatives of good men. (Plutarch Lycurgus 1 5 . 1 2 - 1 3 V 07 W e recall also the fragm ent of N icolaus of Damacus:

[e] The Spartans exhort their own wives to become pregnant by the best­ looking men, both citizen and alien. (Nicolaus of Damascus FGH 90 F103Z)

T h e sociological paternity of such children is of prim e interest to u s.108 Polybius says openly of case (a) that paternity was held in com m on betw een the w om an’s several husbands.109 G iven the Spartan belief that the seed of tw o men (or, doubtless, m ore) could m ingle in the wom b to produce a baby to which both were bio­ logical fathers (tenet 3, above), it was quite appropriate that sociological paternity should also be regarded as belonging to all. Initially it seems that paternity ought to have been relatively easy to determ ine in case (6), bu t in fact there is recorded an alleged dispute over the paternity of a Spartan child, albeit a royal ,M The editor Coraes read hautois for hautou, which would mean that the old man recognized the child as both his own and the younger man’s. But this is poorer Greek, and is surely erroneous. Also, Xenophon is clearly Plutarch's source here, and Xenophon does imply that the older man alone retained sociological paternity. See Mac Dowell 1986: 87 for some important observations on the use of the word poiisasthai here. 107 On these two passages, see in particular Cartledge 1981a: 103, Mac Dowell 1986: 86 and Den Boer 1954: 216. 10t For discussions, see Cartledge 1981a: 103 and Mac Dowell 1986: 86-8. 109 However, Mac Dowel I 1986: 86 thinks that Polybius has got it wrong: either, he believes, Polybius has confused Sparta with the ideal state of Plato Republic 457d (a state, incidentally, heavily influenced by Sparta), or he has misintepreted a Lycurgan maxim such as the one that held that children were 'the common property of the state’, found at Plutarch Lycurgus 15. 14, and mentioned above.

Common Bastardy

241

one, that was apparently conceived close to the point of the woman’s transition between her two husbands. Herodotus tells how Ariston tricked his friend Agetus out of his beautiful wife, who then bore a child, Demaratus, less than ten (lunar) months after the transition: Ariston allegedly at first denied and then later claimed the paternity of Demaratus, but his alleged initial doubt was later to enable Cleomenes to depose Demaratus from the throne to which he had title by virtue of being Ariston’s son."0 Two points should be noted. First, as we often observe, royalty is a special case. The whole point of the dispute over the paternity of Demaratus is that his title to be king depends upon it. Such a concern would not have held in the case of a child conceived at the point of transition as its mother was being passed from one ordinary citizen husband to another ordinary citizen husband. Secondly, this case differs significantly from case (a) in that the two husbands do not sleep with the woman at the same time, but in two discrete periods; for this reason, the Spartans would have held that the biological paternity of the child in case (b) was, at least theoretically, ascribable to one man, whereas that in case (a) was only ascribable to a group. In case (c), which we have already discussed in part, it seems fairly clear from the Xenophontic account that the old man both contributed, perhaps weakly, to biological paternity, and had sociological paternity. Although Plutarch’s rehash of Xenophon’s words loses some of the subtlety of the old man’s continuing biological contribution, he makes it clearer (if we take what I think is the preferable manuscript reading of hautou) that his was the sociological paternity. And similarly, in case (e), the children fathered on Spartan men’s wives by the good-looking citizens and aliens with whom they had encouraged them to sleep were doubtless likewise ascribed to the sociological paternity of the husband. In case (d ), it seems clear from what Xenophon says that it was the lover that assumed sociological paternity. Case (d) is after all initiated when the lover desires to have children. And if two households are to be created, and if the man that already has sons, i.e. the husband, is to acquire for his sons brothers that he himself will not be responsible for, then the new children produced must 1,0

H e ro d o tu s 6 . 6 2 -3 . C f. C a r tle d g e 1 9 8 1 a: 102.

242

Sparta

be ascribed to the sociological paternity of the lover.1" Case (d) is therefore, in its ‘legal’ effect, the opposite of cases (c) and (e). Needless to say, none of the offspring of these various forms of polyandrous union was in any way ‘bastardized’. It is the fact that they were not bastardized that makes these marital practices remarkable and gives our sources cause to mention them. Indeed, the marital customs that we have reviewed hitherto lead us to suppose that there must in practice have been very few situations, if any, in which a Spartan woman could give birth to a child that need be considered bastard: women could be considered married after simply being ‘seized’, and could bear ‘legitimate’ children fathered by men other than their husband, whether citizen or alien. MacDowell well observes that ‘the concept of legitimacy must have tended to disappear when a husband permitted another man to have intercourse with his wife’." 2 Just two theoretical possibilities hinder us from proclaiming immediately and categorically that a Spartan woman could never bear a bastard. The first possibility relates to the identity of the sire of her children. No mention is made in our sources as to whether Spartan women were permitted to bear children from men that were neither citizen nor alien."3 There were many lower classes of men at Sparta that fell outside both these categories, of which the lowest and most numerous were the helots. The silence of our sources on the helots and other similar groups in this context should not be taken to indicate that such unions were barred, since the sources are in any case so fragmentary. The chief reason for thinking that helots also may have been permissible fathers to the children of Spartan women is that helot women were considered good enough to be mothers to the children of Spartan men, the mothakes, whose status we saw to have been very close to citizen­ ship, and within easy reach of it. It may be admitted, however, that12 111 Pace Cartledge 1981a: 103. 112 MacDowell 1986: 87. 112 Cartledge 1981a: 104 believes, however, that only Spartiate citizens could be involved in these various wife-swapping arrangements, and not aliens, mistrusting the evidence of Nicolaus of Damascus FGH 90 F103Z. The only Spartan woman actually known to have (even arguably) conceived a child by an alien is King Agis’ wife Timaia, who was said to have conceived Leotychidas by Alcibiades (evident­ ly, incidentally, behind her husband’s back). The ensuing fuss however seems to have been purely about whether Leotychidas was entitled to be king, not whether he was to be considered legitimate or a Spartan citizen. Again, royalty is always a special case.

Common Bastardy

243

liaisons between helot men and Spartan women were likely to have been few and far between, especially as there was probably a superfluity of Spartan citizen men vis-à-vis Spartan women. The second possibility relates to the role of the husband’s per­ mission in his wife’s liaisons. In the cases reviewed above, it is irrelevant to (a); in (b) it was apparently up to the first husband when the wife was to be passed on to the second; in (c) the bring­ ing in of the younger man is said to have been on the initiative of the husband; in (d) the ‘lover’ is said to have been able to borrow the wife after persuading or gaining permission from the husband; in (e) it is the husband that is said to have exhorted his wife to conceive by other men. Some have therefore argued that the difference between legitimacy and illegitimacy for the offspring of these unions depended upon whether the husband’s permission was given."4 It may immediately be countered that this seems a rather flimsy thing, and a thing proven or disproven only with difficulty, upon which to hang such an important distinction as legitimacy. Is it to be assumed that an approving husband publicly declared his approval formally before witnesses? This it seems would be the minimum requirement if such a legitimacy distinc­ tion were to be policed. But there is evidence to suggest that a husband’s approval mattered relatively little. If it were to be a significant factor in the determination of legitimacy, then the man that slept with a woman without the consent of her husband would have to be considered adulterous. Our sources do in fact go out of their way to deny that the category of adultery existed at Sparta, which in turn suggests that although it may have been polite to seek the permission of a man before sleeping with his wife, his permission did not affect the legitimacy status of the offspring. And no doubt the ideology of procreation would have encouraged the husband to give it even after the event. The impossibility of adultery is explained by Plutarch: These things, being practised thus at that time in the interests of nature and of the state, were quite separate from the licence concerning women that is said to have arisen later, so that the Spartans were unable to conceive of adultery. And a story is related about Geradas, one of the ancient Spartans, who, on being asked by a stranger what the penalty for Thus MacDowell 1986: 85; cf. Cartledge 1981a: 103.

Sparta adultery was among the Spartans, said, ‘Stranger, there is no adultery among us.’ When he replied, ‘But what if there was one?', Geradas said, ‘He is fined a huge bull, which, bending over Taygetus, will drink from the Eurotas.’ The stranger was amazed at what he said. ‘How’, he said, ‘could there be a bull so big?’ Geradas, laughing, said, ‘How could there be an adulterer at Sparta?’ (Plutarch Lycurgus 15. 16-18)"5

Plutarch perhaps implies here that adultery did eventually emerge at Sparta, but if so he is talking, moralistically, about a change in the attitude of the women to what they were doing rather than a change in actual practice. The Spartans’ lack of concern for such things as adultery and legitimacy is shown clearly by the fact that they seem not only to have taken no measures to restrict access, visual and indeed sexual, to their womenfolk, but also to have put them in situations that actively favoured their rape or seduction by extraneous men. No greater contrast with the Athenian ideal of the jealous seclu­ sion of women in their women’s quarters can be found than the Spartan practice of having their girls process naked in public and exercise in skimpy garments alongside the boys116 (Ibycus called them ‘thigh-showers’, phainomêrides).1,7 Perhaps the most striking access to unmarried girls enjoyed by Spartan men came in a practice described by Hagnon of Tarsus: ‘Among the Spartans it is the custom to mix with virgins before their marriage as if they were catamites (paidikois)’ (Hagnon of Tarsus apud Athenaeus 6o2de). It is not clear from this brief fragment whether the buggery of the virgin was a ritual act by her husband-to-be or a thing quite separate, done by a lover or lovers with no necessary connection to the man that eventually married her. The latter is suggested by the fact that there seems to have been a technical term for the girl’s role, aitis. This is a feminine version of the Spartan technical term for a catamite, aitas.m It is very hard to imagine that girls were not impregnated in the process of this love1,5 Cf. Plutarch Moralia 228bc; cf. Mac Dowell 1986: 87; pace Cartledge 1981a: 104. "* Plutarch Lycurgus 14. 3-4; Euripides Andromache 597-600. Ibycus F58 Page. "* Used at Theocritus 12. 13. If the Hagnon fragment is mistrusted, then it is possible that aitis defines a young girl not in relationship to a male lover, but in her relationship to an older female lover; we are told that they had them at Plutarch Lycurgus 18. For discussion of this custom, see Calame 1977: i. 433-6, Buffière 1980: 74-5, Dover 1978: 193 and 202, Cartledge 1981a: 104, and MacDowell 1986: 87.

Common Bastardy

245

play. Further, the married women appear to have been left unsupervised for much of the time, with the younger menfolk (those below the age of 30) living away in the messes and only visiting them briefly and surreptitiously during the night. Wives were actually encouraged in the art of setting up secret trysts with their visiting husbands, which Athenians would surely have viewed as a dangerously transferable skill. It is perhaps significant that prostitution is not attested in Sparta before the third centur>*.n’ Lycurgus was said to have scoffed at Sparta’s hypo­ critical critics that ‘lock up and guard their wives, claiming the right to produce children exclusively for themselves’.120 It is not surprising then that the Spartan women developed a reputation for licence among the other Greeks121 (although the admirers of the nobility of Sparta’s eugenic aims constructed a balancing myth that they were continent and faithful).122 So it seems very probable there was indeed no category of adultery in classical Sparta, and therefore that no children of a Spartan woman could be bastardized for the lack of permission from their mother’s husband.123

SUCCESSION

AND

WEALTH

Generally speaking, one of the chief functions of the distinction between legitimacy and bastardy is the organization of succession in a capitalist context, wherein individual men strive to hand on their portion in as intact a form as possible to their own blood. The concept of bastardy helps to rank and exclude claimants for a prize for which competition can be fierce, and is a partial solution to what might be termed the pressure on succession. Hitherto we "* The earliest references are Athenaeus 547 and 591-2 and Clement Paedagogus 2. 10. 105. 2; cf. Cartledge 19810: 104 with n. 125. 1.0 Plutarch Lycurgus 15. 15. 1.1 Aristotle accused Spartan women of 'licence’ at Politics 1269019-23 and 127036-8; cf. Cartledge 19810: 87, 91-2, and 103, 1987: 113, Mac Dowel I 1986: 72, and Den Boer 1954: 229. IU Thus Plutarch Lycurgus 14. 4. and Pausanias 3. 15. 10-11 and 3. 23. 1 tells that at Sparta Aphrodite was fettered to symbolize the faithfulness of Spartan wives (cf. Aristotle Politics 1269627-31); see Bradford 1986: 13. 121 Cartledge 19810: 104 believes that adultery was impossible between Spartan citizens, but considers it 'certain' between a non-Spartan man and a Spartan woman. He sets little store by Nicolaus of Damascus FGH 90 F 103z.

246

Sparta

have denied that a Spartan woman could bear a child, of any pater­ nity whatsoever, that could be considered anything like a ‘bastard’. We must therefore explain why Spartan men did not feel that they were putting undue pressure on their succession, a/id in particular disadvantaging the prospects of their blood sons, when they allowed other men to sire children by their wives. The solution lies in the Spartan land tenure system, in accordance with which extra sons appear not to have competed for their (sociological) father’s portion, but to have been allocated a spare one by the state. The organization of land tenure, wealth, and succession at Sparta is a difficult topic upon which there is little scholarly agreement, and it is therefore impossible to speak of it without controversy. The views expressed in what follows most closely resemble those of MacDowell.124 We saw that Plutarch tells that Spartiate (male) babies were scrutinized by the elders of the father’s tribe, and if deemed fit enough to rear, allocated one of the 9,000 lots.125 Other passages of importance for the Lycurgan land tenure system follow: They say that one of the distinctive features of the Spartan state concerns the possession of land: no one has a greater share than other men, but all citizens must possess an equal amount of public land. (Polybius 6. 45. 3) [Lycurgus] persuaded the citizens to pool all the land and then distribute it afresh, and that having become equal they should live with each other on equal terms, and with equal lots of land to live off . . . He divided the land that was ascribed to the city of Sparta into 9,000 lots for the Spartiates. [Plutarch goes on to explain that each lot was designed to support a man and his wife.] (P lu tarch Lycurgus 8. 3—5) [Before the rhetra of Epitadeus] The households maintained the number that Lycurgus had defined, in their successions, and father left his lot to son. (Plutarch Agis 5. 2)

These passages do not make it clear that Spartiates could also possess any amount of private land in addition to their public lot: it was certainly the case that some Spartiates were significantly richer than others in the fifth century.126 None the less it emerges from them that under the Lycurgan system the Spartan state had at its disposal a fixed number of equally productive lots of public land, each capable of supporting a couple, and that these lots were 114 1986: particularly 89-104. 123 P lu tarch Lycurgus 16. i.

126 Herodotus 7. 134. 2; see Hodkinson 1989: 97, and above on mothakes.

Common Bastardy

247

allocated at central (or at any rate tribal) level, possibly, as Plutarch says, in accordance with some hereditary principles.127 It is already therefore clear that, provided the overall male citizen population did not exceed 9,000, lots would be available for the use of all the children borne by Spartiate women, and that Spartiate men did not need to worry' about providing for the futures of multiple sons, or worry that the ‘bastard* might usurp the rights of the ‘legitimate’.128 Since we only ever hear of the Spartiate population being in decline in the classical period (as we have seen), there can have been little anxiety that the supply of ancient lots might be exhausted. Indeed Aristotle tells that before the fifth century aliens could be enfranchised to make up the numbers.129As we saw in the case of Athens in particular (Chapter 2), ‘bastard’ children constituted a category a father was especially likely to expose. It is appropriate therefore that in Sparta the right to expose his children should be withheld from a father, given that bastardy itself was either nonexistent or of minimal significance. It is probable that towards the end of the fifth century the Spartan inheritance system was overhauled by a law known as ‘the rhetra of Epitadeus’. The key account of it is Plutarch’s in a passage that follows quickly upon that quoted above: But when a certain powerful man came to the ephorate, bold and awkward in nature, called Epitadeus, he had a row with his son and wrote a law that one should be able to give one’s house and lot to whomever one wished inter vivos, and likewise to bequeath it by will. So this man gratified his own private grudge by introducing the law. But the others welcomed the law through greed, and by ratifying it destroyed the best constitution. (Plutarch Agis 5. 2)130

Scholars are divided as to whether this reform was a genuine one, or a myth, perhaps generated in the period of the revivalists Agis and Cleomenes.131 If the reform is indeed bogus, then it need not 127 Cf. MacDowell 1986: 52, 89-99, n o , Michell 1952: 222, Willetts 1954: 29, Asheri 1963: 2, 5, and 18, and Cartledge 1979: 167-9. 128 Cf. MacDowell 1986: 94. ,N Aristotle Politics 1270834-6; cf. MacDowell 1986: 98. ,w There may be a reference to this same reform at Aristotle Politics 1270819-34, if the 'lawgiver' mentioned there is supposed to denote the unnamed Epitadeus, as opposed to Lycurgus himself; see MacDowell 1986; 103-4. Most however believe Aristotle to be referring to Lycurgus here: thus Cartledge 1979: 165-8, 1987; 167, and Hodkinson 1986 passim and 1989: 94—5. 111 It is considered genuine by MacDowell 1986: 99-104, Asheri 1961 and 1963:

248

Sparta

detain us, except long enough to note that the tale shows that the Spartans could flirt, if no more, with the concept of bastardization. But if it is genuine, then the most likely occasion for its passage is around 425: Plutarch says adjacently that the Spartans became corrupted by the effects of the reform at about the end of the Peloponnesian war.132 Also, an ‘Epitadas’ (the Laconian form of Epitadeus) is said by Thucydides to have died at Sphacteria in 425.'” If this was the reformer (which is by no means sure), 425 would therefore be a terminus ante quem for the reform. And if the reform was genuine, we must ask whether it put any further pressure on succession. Plutarch is not explicit about whether the rhetra was in fact supposed to have lifted the bar on the holding of more than one public lot by each Spartiate: if this was unchanged, then the rhetra may, so far as public holdings were concerned, only have internally reorganized the means of allocation of lots among those entitled to possess them. Its significant effect may therefore have been upon the distribution of private wealth. In this case the pressure it exerted on succession will have been no greater than before. And even if public lots could indeed now be held in multiples, it may still have been the case that all sons were still guaranteed one each by the state. Only if the state had ceased to make this guarantee could real pressure have ultimately been exerted on succession, a state of affairs that would have sat ill with the ideology of procreation. The initial inconcinnity may not have been apparent: assuming that the personal motives for it adduced by Plutarch are false, the reform was probably motivated by the desire that more of the lots should find occupiers in the context of a headlong citizen population decline.134 It seems that at the probable time of the reform the citizen population was down to around 3.500, so that almost two-thirds of the lots would have been vacant.135 But in the long term the rich may have begun to restrict the numbers of their offspring in order to keep their private estates intact, whilst, without the safety-net of the allo­ cated lot of public land, the poorer Spartan men may not have been able to afford their mess-dues.134 At any rate the numbers of 12, and Lane Fox 1985: 222. It is considered bogus by Forrest 1968: 137, Cartledge 1979: 165-8 and 1987: 167, and Hodkinson 1989: 81, 94-5, and 1986. 132 Plutarch Agis 5. 1. 133 Thucydides 4. 8. 9. 134 See M acDowell 1986: 99 and 110.

135 Cf. Cartledge 1979: 308 for the numbers. 136 MacDowell 1986: n o .

Common Bastardy

249

the citizen population did continue to decline: there were around 2,500 in 394 and 1,500 in 371.137 But perhaps we are dealing in unnecessary speculation, since there is in fact no evidence for anything like a tightening up in the surveillance and management of Spartan women in the fourth century, or the development of a differentiation of status between the children of Spartan women. When, for example, Xenophon provides us with our information about the ideology of procrea­ tion, it is clearly the current situation that he is describing.138 And perhaps we should bear it in mind that, whatever the pressure on succession, if inheritance was completely free, it was at least the case that nothing legally prevented bequests to children con­ sidered somehow bastard—a situation far different from the classical Athenian one. It is worth considering one further aspect of the relationship between wealth and bastardy at Sparta. The economic power of women at Sparta seems to have been high both before and after Epitadeus. Aristotle famously told that the Spartans were ‘ruled by their women’ (gynaikokratoumenoi), on whom Lycurgus had imposed no laws of their own, and that almost two-fifths of the whole country belonged to women on account of the many heiresses and the large size of their dowries139 (though, oddly, dowries were supposed to have been banned under the Lycurgan system).140 By the time of the accession of Agis in 244, a majority of Spartan land was in female possession, with Agis’ mother and grandmother having the largest shares.141 Women probably did dispose of their wealth and not merely enjoy nominal title to it: Agis’ mother lent money out,142 and Agis himself could make a request to rich women that they should give up their wealth.143 137 Cartledge 1979: 308. 138 Xenophon L a c . P o l. i. 7-9. However see the caveat of MacDowell 1986: 8 -1 1, who argues on the basis of L a c . P o l. 14 that Xenophon may write more from an ideal theory than from actual observation. 139 Aristotle P o litic s 1269329-1271619; Plato L a w s 780e also claims that the Spartans omitted provision for women from their legal code. Cf. Bradford 1986, Cartledge 1981a: 87-8 and 97, Willetts 1954: 30, MacDowell 1986: 102. The earliest identifiable rich woman in Sparta is Cynisca, sister of Agesilaus, in the early 4th cent. (Xenophon A g e sila u s 9. 6). 140 Plutarch M o r a lia 227-8; cf. L y s a n d e r 30. 5-6 and Hermippus F87. 141 Plutarch A g is 7. 4; cf. Cartledge 1981a: 99 and MacDowell 1986: 109. 142 Plutarch A g is 7. 4. 143 Ibid. 4. i , 6. 7, 7. 1-7, and 9. 6; cf. Schaps 1979: 88, MacDowell 1986: 109, and Asheri 1963: 19.

250

Sparta

Compatibly with this there seems to have been no formal notion of the legal guardianship (kyrieia) of women at Sparta,144 and the terminology for heiresses indicates that they were conceived of in a way rather different from Athenian ones: the Spartan word patrouchos14S meant literally ‘holder of the patrimony’, which contrasts significantly with the Athenian word epiklëros, literally meaning ‘she that comes along on top of the property.’146 The fact that women were in control of such a large proportion of the— presumably private—wealth in Sparta, both as a sex and as individuals, surely helped to ease the pressure on succession: they would often have been able to provide from their own resources, directly or indirectly, for the children they had by men other than their husbands.147 We are reminded of Teichman’s insight that the differentiatedness of a bastardy status in a society can be inversely correlated with the economic (and other) power of its women.148

COMMON

BASTARDY

AT S P A R T A :

CONCLUSIONS

We have seen that there was at Sparta a minimal conception of bastardy: Spartan women could probably not produce a child that would be considered ‘bastard’. The nearest relevant status is that of the mothakes, who appear to have been the children of Spartan men by helot women. But it seems that although not initially citizens, the mothakes enjoyed a status very similar to citizenship, and apparently could acquire full citizenship through formalized procedures. The nearest equivalent in classical Athens would have been the child of a citizen man by a slave-woman, and the status of such a child would have been slave without any prospect of citizenship at all. One of the consequences or at any rate corollaries of this virtual bastardlessness was the dismantling of family life as the Greeks knew it, and indeed, in part, economic life as the Greeks knew it. This tends to confirm our general thesis that the 144 Sec Bickerman 1 9 7 5 : 2 0 , pace Cartledge 1 9 8 1 a : 9 9 - 1 0 3 , Hodkinson 1 9 8 9 : 9 0 , and Bradford 1 9 8 6 : 1 6 . 145 Found at Herodotus 6. 57. 4. 146 See MacDowell 1 9 8 6 : 9 6 , Cartledge 1 9 8 1 a : 9 8 . There is no particular evidence to support (or undermine) the supposition of Hodkinson 1 9 8 6 and 1 9 8 9 : 8 2 that Spartan women normally received half a son's share in inheritance, on the model of Gortyn. 147 NB the observation of Leach 1971: 154. 148 1978: 83.

Common Bastardy

251

generation of a status of bastardy in Greece can be conceived as resulting from conflict between state organization and family organization. In Sparta there was no such conflict: all bowed before the state and its (ultimately vain) demands for a large and strong citizen population. It is worth noting here also Teichman’s observation that, among historical attempts to abolish the status of bastardy, the more successful have been those that have made the maintenance of children directly dependent upon the state, albeit at the high cost of the dismantling of family life.149 149 Teichman 1982: 172-3.

Royal Bastardy

We have seen that pickings were meagre in the field of common bastardy at Sparta, albeit instructively so; by contrast pickings are quite rich in the field of royal bastardy, with bastardy allegations clustering round the figures of Cleomenes I and the Leotychidas whose throne was usurped by Agesilaus II. While it may initially appear odd that royal succession should work to principles that differ from those of the common succession that surrounds it, it must be remembered not only that royal families develop all sorts of customs to differentiate themselves from the common herd, but also that in each royal family only one man can succeed to the throne at a time: the pressure on succession could not therefore be greater. It should also be remembered that, again in the case of each royal family, there is only one man, the king himself, that can pass on the required royal blood, as Plato well noted of Sparta itself: [Socrates speaks to Alcibiades] Have you not perceived how great are the resources of the Spartan kings, whose wives are publicly guarded by the ephors, so that the king might not secretly come to power begotten by a man other than one of the Heraclids? (Plato Alcibiades i. 121b)1

There is no detectable difference between the succession customs of the Agiads and the Eurypontids. They operated a basically primogenitive system2 which was qualified by the principle of porphyrogenesis,3as we have seen (a principle which, for all that it was inevitably confined to the royal families, none the less did in fact share certain underlying assumptions with the procreative principles of the common Spartans). We saw also that there may 1 1 and *

Cf. MacDowell 1986: 87. See Xenophon H tlle m c a 3. 3. 2 and Herodotus 5. 42; cf. Carlier 1984: 240-1 Cartledge 1987: to o -i. Herodotus 7. 3.

Royal Bastardy

253

have been an ancient but apparently long neglected law that kings, as Heraclids, could not marry aliens (although it is not entirely clear what ‘alien’ was supposed to mean in this context).

CLEOMENES

AND

DORIEUS

Herodotus tells us in some detail of a series of bastardy disputes that focused around the figures of the co-kings Cleomenes I (Agiad) and Demaratus (Eurypontid). Cleomenes I came to the throne in around 522. Herodotus explains the circumstances of his birth: the ephors and the council of elders (gerousia) forced the heirless Anaxandridas to take on, extraordinarily and bigamously, a second wife, since he would not divorce his apparently barren but beloved current one. The mad Cleomenes was immediately born from the second wife, but then, again immediately, Dorieus, Leonidas (the hero of Thermopylae), and Cleombrotus were born from the first. It is as if the fertility of the first wife had been blocked by a mysterious curse from which the sinisterly immediate birth of Cleomenes released her. A disastrous amphimetric situation had been created. The Spartans, Herodotus tells, followed their customs and made Cleomenes king by right of age (all Anaxandridas’ children were born to him after his accession).4 Herodotus tells us explicitly that Anaxandridas’ bigamy was in no way a Spartan thing (oudama Spartiëtika), and was only permitted by an extraordinary decree of the ephors and the gerousia, which the Spartans felt bound to uphold, and so enthroned Cleomenes.5 None the less the narrative clearly implies that Cleomenes was really nothos. Possibly his representation as a bastard began with an actual amphimetric legitimacy dispute within the family of Anaxandridas. It is therefore possible that the traditions hostile to Cleomenes reflected by Herodotus began with his half-brothers.6 The family of the first wife evidently, and* * Ibid. 5. 39-42 and 6. 75. 5 Cf. Cartledge 19810: 102. b The view of Cartledge 1979: 143. But Griffiths 1989: 53-4 suggests a plausible emendation to the text of Herodotus 5. 48 (ou to become et) which, if accepted, removes Herodotus’ inconsistent and supposedly hostile assertion that Cleomenes only had a short reign. Seeberg 1966 considers some of Herodotus’ sources hostile to Demaratus also.

254

Sparta

understandably, set out to cast doubt upon the legitimacy of Cleomenes right from the start: they demanded to scrutinize his very birth.7 Perhaps their attempts to call a foul at this stage were undermined by the ephors, who had the official job of scrutinizing royal births to check Heraclid paternity:8 as we shall see, Cleomenes seems to have had a very cosy relationship with the ephors later in life, and it is of particular interest that they subse­ quently helped him in turn to deny the legitimacy of his co-king, Demaratus. Greek royal amphimetric disputes between individual halfbrothers are often aligned with power struggles between wider groups or even institutions of state or institutions beyond the state, and they are also often aligned, concomitantly, with major policy disputes. The dispute between Cleomenes and his three halfbrothers can indeed be seen to align with both institutional and policy struggles at Sparta. In the first place, it aligns with the institutional struggle between the kings and the ephorate: the tale provides our first evidence in Spartan history for relations between the ephorate and the monarchy, and is thought to mark the rise of the ephors to constitutional prominence, as it was in the mid-sixth century that the great ephor Chilon was said to have ‘yoked the ephorate to the kings in equal harness’.9 Eventually the kings were to be fully subject to the ephors’ bidding, despite a symbolic reluctance to comply. Here it seems the king can still refuse the request of the ephors alone, but is made to bow before pressure from the ephors and the council of elders together.10 We can also detect the traces of a concomitant policy dispute. Some in Sparta championed an ‘Achaean policy’, that is, they wished Dorian Sparta, for imperialist reasons, to lay claim to be the rightful heir of the pre-Dorian Achaeans, Agamemnon and Orestes. The policy was announced by the symbolic ‘return’ of the ‘bones of Orestes’ to Spartan soil. The immediate objective of this policy was perhaps to acquire the plain of Tegea, where Orestes had supposedly been buried, or perhaps the plain of Megalopolis, which was the site of the Oresthasion and home to its eponymous hero Oresthes, conveniently identified with the son of 7 Cf. Forrest 1968: 85. 1 Plato A lc ib ia d e s 1. 121b. 9 Diogenes Laertius 1. 68. 6; cf. Cartledge 1987: 126. 10 Cf. Cartledge 1987: 107 and 125-8.

Royal Bastardy

255

Agamemnon. The ultimate objective was doubtless to claim hegemony over the entire Peloponnese, the area that had owed allegiance to Agamemnon in Homer." The architect of the policy appears to have been the great ephor Chilon, and he seems to have used the apparent barrenness of Anaxandridas’ first wife as a way of imposing his Achaean policy on the reluctant king. The additional wife that the ephors and council of elders forced upon Anaxandridas significantly belonged to Chiton’s family: she was the granddaughter of Demarmenus,12 and Demarmenus was probably the son of Chilon." Anaxandridas’ resentment and oppo­ sition to the policy is indicated by his naming of his first son by his first wife Dorieus, ‘Dorian’, thus, in Forrest’s phrase, ‘shouting hostility to Chilon’s policy’.14 Certainly Cleomenes turned out to be a true son of his mother’s family (by whom he may even have been reared, since Anaxandridas continued to be so devoted to his first wife), and became a vociferous champion of the Achaean policy, most notably declaring, ‘I am no Dorian but an Achaean.’15 And indeed Cleomenes’ construction of the Peloponnesian league under Spartan hegemony may have been a realization of the ultimate objective of this policy. In these ways then the amphimetric dispute between Cleomenes and his half-brothers was aligned both with an institutional power struggle between kings and ephors, and with a coinciding policy struggle as to whether Sparta should pursue Achaeanism. Cleomenes won both the amphimetric dispute and the policy dispute. One of the reasons Cleomenes may have won the dispute is that, whatever the circumstances of his birth, it was never in doubt that he was a blood son of Anaxandridas, and bom in purple. Subsequent attempts to bastardize Spartan princes were to focus on the denial of royal paternity, and these attempts were rather more successful. The first of them was instituted by Cleomenes himself, who perhaps had learned from his own good fortune. M See Forrest 1968: 74-6. 13 Herodotus 5. 41. 13 Ibid. 6. 65. 2 refers to a Chilon, son of Demarmenus, who would fit nicely as the grandson of the great Chilon, in accordance with the Greek custom of leap­ frogging names across generations. 14 Forrest 1968: 83; cf. Cartledge 1987: n o . 15 Herodotus 5. 72; other Cleomenean Achaeanisms are found by Forrest 1968: 92.

Sparta

256 CLEOMENES

AND

DEMARATUS

It was a very clear policy dispute between Cleomenes and his Eurypontid colleague Demaratus that led Cleomenes to attempt to bastardize and thereby rid himself of his co-king. Demaratus had thwarted Cleomenes’ attempt to install Isagoras in 506 as tyrant of Athens by withdrawing his half of the Spartan army from Attica.16 The Spartans consequently passed a law that only one king could take an army out on campaign, and this was surely Cleomenes’ attempt to make sure that Demaratus would not undermine him again. But then in 494 he did indeed contrive to undermine Cleomenes again when the latter took the army across to Aegina in an attempt to curb the island’s Medism: Demaratus wrote to the Aeginetans and instructed them to challenge Cleomenes’ authority to act without his fellow king. And whilst Cleomenes was away in Aegina, he slandered him in Sparta.17 Demaratus’ medism is further attested by the fact that after being deprived of his throne he fled to the Persia, and was thence brought back to Greece in the 480 invasion to serve as special adviser to Xerxes.18 Cleomenes therefore had ample political and indeed personal reason to engineer the bastardization of Demaratus. It is no surprise that Cleomenes found a willing helper in this task in Leotychidas (II): not only was Leotychidas resentful towards Demaratus for stealing his ‘betrothed’ Perkalos, but his wish to marry her had in itself testified to his adherence to the Cleomenean party, for she was the daughter of Chilon, grandson of the great Chilon.19 Herodotus’ reports of Cleomenes’ and Leotychidas’ attempts to bastardize Demaratus presuppose two pairs of original responding accounts of the birth of Demaratus (6. 61-9). First, Herodotus tells us in his own voice that King Ariston had acquired the woman that was to become the mother of Demaratus under peculiar circumstances. She had been his friend Agetus’ wife, but Ariston had fallen in love with her and tricked Agetus into handing her over to him (we recall that it was the practice of common Spartans to hand over their wives to others). She then 16 Herodotus 5. 74 and 6. 64; cf. Forrest 1968: 77 and Cartledge 1979: 147. 17 Herodotus 6. 50-1 and 64; cf. Forrest 1968: 91. 11 Herodotus 6. 67 etc. 19 Ibid. 6. 65 (cf. 6. 61).

Royal Bastardy

257

bore th e child D em aratu s before ten (lunar) m o n th s in to th e new m arriage, and w hen th e new s o f th e b irth was b ro u g h t to A risto n he reckoned up th e tim e on his fingers and den ied p a tern ity before the epliurs, though he later accepted it. (N ote that the them e of a new and w rongly acq u ired w ife’s sinisterly im m ediate p regnancy recu rs from th e tale o f th e b irth of C leom enes; in b o th tales we also find th e them e of excessive love for a beau tifu l w om an, and th is m o tif recurs a th ird tim e in L eo ty ch id as’ m otivation to attack D em aratu s— the nam e o f his stolen bride, ‘P erkalos’, m eans ‘V ery b e a u tifu l’.) W h en it becam e convenient, C leom enes revived th e m a tte r of D e m a ra tu s’ p atern ity . T h e q u estio n w as referred by th e S p a rtan s to D elp h i, w hich C leom enes had b rib e d to resp o n d in his fav o u r.20 D em aratu s was th u s deposed. It is p erh ap s significant th a t A risto n ’s dam aging denial o f D e m aratu s’ p a tern ity took place or w as argued to have taken place before th e ephors, a g ro u p th a t we saw was well disposed to C leom enes. D e m aratu s’ defence against these C leom enean allegations was doubtless th a t he was indeed th e blood son o f A risto n , possibly b o rn p re m a tu re ,21 and th a t A risto n had never, as C leom enes an d his tam e ep h o rs claim ed, denied p a tern ity o f him . Secondly, H e ro d o tu s tells us indirectly th a t D em aratu s had also b een accused, p resu m ab ly by C leom enes, o f being the son o f a com m on m u leteer ( onophorbos).22 D e m aratu s’ m o th e r’s response to th is allegation w as ra th e r th a t he was th e son of th e local d em on th a t p ro tected m u leteers, A strabacus, w ho h ad visited h e r in th e guise of A risto n , ju s t before th e king re tu rn e d , on th e n ig h t of D e m a ra tu s’ co n cep tio n .23 A lth o u g h H ero d o tu s does n o t m ake th is explicit, th e tale o f D e m a ra tu s’ m o th er p ro b ab ly in origin claim ed th a t D em aratu s was th e p ro d u c t o f parallel in sem in atio n by b o th A risto n and A strab acu s, ju s t as H eracles had been jo in tly fathered by b o th A m p h itry o n an d Z eus in the guise of A m p h itry o n (see above); also, A strab acu s left b eh in d a token, a garlan d , ju s t as Zeus had left b eh in d a cup w ith A lcm en e.24 W e are also rem in d ed o f th e b irth o f the D ioscu ri. T h e S p artan s identified th e ir kings w ith th is 20 Ibid. 5. 66. The theme of bribery recurs many times in Herodotus* tales of Cleomenes: cf. 3. 148, 5. 48-51, 5. 64, 6. 50, 6. 71-2, and 6. 82. Cf. Cartledge 1987: 111 on the relationship between the Spartan kings and Delphi. 21 As his mother is made to claim at Herodotus 6. 69. 22 Ibid. 6. 68.

23 Ibid. 6. 69.

24 The cup was exhibited at Sparta: Charon of Lampsacus FGH 262 F2; cf. Burkert 1965: 169-70.

258

Sparta

semi-divine pair: when Cleomenes had contrived it that only one of the kings should take out the army on campaign (i.e. himself, leaving the troublesome Demaratus at home), one of the effigies of the Dioscuri subsequently had to remain at home also.25 Thus Demaratus will have been able to lay claim to divine parentage (itself suiting generally for kingship), without forfeiting the paternity of Ariston, on which, at a more earthly level, his title to the Eurypontid throne depended. The dispute between Cleomenes and Demaratus has many things in common with an amphimetric dispute, even though the two were in no way related: it was a dispute between two princes for advancement, not before a fickle father-king this time, but before a fickle populace, and the bond of a shared mother, which normally prevents princes from squabbling with each other, was lacking to them, as it was lacking to amphimetric brothers.

AGESILAUS

II

AND

LEOTYCHIDAS

There was a third royal bastardy dispute between Leotychidas, son of Agis, and Agesilaus II, brother of Agis, who succeeded to the Eurypontid throne in 400. Xenophon tells how the lame Agesilaus competed for the throne against the presumptive heir Leotychidas, by claiming that the latter was the son not of Agis, but of the adulterous lover of his mother Timaia, and that this lover was driven into the open during an earthquake. The oraclemonger Diopeithes argued in support of Leotychidas, and against Agesilaus, that an oracle of Apollo bade the Spartans beware of ‘lame kingship’.26 Lysander, however, argued on behalf of Agesilaus, who was his puppet, that the god was not bidding the Spartans beware lest their king should stumble and become lame, but rather warning them that one that was not of royal stock should not become king, for the kingship would really be lame when it was not the descendants of Heracles that were at the head of the state. After hearing such arguments from both claimants the Spartans opted for Agesilaus.27 In making these arguments 1567 15 Herodotus 5. 75. 16 Plutarch Moralia 3ggbc=Agesilaus 3=Lysander 22=Pausanias 3. 8. 9; see Fontenrose 1978: 322 and Parke and Wormell 1956: 112. 17 Xenophon Hellenica 3. 3. 1-4.

Royal Bastardy

259

Lysander was manifestly explaining why the oracle did not apply to Agesilaus, and so the phrase ‘stumble and become lame’ must describe Agesilaus’ situation. Cartledge is therefore wrong to argue that Agesilaus was congenitally rather than accidentally lame.28 Furthermore, if Agesilaus had been bom lame, he ought to have been exposed as deformed;29 nor could he, as he did, have survived agôgë,30 which he had to undergo as not being the crown prince. Lysander was evidently able to use the strong association between lameness and bastardy to convince the Spartans that the oracle’s significance was metaphorical.31 It is just possible that Leotychidas and his supporters did retaliate in kind against their real enemy, and that the allegations against Lysander that he was a mothax (see above) originated in their defensive counteraccusations. Plutarch thought that Leotychidas had always been presumed nothos, and was only recognized by Agis on his death-bed32 (Xenophon, by contrast, does not mention the bastardy or recog­ nition of Leotychidas before this key episode). But the strength of Leotychidas’ claim would surely have depended most upon whether or not he was brought up in agôgë. There is perhaps a slight indication that Leotychidas did not in fact undergo agôgë in Xenophon’s remark that Agesilaus was preferred to Leotychidas on grounds of courage (aretë).33Also, if Leotychidas had been con­ sidered nothos from birth, then why had he not been excluded from succession by the ephors that were charged with ensuring that Spartan kings were of Heraclid blood?34 Beneath this bastardy dispute there also simmered wider power struggles and policy differences. The dispute seems to have covered Lysander’s bid for personal power. Plutarch says that it was he that made Agesilaus put forward a claim to the throne. Before 403 Lysander had attempted to change the rules of succes­ sion outright in an attempt to make himself (probably sole) king of Sparta, using oracular support.35 Having been thwarted in this by 28 Cartledge 1987: 20-1 and 112-13. 29 As prescribed in Plutarch L yc u rg u s 16. 1. 30 Xenophon A g e sila u s 1. 31 For a detailed investigation of this association, see my forthcoming C r o o k e d K in g s o f A n c ie n t G reece. 32 Plutarch L y s a n d e r 22. 6. 33 Xenophon A g e sila u s 1. 34 Plato A lc ib ia d e s 101; p a c e Cartledge 1987: 113. 35 See Diodorus 14. 13 and Plutarch L y s a n d e r 24-6 and 30. 4. Cf. Bommelaer 1981: 223-5 flnd Cartledge 1987: 94-6, 112, and 114.

2Ôo

Sparta

Agis and Pausanias, it seems he tried the same thing a second time, again with oracular support, and this time using Agesilaus as puppet. A policy of Lysander’s also pivoted on this issue of royal bastardy. In 403/2 Lysander’s Athenian and imperial policy had been overturned, his decarchies abolished. Xenophon tells that Lysander urged the appointment of Agesilaus to the Asiatic command in order to secure their re-establishment.36 A colourful story circulated to flesh out the details of Leotychidas’ supposed bastardy. This told that Leotychidas’ adulterous father was Alcibiades. Our earliest explicit evidence for this tale is found in Plutarch, who tells us that Agis’ wife Timaia actually called Leotychidas ‘Alcibiades’ in private.37 But we can trace the rumour back much earlier with a fairly high degree of certainty. Thucydides makes a cryptic remark, on the subject of Alcibiades’ precipitate departure from Sparta, that he and Agis were ‘at variance’ (diaphoros ôn).3* If Thucydides is referring here to the story that Alcibiades was the father of Leotychidas, then it was abroad before the early 390s, the time at which Thucydides appears to have stopped writing.39 This is remarkably soon after the big argument itself, and some scholars have therefore been led to suppose that the story actually arose at the time of Leotychidas’ birth.40 We probably also have another early allusion to the tale in that passage of Plato’s Alcibiades (quoted above) in which Socrates is made to ask Alcibiades, surely with great irony, whether he is familiar with the fact that the ephors publicly guard the kings’ wives to prevent the foisting of a non-Heraclid on the Spartan throne.41 The implication of the ascription of the paternity of Leotychidas to Alcibiades is that Leotychidas was at most 14 years old (and at least 12) at the time of the dispute in 400, since Alcibiades’ brief sojourn in Sparta lasted from 414 to 412. It seems then that the earthquake that Xenophon’s Agesilaus tells dislodged Leotychidas’ adulterous father from Timaia’s bed, and which Plutarch tells persuaded the superstitious Agis to abstain from her bed, is probably to be identified with the one that Thucydides mentions as occurring in 413/1242 (and note that Agis 14 Xenophon Hellemca 3. 4. 2; cf. Cartledge 1987: 114. 17 Plutarch Agesilaus 3 and Alcibiades 23. M Thucydides 8. 12. 1; cf. Gomme et al. 1945-81 ad loc. " Homblower 1987: 151-2. 40 Thus Cartledge 1987: 113 and Hatzfeld 1940: 226. 41 Plato Alcibiades 1. 121b. 41 Thucydides 8. 6. 3.

Royal Bastardy

261

was conveniently detained at Decelea in 413), though earthquakes were admittedly all too frequent at Sparta.43 So it seems likely that Leotychidas was only in his early teens in 400 even if (as is probable) the Alcibiades tale is a very early fabrication, since the tale is unlikely to have been fabricated at all in this way if Leotychidas was not of the appropriate age to give it plausibility. It is odd that Xenophon does not draw attention to his youthful­ ness, which was perhaps a further consideration that led the Spartans to award the crown to Agesilaus.

ROYAL

AND

COMMON

BASTARDY

AT

SPARTA:

CONCLUSIONS

Since Sparta was a society with a minimal conception of bastardy, it might have been considered unpromising material for a study with the subject of this one. But the opposite has proved to be the case, and the material bears upon all the major themes of this book. In particular, I would like to draw attention to three conclusions that the preceding survey has invited. First, consideration of a society that has virtually eliminated bastardy, and of the extreme unconventionality of the marital practices that it has adopted to achieve this, helps us to understand better the links between the conventional Greek marital and inheritance practices of other states and the construction of a status of bastardy. Secondly, the Spartan evidence provides us with rich informa­ tion on three royal bastardy disputes, one of which (that between Cleomenes and Dorieus) conformed neatly to the amphimetric pattern to which royal families were particularly susceptible, and others of which exhibited certain characteristics in common with it. The dispute between Cleomenes and Dorieus and the struggles of policy and power with which it became emeshed foreshadow uncannily the great amphimetric disputes of the hellenistic dynasties. The situation of Cleomenes’ birth, over which they fought, was without perceived precedent, and so the dispute perhaps became, ultimately, a Machtsfrage, although some of the procreative principles cherished by the common Spartans may have weighed in Cleomenes’ favour. ,! See Cartledge 1976.

2Ô2

Sparta

Thirdly, the coexistence in one society of a common stratum that is effectively without bastardy and a royal stratum in which vicious bastardy disputes occur underlines the fact that separate and very particular considerations can apply in matters of royal succession. Thus, whereas it seems a Spartiate could be sired by just about anyone at all, a king could only be sired by a man of royal blood, and it was this stringent requirement that opened up the possibility for bastardy allegations among the princes: it is significant that those attempts to ‘bastardize’ princes that focused on their paternity succeeded (Demaratus and Leotychidas), whilst the one that focused on the marital status of the prince’s mother failed (Cleomenes). None the less, the culture of royal procreation did share something with the common one: the ideal of porphyrogenesis coheres with one of the principles, the transmission of contingent qualities, that structured common procreation and contributed to ‘the ideology of procreation’; and the claim probably made by Demaratus that he was sired jointly by Astrabacus and Ariston evoked another of the ideology’s principles—that two or more men could mingle their seed in one womb to father a child jointly.

Gortyn

It is worthwhile to compare the organization of common bastardy at Sparta with that in Cretan Gortyn in the early fifth century, the evidence for which is preserved in an elaborately inscribed lawcode.' The comparison between Spartan society and Cretan society, which goes back to Aristotle,12 is often overstretched by modem scholars,3 but there are indeed some parallels in the area of bastardy. Neither nothos nor any other word that might denote or formu­ lation that might define an effective status of bastardy appears in the code.4 However, the word gnêsios, w'hich usually means ‘legiti­ mate’, does feature in the code (at x. 41 and 44 and xi. 7), and scholars have consequently argued on the basis of this that there was a status of bastardy at Gortyn.5*But the context in which it appears is that of the adoption law, and it stands clearly in opposi­ tion to the Gortynian word for ‘adopted’ (ampantos, the equivalent of Attic poiitos),b and the word is used therefore without question in its other sense of ‘of the blood’ (these two complements of gnêsios are discussed in the Introduction).7There is indeed then no vocabulary in the lawcode that implies directly or indirectly the existence of a status of bastardy at Gortyn: this in itself is significant, because, even though the code is not comprehensive 1 The most convenient edition is that of Willetts 1967. 1 Aristotle Politics 1271328-30 and 1272213-4)23. 1 e.g. by Chrimes 1949: part ii passim and Willetts 1954. 4 We are reminded that Patterson 1990: 54 believes nothos not to be a Dorian word. 5 Thus Guarducci 1935-50: iv ad locc., Willetts 1967 ad locc., and Patterson 1990:

54

‘ Cf. Guarducci 1935-50: iv on no. 72. 7 Willetts 1967 ad lo c., despite mistranslating the term, rightly notes that gnisios should be understood with reference to iv. 23—54, where a father’s division of his property among his (unqualified) sons and daughters is discussed.

264

Sparta

(for example, it contains no laws on homicide),8 it does contain detailed provisions on marriage and inheritance. The silence of the lawrcode is sufficient to indicate that bastardy wras of no great concern to the Gortynians, though not, in itself, sufficient to make us suppose that Gortyn was virtually ‘bastardless’ in the sense that Sparta was. But the status, if it did exist, was evidently erasable. The same adoption law (at x. 33-xi. 23) provides that adoption be completely free, so that even if there was a status of bastardy at Gortyn, and bastards did not belong to the family, there was always an opportunity to reintegrate them into it as adoptees. This would not have rendered them simply equiva­ lent to legitimates, however, as male adoptees were only permitted a half-share in inheritance, like girls, and adoption could, further­ more, be revoked. But the relative poverty of adopted nothoi may not have constituted any threat to their civic rights: according to Aristotle, the Cretan hetaireiai (broadly equivalent to the Athenian phratries and the Spartan common messes) were funded not through subscription of members, but from serf tribute paid directly to the state.’ It has been argued that the system of adoption was in fact primarily designed to reintegrate nothoi, on the ground that there is some superficial resemblance between the status of the adopted in Gortyn and that of nothoi in wider Crete and elsewhere. Thus Guarducci compared the half-share of inheritance that the Gortynian adoptee received to the half-share inheritance that Odysseus claimed to have received when he was pretending to be a Cretan bastard,10 and to the small fixed sum of the ‘bastard’s portion’ (notheia) of classical Athens.u And Comparetti argued from the fact that the revocation of adoptions was done before the magistrate for aliens (xenios kosmos), and from the fact that the adopted became aliens after their adoption had been revoked, that they had been aliens before their adoption, and that they had therefore originally been metroxenic nothoi.'2 The arguments of * Willetts 1967: 8-9. * Polities 1272a. See Willetts 1955: 27 and 139-40. 1965: 86, and 1967: 13 with n. 67. 10 Homer Odyssey 14. 210. 11 Guarducci 1935-50: iv. 168; cf. Willetts 1967 ad xi. 48-9. 12 Comparetti 1894 ad xi. 16 (col. 234). This argument depends upon the assumption that the provisions concerning adoption are addressed only to citizens and not to apetoiroi or metics. Support for such a position could arguably be found in the fact that adopters are required to provide on the occasion of the adoption a

Gortyn

265

these two scholars are interesting without being compelling, but at any rate it is clear that such bastards as there were, whatever disadvantages the initial status carried with it, could indeed be reintegrated into the family. There is an interesting qualification to a man’s right to adopt: adoptions cannot be made in two consecutive generations, but the adopted son must himself leave children of the blood (gnisia tekna), or else the property is to revert to the relatives of his own adoptive father.'3 Perhaps adoptions in consecutive generations were felt to do too much violence to the continuity of an oikos: new grafts had to be allowed time to ‘take’. Gortyn had a complex hierarchy of classes: (i) citizens (i.e., in the case of men, members of hetaireiai); (2) free non-citizens (apetairoi, i.e. ‘non-members of hetaireiaf); (3) metics (the dis­ tinction between their status and that of the apetairoi is unclear); (4) serfs; (5) chattel slaves.14 The lawcode lays out complex proce­ dures for the organization of marriages between the ‘free’ (i.e. all those in categories 1-3) and the ‘serf (i.e. category 4) and provides for the ensuing status of the children bom in or at the margins of them. But the status at issue is not legitimacy versus illegitimacy, but simply freedom versus serfdom.,s The freedom status of children bom of marriages between serf and tree is dealt with at lines vi. 56-vii. 10: if a serf goes to the house of a free woman and marries her, the children are to be free, but if the free woman goes to the serfs, then the children will be serf. Serf children are forbidden to inherit from their free mother, but the lawcode’s silence and the general logic of the provisions indicate that free children could indeed inherit from their free mother. Marriage between free man and serf woman is not discussed. Willetts thought that this meant that such unions were forbidden, but it is much more likely that such unions were banal and the fruit of them unproblematically free. The underlying principle is surely that offspring should follow the status of and belong to the house­ hold of the ‘major’ partner, the ‘major’ qualities being ‘male’ as opposed to ‘female’ and ‘free’ as opposed to ‘serf; nothing is at issue for the status of offspring of marriages between two free or sacrifice and wine for their hetaireia. But this provision may only be supposed to apply to those to whom it was relevant. 13 xi. 7-10; cf. Willetts 1967: 30. 14 See Willetts 1967: 10-22. 15 Pace ibid. 1967: 29.

266

Sparta

two serf people, nor between free man and serf woman, where the one partner is clearly ahead in the possession of major qualities. The only problematic case is that when the ‘major’ qualities are split and balanced between the two partners, the one being male but serf, the other being female but free—it is for children bom in these situations that the law must make careful and equitable adjudication, and it fairly decides that the children should follow the status and belong to the household of the person into whose (physical) household they are bom. It follows from points made above that even ‘serf children produced from these mixed unions could theoretically achieve citizenship via adoption. Individuals of category 5, chattel slaves, are not to be included under my rubric ‘serf in the context of these laws, and do not benefit from its provisions. It might rather appear initially that these provisions do concern chattel slaves even to the exclusion of serfs, since the key term used is one that is conventionally trans­ lated ‘slave’, dolos. However, the code can be curiously imprecise in its use of non-free terminology: while it sometimes uses oikeus for ‘serf and usually uses dolos when it needs to express ‘chattel slave’ (dedamnamena is also available for this in the case of women), the code often confusingly uses dolos in a context where it must mean ‘serf, and this is the case with the regulations on intermarriage.16 It would be exceptionally odd in the Greek world that chattel slaves should be allowed to marry (as we saw in Chapter 2).17 That they could not marry in Gortyn is indicated by the fact that in the co-ordinated lists of penalties for adultery (‘adultery’ here meaning specifically sex with another man’s wife), no penalty is set for adultery with a chattel slave-woman (here dedamnamena), to correspond with the penalty for her rape. This same list of rape penalties reveals that a chattel slave-woman was valued at a sixtieth of a serf-woman (see below).18 The code also provides us, at vi. 18-23, with the only law from the Greek world to deal with the status of the child of an unmarried woman (me opuiomena), albeit in rather specialized circumstances. Serfs were owned by other people: the rule was that the children of serf married couples were normally owned by the master of the serf husband. The law therefore had to make u Cf. Willetts 1967: 13-14. 17 Cf. Plautus Casina 67-78. '* Cf. Willetts 1967: 10 and 28.

Gortyn

267

provision co ncernin g n o t th e legitim acy b u t th e cru d e o w n ersh ip o f c h ild ren b o rn to u n m a rrie d serf m o th ers. T h e sim ple op tio n w ould have been to give th e child into th e ow n ersh ip o f th e m o th e r’s ow ner, b u t th e law instead gives it to the o w ner o f th e m o th e r’s fath er, or, if th e fath er is dead, to th e o w n er o f h er b ro th e r.19 T h e u n d erly in g p rin cip le h ere seem s to be th a t serf ch ild re n are given into th e o w n ersh ip o f the m aster o f th a t m ale relative th a t w ould, by the cu sto m s o f the G reek w orld in general, have exercised g u ard ian sh ip over th em if they had been free. ‘B astard ’ serf ch ild ren w ere, obviously, ju s t as m u ch serf as ‘leg iti­ m a te ’ ones: the only real effect th e ir ‘leg itim acy’ statu s w ould have had on th e ir lives w ould have been in d e term in in g to w hich m aster they w ere to b elo n g .20 B ut p erh ap s we can ex trap o late from these provisions reg u latin g serf o w n ersh ip to th e w orld o f th e free: it seem s p ro b ab le th a t th e child o f an u n m a rrie d free w om an cam e u n d e r th e g u a rd ian sh ip o f h e r closest m ale ag n ate.21 T h e re are also p rovisions for th e fate o f ch ild ren b o rn to free w om en after th e ir d iv o rce.22 T h e w om an m u st take h e r child to h er fo rm er h u s b a n d ’s house before th ree w itnesses; if he does no t accept th e child, she has th e rig h t to rear it h erself o r expose it; she is fined 50 staters if she exposes the child w ith o u t show ing it to th e h u sb an d , unless h e r h u sb an d has no house. T h e situ atio n o f such a child is o f course technically n o t one o f illegitim acy. B ut th e assu m p tio n s th a t this law m akes do b ear im p o rtan tly u p o n th e subject. T h e law co n tem p lates th a t a w om an w ith o u t a h u sb an d m ay w ish to and indeed m ay be in a positio n to rear a child on h er ow n. P erh ap s th e w o m an ’s g u ard ian w ould typically ad o p t such a child, b a stard or legitim ate. (B roadly parallel p rovisions ap plied to a serf-w om an th a t bore a child after divorce: she had to ex h ib it th e child to h e r h u s b a n d ’s m aster, before tw o w itnesses, and he could th u s, if he chose, take control o f th e child. O th erw ise th e child rev erted to th e ju risd ic tio n o f the m aster o f the serf-w o m an ’s serfg uardian. B ut th e law in this case also gave th e e x -h u sb a n d ’s m aster an extra o p p o rtu n ity to recover th e child: it cam e back u n d e r his ju risd ic tio n if th e serf couple m arried again w ith in th e year.) Cf. Willetts 1967: 12, 14-15, and 20 and 1955: 94-5. 20 Ibid. 1967: 29. 21 See Dareste et al. 1898-1904: i. 461 for the ordering of Gortynian free and serf families in accordance with similar principles. 22 iii. 44-iv. 23.

268

Sparta

It is relevant to note here that, as at Sparta, there was probably no specific action that was legally constitutive of marriage. The word epispensai, ‘pledge’ or ‘promise’ (found at iv. 52-3 and v. 3-4), has been argued to denote a solemn betrothal akin to engyë,23 but in both these passages the ‘pledge’ is made by the father to the daughter, and in the former case to a daughter already within a marriage. It is no doubt the woman’s share of the family property that her father ‘pledges’ to her.24 There is one important respect in which Gortyn differed from Sparta: she had very elaborate laws on rape, adultery, and seduc­ tion. Unlike Athenian law, Gortynian ascribed different penalties for the taking of a woman by persuasion, depending upon whether or not she was married, and reserved the usual Greek root for adultery (moikiön, cf. Attic moicheuo) for sex with married women. I therefore employ here the old-fashioned but useful distinction whereby ‘adultery’ relates to married women but ‘seduction’ to unmarried. The fines for these crimes may be tabulated as follows: RAPE

i . Against a free man or woman25 i ,200 obols 2. Against an apetairos 120 obols 3. Against a free man or woman by serf (dolos) 2,400 obols 4. Against a serf (oikeus) or serf-woman (oikea) by a free man 30 obols 5. Against a serf (oikeus) or serf-woman (oikea) by a serf (oikeus) 60 obols 6. Against a chattel slave-woman (dedamnamena) by day i obol by night 2 obols if a virgin 24 obols SEDUCTION

i . Seduction of a free woman under the guardianship of a relative (kadestas) (i.e. unmarried)

120 obols

ADULTERY

i. With a free woman if in the man’s house

i ,200 obols 600 obols

lJ By Willetts 1967: 21. 14 Cf. Wolff 1952: 160. 25 NB these provisions relate to the rape of men as well as women.

Gortyn

269

A D U L T E R Y ( COf lt.)

120 obols 2. With the wife of an apetairos 2,400 obols 3. With a free woman by a serf (dolos) i ,200 obols if in the serfs house 4. With the ‘woman of a serf (dolos)' (i.e. a serf woman) by a serf (dolos) 60 obols (Derived from Law Code of Gortyn ii. 2—45)“ In this part of the code ‘chattel slave-woman’ is denoted by dedamnamena, while dolos serves for ‘serf, alongside the less problematic oikeus, as is indicated both by the comparability of rape case no. 5 ('oikeus') and adultery case no. 4 ('dolos'), and by the fact that the doloi here are shown to have personal relationships of legal import, which chattel slaves could not.27 The underlying principles that articulate this scheme of fines are perhaps a little contradictory. On the one hand the broad similarity between the fines for rape and adultery in each corresponding category indicates that it is the protection of the husband’s bloodline rather than the protection of women from trauma that is primarily at issue.28 This is also strongly implied by the fact that the fine for the seduction of an unmarried woman is only a tenth of that for adultery with a married woman of the same category: the legitimate descent of no man is immediately inter­ fered with in such a situation.29 (The category of ‘unmarried woman’ in this clause is possibly more restricted than first appears, for she is also qualified as being under the jurisdiction of a kadestas, a term which properly denoted a relation by marriage, although it was often used less precisely to denote any kind of relative.20 If the term is here used strictly to denote ‘relations by marriage’, then it will be referring to the relatives of the unmarried * Cf. Willetts 1967: 10. 17 See ibid.: to, 13-14, and 28. M Cole 19846: 110 argues that rape was considered more serious than adultery, however.

B But ibid.: 110 argues that the fine is less because the seduction is envisaged as being unsuccessful. This is because she reads epipiritai as closely allied in mean­ ing to Attic peiraomai etc. and translates the clause 'make an attempt upon a free woman’. But the word should rather be related to the term epipeirei which Hesychius glosses as ‘commits adultery (as woman) or commits adultery (as man)'. See Willetts 1967 ad loc. and Liddell et al. 1968 s.v. epipeiraomai. 30 Hesychius s.v. kêdestês notes that the word is often ‘wrongly* used as equiva­ lent to syngenis.

270

Sparta

woman’s mother.31) Presumably no penalties are fixed for the seduction of serf-women because the offence was considered nugatory. The overall similarity between the rape and adultery penalties is perhaps to be explained as at Athens with reference to the fact that the Greeks generally attributed so few rational faculties to women that they regarded them as no less passive victims when persuaded than when taken by force. However, it seems that the variant penalties for the adultery cases nos. i and 3, which halve the sum payable should the adultery take place in the man's house rather than the woman’s, do after all concede that a woman can be in some small part culpable for adultery.32 On the other hand, personal dignity also plays a large part in the underlying rationale. If the protection of bloodline alone were at stake, then one would have expected the fine for the rape of or adultery with a woman of any particular class to have been constant, whatever the status of the perpetrator, since all statuses of perpetrator would have constituted an equal threat to the bloodline. But since perpetrators of different statuses are accorded differing levels of fine, it is clear that the code acknowledges that rape or seduction by a man of relatively higher status is less insulting than rape or seduction by a man of lower status: it is, for example, 2,400 times more insulting for a citizen-woman to be raped by a serf than it is for a chattel slave-woman to be raped by anybody. (Willetts well notes the social distances in Gortynian society that these differing fine levels attest).33 But it is not entirely clear that the personal dignity at stake is the woman’s rather than her husband’s or guardian’s. Again, as in Athenian rape law, the fact that these fines apply equally when the victims are male may also suggest in itself that personal dignity was held to be at stake, but this is not necessarily the case (see Chapter 3). No penalty is laid down for a free man’s adultery with a serfwoman, doubtless because the offence was deemed too small to be assessable.34 D iffering fines are im posed for the rap e of a chattel slave-woman: 1 obol for rape by day, 2 for rape by night, and 24 if the victim is a virgin. Perhaps rape by night is considered to involve more forward planning or violence than rape by day, when1 11 » ,3 34

See Willetts 1967 ad loc. and Cole 1984A: 110. Cf. ibid.: 28. Ibid. 1967: 10. Pace ibid.: 28.

Gortyn

271

the slave-woman might constitute an open temptation as she worked outside the house. It is unclear why the virginity of a chattel slave-woman was highly prized: perhaps it was regarded as a treat to be able to take it.15 Like Sparta, Gortyn appears to have been a society which combined a fairly weak conception of bastardy with substantial property rights for women.16As we have seen, a daughter received a half-share of that of a son in her father’s estate;17 a woman maintained control of her own property during marriage and kept it after the marriage ended;18 she was directly succeeded by her own children, and herself portioned out their inheritance.19 35 Cf. Cole 1984&: 109.

36 Cf. Teichman 1978: 83. 37 iv. 31-44. See Willetts 1967: 12 and 20-2, 1955: 96-100, and 1965: 93 and Wolff 1952: 160. M iv. 26-7; cf. iv. 8-14 and ix. 1-11. Cf. Willetts 1967: 20 and 29, and 1965: 92. 39 iv. 23-7 and 44, and v. 9-13; cf. Wolff 1952: 160.

PART

III

Bastardy and the City: The Classical and Hellenistic Periods

It has long been d eb ated w h e th er the hellenistic w orld saw the polis in cu ltu ral and political ‘d eclin e’.1 If th e cu ltu ral aspect o f th is q u estio n now seem s q u ain t, it still seem s possible th a t th e polis sh o u ld have becom e less valu ed as a u n it o f h u m a n organization by v irtu e o f its w eakened exclusivity an d its actual o r effective loss o f au to n o m y to kings, th e g ro w th o f con fed eratio n , synoecism (the physical and civic am algam ation o f tw o o r m ore cities or p o p u latio n gro u p s), th e fo u n d atio n o f new p o p u latio n h u n g ry cities, th e m ixing o f p o p u latio n s, and th e availability o f existence o u tsid e th e polis (as in th e E g y p tian chora). It is also held by som e th a t in th e hellenistic p eriod th e G reeks cam e to reserve such loyalty as th ey had form erly displayed to th e ir states for th e ir ow n fam ilies.2 All th ese factors o u g h t, in th eo ry , to have favoured a general decline in th e significance of polisdefined— p articu larly m etro x en ic— b astard y . W e will argue th a t th e re p ro b ab ly was indeed a general tre n d in th e hellenistic w orld tow ards th e liberalization o f classical b astard y law, and tow ards th e concession o f legitim acy to mëtroxenoi. T h is is w h at V atin believes, th o u g h he im p lau sib ly co rrelates the p h en o m en o n to th e e n try o f th e R om ans in to th e G reek w o rld .3 W e shall c o n stru ct th e a rg u m e n t by co m p arin g th e evidence for b astard y in a range o f cities in the classical an d hellenistic p erio d s w ith th e m odel o f th e decline in m etro x en ic b astard izatio n an d d isfran ch isem en t th a t we found in hellenistic A th en s (C h a p ter i). T h is evidence is largely ep ig rap h ic and difficult because frag m en tary an d contextless: e x tan t decrees m ay rep resen t n o t th e n o rm , b u t som e qualification o r su sp en sio n o f it; n o r is it clear how far exceptions to th e n o rm w ere them selves n o rm al. It is also u n fo rtu n a te th a t we seldom have evidence for b astard y in b o th th e classical and hellenistic perio d s for any given state, w ith th e resu lt th a t change can seldom be d irectly w itnessed. B ut such evidence as there is for change is always towards liberalization. T h is is not to say th a t th ere w ere n o t liberal regim es in th e classical p erio d , o r restrictiv e regim es in th e hellenistic.

1 e . g . , f o r d e c l i n e : P f e i f f e r 1 9 6 8 : i. 8 7 a n d R u n c i m a n 1981: 1 3 6 -9 a n d

1 6 3 -7 a n d P ré a u x

1 9 9 0 ; c f. F . W . W a lb a n k

1 9 7 8 : 4 0 1 - 6 0 o n th e lo s s o f p o litic a l f r e e d o m .

A g a i n s t d e c l i n e : R o s t o v t z e f f 1 9 4 1 : i. 1 1 1 9 - 2 6 . 2 T a r n a n d G riffith s 1952: 7 9 -8 0 , V a n B re m e n

1983: esp . 2 3 5 -7 , V ey n e 1976:

1 0 6 -2 5 , 2 3 6 -7 , a n d 2 5 6 -7 1 , a n d P e rry 1967: 5 a n d 7. J V a tin 197 0 : 1 2 8 -9 .

276

The Classical and Hellenistic City

Let us briefly restate the points we made about the development of Athenian bastardy law between the classical and hellenistic periods. The classical bastardy regime was of course characterized by the citizenship law, which required double civic ascendance for legitimacy. This law, or its equivalents, seem to have remained in force, apart from brief periods of neglect or suspension under various oligarchic and Macedonian regimes, until 229 or, at most, half a century later, as is indicated by epigraphic evidence.

IO

Bastardy in the Cities of the Classical Period

ARISTOTLE DOUBLE

ON

CIVIC IN

THE

THE

PREVALENCE

ASCENDANCE CLASSICAL

OF

THE

REQUIREMENT PERIOD

Aristotle, writing at the end of the classical period and the eve of the hellenistic, implies that the double civic ascendance require­ ment was the rule in the cities of his day: ‘For practical purposes they define a citizen as he that is born of parents that are both citizens, not just one of the two, be it the father or the mother, and some take this requirement even further, such as to two or three or more generations’ (Aristotle Politics I275b22~4). In another (notoriously difficult) passage it is at least clear that Aristotle takes the double civic ascendance constitution as the default one when he describes the expansion and retraction of the citizenship net during crisis: [expansion: /] In many constitutions the law draws in some even of aliens (xenoi). [ia] For that man born of a citizen-woman (politis) is a citizen in some democracies, [/6] and the situation concerning bastards (nothoi) is the same with many peoples, [retraction: 2] All the same, when, through the lack of legitimate citizens (gnësioi politat), they make such people citizens (politai) (for they use the laws this way on account of population shortage), being well off again for population, [2a] they gradually take away first those that are bom of a slave-man or slave-woman, [2b] then those that are bom of women, [2c] and finally they only make those citizens (politai) that are bom from parents that are both citizen (astoi). (Aristotle Politics 1278826-34)

My interpretation of this eliptical passage is as follows. The ‘bastards’ (nothoi) mentioned in (ib ) seem to denote those bom of citizen father and alien mother, mêtroxenoi, which did after all become the most common meaning of the word after the

The Classical and Hellenistic City citizenship law.1 This group thus nicely complements those bom of a citizen mother and alien father, ‘patroxenoi’, mentioned in (ia ). The categories of the expansion and retraction of the citizen body ought to be parallel,2 but they are not: those mentioned in (2a) of the retraction, individuals bom of a citizen and a slave parent (in either combination), constitute an extreme category unmentioned in the expansion; those mentioned in (2b) of the retraction, those bom of an alien man and a citizen woman, correspond to those mentioned in (ia) of the expansion; and the phrase (2c) of the retraction constitutes a positive way of express­ ing the final exclusion of mëtroxenoi, after the preceding exclusion of ‘patroxenoi’, and thus corresponds to (ib ) of the expansion. Now this final act of exclusion, (2c), is unlikely to refer to the exclusion of bastards of double civic ascendance, since Aristotle does positively say here ‘they . . . make those citizens (politai) that are bom from parents that are both citizen (astoi)\ It seems then that in this entire passage Aristotle is concerned only with the citizenship status of the parents, and not their marital status. This conclusion is supported by the fact that Aristotle seems to use the word nothos to mean mëtroxenoi in another passage of the Politics: With a view to establishing this democracy and making the demos strong the leaders are accustomed to bringing in as many as possible and making citizens {politai) not only the legitimate {gnësioi) but also the bastards ( nothoi), even {kai) those bom with their one citizen parent on either side— I mean the father or the mother (patros i métros). (Aristotle Politics

i3i9b6-io)J The point of the last phrase is the following: ‘Not just legitimates but also bastards (nothoi)—and by this I don’t just mean the ordinary sort of bastard, mëtroxenoi, but even the obscurer “patroxenoi” too.’4 The 1275b passage is on any interpretation poorly expressed,5 1 But MacDowell 1976: 90 thinks that double civic ascendance bastards are denoted here. 2 As Gilbert 1881-5: 119 n. 1 saw; cf. Hannick 1976: 135 n. 2. 3 The accuracy of this generalization was discussed in Ch 5. 4 Admittedly, it is conceivable that the k a i here is not intensive-explanatory but simply connective and that the term n o th o i is therefore used to denote something distinct from the m ëtro xen o i and 'patroxenoi' which certainly are the stuff of the final part of the sentence—in other words, inevitably, bastards of double civic ascendance. This is the view of Hannick 1976: 135. 5 Cf. Hannick 1976: 145-8.

The Cities of the Classical Period

279

but the only significant logical difficulty’ with it according to my interpretation is the fact that it is perverse of Aristotle when discussing the expansion to list the obscure and unworthy ‘patroxenoi’ in (ia ) before the common and relatively worthy métroxenoi in ( ib ) . However, we note that he lists ‘patroxenoi’ before métroxenoi also in the 1319b passage, and it is this usage that gives the key: the order of the phrases ‘those born with their one citizen p a re n t. . . the father’ and ‘(those bom with their one citizen parent . . .) the mother’ is influenced by the natural order in which the terms ‘father’ and ‘mother’ on their own would themselves be listed in most contexts in Greek, with the male term taking natural priority over the female. Another aspect of the 1278a passage deserves notice. Despite Aristotle’s assertion, there is in fact little evidence for population shortage (oliganthröpia) leading to the statutory addition of bastards (of whatever category) alone to the citizen body, Whether as a permanent or as a temporary measure. Bastards alone were added at Byzantium, but ostensibly for money, not manpower. And when citizenship was sold cheap at Phaselis, in order, I think, to increase manpower, the offer was opened up to all of every background.

CLASSICAL

PERIOD

DOUBLE

CIVIC

ASCENDANCE

STATES

At By z a n t i u m we find evidence for a double civic ascendance rule coming under pressure towards the hellenistic period: ‘Although they had a law that whoever was not born of two citizens (astoi) should not be a citizen {politis), having become short of money they voted that anyone bom of one citizen (astos) should be a citizen on the payment of 30 minas’ ([Aristotle] Oeconomica 1346b). Clearly métroxenoi (and ‘patroxenoi’) had been non­ citizens before this measure, and indeed continued to be so by default even afterwards. But the measure seems to show their exclusion becoming less imperative and systematic, and the measure also reveals that the state felt that métroxenoi and ‘patroxenoi’ were the group of non-citizens most akin to citizens. Our only guide for the date of this measure is the terminus ante quern constituted by the date of the composition of the Oeconomica,

The Classical and Hellenistic City which was towards the end of the fourth century-. Byzantium is the only state ever recorded as explicitly limiting the sale of citizenship to nothoi.b A fra g m e n ta ry in s c rip tio n fro m e r y t h r a e , d a tin g fro m b e fo re 454, r e c o r d s a d e c r e e o f t h e p e o p l e o n t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f t h e d e m o c ra c y -:

. . . imprison. If he is from a nothos, let him [i.e. the relevant magistrate] imprison him, and he is to be enslaved. But whoever of the true citizens does not go at the proclamation of the presidents, he is to be fined half a stater, which is to go to the presidents, unless necessary business keeps him away. (Engelmann and Merkelbach 1972- [Guide no. 54]: no. 2c)67

The immediate context of these lines is unclear, but what is clear is that Erythrae distinguished, for some purposes, true citizens even from the children of nothoi. This is the only evidence from the entire Greek world for the children of nothoi enjoying a distinct status. The true citizen that fails to appear without good cause when summoned to appear before the presidents incurs a half­ stater fine, but the son of a nothos will be imprisoned and enslaved. The disparity- appals. The punishment of slavery- resembles that under the public prosecution for alienness (graphe xenias) at Athens. It seems probable therefore that the context of this regulation is a bastardy of impure blood, and that the double civic ascendance requirement therefore operated in classical Erythrae too (and notably prior to the citizenship law at Athens). Also, if the problem constituted by bastardy had been held to be the lack of parental marital status, rather than blood, there would have been little reason to distinguish the son of a nothos, who himself (the son) may well have been born within marriage. We note here also an indication that nothoi were subject to strict surveillance.* An inscription of around 360-350 apparently regulates an act of synoecism between o r c h o m e n o s and Euaimon, an insignificant neighbouring town: ‘Whoever has married (gegamêke) an alien woman (xena), the children and the woman are to be Orchomenian’ (Bengston 1962- [Staatsverträge; Guide no. 669]: ii, no. 297, lines A. 40-O2). This clause probably- does not relate 6 S e c o n th is te x t s e e V a tin

1970: 122, H a n n ic k

1976: 137, L a tte

1937: 1074,

C h r is t o p h i l o p o u l o s 1 9 5 1 : 71 a n d 8 1 , R o b e r t 1 9 4 0 a : 3 9 - 4 0 , a n d D a v ie s 1 9 7 8 : 1 3 5 . 7 A l s o = S c h w y z e r 1 9 2 3 [G u id e n o . 3 8 ] : 7 0 1 c . * O n th is te x t see W ilh e lm

190 9 : 1 3 8 -4 1 a n d E n g e lm a n n a n d M e r k e lb a c h 1 9 7 2 -

a d lo c .; c f . C h r i s t o p h i l o p o u l o s 1 9 5 1 : 7 7 a n d L a t t e 1 9 3 7 : 1 0 7 4 .

The Cities of the Classical Period

281

to the synoecism itself, i.e. the rendering of Euaimonian women Orchomenian (although there must have been a measure of this kind), as the term ‘alien woman’ (xena) is an uncharitable and imprecise way of defining new fellow citizens. Hannick suggests that the Orchomenians took the opportunity of the synoecism to admit current alien wives and their metroxenic children in addition, both acts being part of a drive to replenish the citizen body after the massive loss of citizens to the new foundation of Megalopolis, the new capital of the Arcadian league (he compares the Thasian admission of probably Neapolitan ‘patroxenoi’ after their state had been depopulated by war, on which see below). It seems then that a citizen had normally to be born of two parents at Orchomenos before this measure, and that the same was true after it, for the decree only extends citizenship to those alien women that have already been married {gegamêke is perfect) and their children. Just as existing lawsuits and debts are regulated without reference to future problems in lines A. 1-30 of the decree, so too the metroxenic clause addresses an existing and finite situation.4 D o d o n a too probably demanded double civic ascendance of its citizens in the classical period. An inscription found in Dodona, and certainly Epirote in origin, although not explicitly Dodonan, records two decrees of naturalization from the reign of King Neoptolemus (370-368). The first reads: ‘With good fortune. In the reign of Neoptolemus the son of Alcetas, citizenship (politeia) was given to Philista from Arronos, the wife of Antimachus, to her herself and to her children’ (SEG [Guide no. 820] xv, no. 384). And the second, of which the interpretation is more disputed, appears to give citizenship similarly to a woman called Phinto, also of Arronos, and to her children.10 If such grants were necessary, then it seems that mêtroxenoi were normally bastardized. The reason that the wives are given citizenship as well as their existing offspring is to ensure that their future offspring will also be able to enjoy citizenship. Larsen argued that Dodona employed a double civic ascendance requirement for citizenship under the direct influence of Athens, but this view seems excessively Athenocentric: as this review shows, a wide range of classical ’ O n th is te x t se e H a n n ic k 1976: 1 4 1 -2 a n d 1 4 5 . V a tin 1970: 1 2 3 , P la s s a rt 1915: 10 0 - 1 . a n d C h r i s t o p h i l o p o u l o s 1 9 5 1 : 7 9 . F o r th e

d iffic u ltie s o f th e

H a n n ic k 1976: 139, w h o m

in te rp re ta tio n

o f th e

p h ra se

I fo llo w , a n d L a r s e n 1 9 6 7 : 2 5 5 -6 .

P h in to u s g e n e a i s e e

282

The Classical and Hellenistic City

Greek cities also seem to have made the double civic ascendance requirement." It is possible, but not certain, that o r e o s required double civic ascendance for citizenship in the year 351, when Demosthenes said of the mercenary leader Charidemus: this very Charidemus, whose mother is a citizen woman there, though I won’t say who his father was or from where (for there is no need to inquire beyond what is necessary)—at any rate he contributes half of his stock, but up until this day they have not thought it right to make up the other half, so he is enrolled into the nothoi there, just as once the nothoi here were enrolled at Cynosarges. (Demosthenes 23. 213)"

It is clear at least that ‘patroxenoi’ were considered nothoi in Oreos, and denied citizenship. The Cynosarges comparison need only be adduced to illustrate the special enrolment to which nothoi (however defined) are or were subjected in both cities, and need not be pressed further, but it may also indicate that mëtroxenoi were bastardized in Oreos as in classical Athens. Demosthenes’ remark that Charidemus contributes half his birth towards citizenship also probably implies that Oreos required double civic ascendance, unless Demosthenes is again thinking of the Orean situation in terms more appropriate to Athens. Two minor points: this passage is an example of bastardy being defined by mother rather than by father, and therefore indicates that the Greeks did use the term nothos to define the ‘fatherless’ children of women;11*3 secondly, it makes an interesting association between bastardy and the mercenary life, to which we shall return later in the chapter.

CLASSICAL DOUBLE

STATES

CIVIC

THAT

DID

ASCENDANCE

NOT

IMPOSE

A

REQUIREMENT

Classical bastardy regimes that did not make a double civic ascendance requirement are much harder to find, a fact which in itself seems to bear out Aristotle’s generalization and our own 11 O n t h i s t e x t s e e L a r s e n g ra n tin g

body

is

th e

1964,

M o lo s s ia n

1967, an d

1968: 2 7 6 -8 (w h o th in k s th a t th e

c o n fe d e ra c y

ra th e r

th a n

D odona

its e lf)*

C h ris to p h ilo p o u lo s 1951: 7 2 , a n d H a n n ic k 1976: 1 3 9 -4 0 .

u T h is te x t d o e s n o t s u p p o r t th e s p e c u la tio n s o f P a tte rs o n 1990: 6 3 n . 9 1 . 13 C f . L o t z e 1 9 8 1 : 6 9 - 7 2 .

The Cities of the Classical Period

283

hypothesis. Two reasonably certain examples of such regimes are known: Siphnos and Thasos. Classical s i p h n o s appears to have permitted metroxenic citizen­ ship since Isocrates represents the metroxenic children of Thrasyllus of Siphnos, by a woman of Seriphos, as legitimate (gnesious). It is conceivable, however, that these two neighbouring states had an agreement of epigamy (‘intermarriage’).14 Classical t h a s o s appears, as part of a one-off and exceptional measure, to have permitted some kind of patroxenic legitimacy. An inscription from the late fifth or early fourth century attests that the Thasians conferred citizenship (politeia) on individuals of a state whose name is lost that were born of Thasian mothers. The other state in question is usually supposed to have been Neapolis: ‘['5. . . All the Neapolitans that from Tha]sian women are born, these are to be Tha[sians and there is to be a share for them and their descendants] in all things in which the oth[er Tha]si[ans share . . . (JG [Guide nos. 57-8] xii. 8 264, lines 8-10 (incorporat­ ing revisions by Pouilloux 1954: i. 204-12)). If the state concerned was indeed Neapolis, then the grant was not particularly adventurous, for Neapolis was close to Thasos and actually one of its colonies. Pouilloux suggests that the context of this decree was the restoration of political exiles who had fled to Neapolis and given their daughters as wives to Neapolitan citizens.16 Or perhaps Thasos just wanted to increase the size of its citizen body:17 we know that she did at some point sell citizenship.18 At any rate it is surely the case that ‘patroxenoi’ are honoured here without reference to mëtroxenoi because the latter already enjoy Thasian citizenship unproblematically. It also appears, of course, that whatever the other state concerned was, whether Neapolis or 14 I s o c r a t e s u n iq u e n e s s

of

19. 9 .

On

m e tro x e n ic

th is

te x t sec

c itiz e n s h ip

H a n n ic k h e re )

and

1976:

143

(w h o

o v e rs ta te s

C h ris to p h ilo p o u lo s

1951:

th e 78

( o d d l y s p e c u l a t i n g t h a t t h e m a r r i a g e w a s m a d e a t a t i m e ‘j u s t b e f o r e G r e e k c i t i e s g e n e r a l l y s t a r t e d t o b e c o m e a n t i - m e t r o x e n i c ’). ,s T h e s q u a r e b r a c k e t s h e r e a r e i n t e n d e d t o g i v e a n ( i n e v i t a b l y v e r y ) a p p r o x i ­ m a te in d ic a tio n o f w h ic h p a r ts o f th e te x t a re e x ta n t, a n d w h ic h p a r ts h a v e b e e n s u p p l i e d . I t s h o u l d b e s t r e s s e d t h a t t h e g e n e r a l s u b s t a n c e o f t h e s u p p l e m e n t s is n o t c o n tro v e rs ia l. ,fc P o u i l l o u x 1 9 5 4 - 8 : i. 2 0 8 - 9 , b u t c f . C h a m o u x 1 9 5 9 : 3 5 7 . 17 H a n n i c k 1 9 7 6 : 1 4 5 a n d c o m m e n t a r y a t I G [G u id e n o s . 5 7 - 8 ] x ii S u p p l., p . 1 5 2 ; c f. C h r is to p h ilo p o u lo s 1 9 5 1 : 8 0 . ,H I G

[G u id e n o s . 5 7 - 8 ] x ii S u p p l . , p p . 3 5 5 a n d 3 6 2 ; c f . R o b e r t 1 9 4 0 a : 3 9 - 4 0

( in c o r p o r a tin g re v is e d te x t a t 3 9 n . 6 ) a n d b e lo w .

284

The Classical and Hellenistic City

another, it also permitted metroxenic marriages—at any rate to Thasian women. It is also probable that nothoi of all sorts were embraced by the fifth-century democracies of S i c i l y that Thucydides tells us were made up of ‘mixed up rabbles’, and experienced ‘easy changes and successions of citizens [or: constitutions]’.19 It remains to consider the cases of two states for which the evi­ dence is very difficult to interpret: Tegea and Tenos. It is possible but very far from certain that both states admitted mëtroxenoi as citizens, whether they were categorized as nothoi or not. A fifth-century inscription from t e g e a possibly indicates that nothoi had a relatively high status there. It records a deposit of money made at a temple: [A] Two hundred minas deposited by Xuthias son of Philachaeus. If he himself lives, let him come and collect the money. But if he dies, the money is to belong to his children, whenever they have been of the age of majority for five years. If children are not born to him, the money is to belong to those to whom it is adjudged, and the Tegeates are to make the ruling. [B] Four hundred minas have been deposited in the temple by Xuthias, son of Philachaeus. If he lives, let him collect them himself, but if he does not live, let his legitimate sons (gnêsioi) collect them, when they have been of the age of majority for five years. And if they do not live, let his legiti­ mate daughters (gnësiai) collect them. And if they do not live, let his nothoi collect them. And if the nothoi do not live, let the closest relatives collect them. And if they dispute about it, let the Tegeates make the ruling. (Dittenberger 1915-24 [Syll ? : Guide no. 25]: 1213b)

Text A is struck out to be superseded by B. This seems to imply that in the meantime Xuthias had got wealthier and realized (to a great extent) the family that was only hypothetical at the time when A was written. This in turn suggests that the nothoi mentioned in B are actual, not hypothetical. The listing of the nothoi directly after the legitimate children (interestingly including girls) and before the collateral relatives seems to imply that nothoi could inherit in default of legitimate offspring. Since nothoi were permitted succession in some form, it is probable that they could succeed to their father’s personal status and therefore become citizens. The inscription does not give us any clues as to what categories of children were classified as nothoi at Tegea, but it ”

T h u c y d i d e s 6 . 1 7; c f. D i o d o r u s 10. 2 6 ; c f. C h . 5.

The Cities of the Classical Period

285

m ight be thought that even if mëtroxenoi were bastardized, they could none the less acquire the citizenship qua bastards. However, one significant difficulty remains: X uthias is probably not a citizen of Tegea (the dialect o f the inscription is not true Arcadian). D ittenberger thought this fact constituted no obstacle to the exploitation of the inscription for details of Tegean law, since an alien is still subject to the law of the state in which he resides. In m ost m atters this is undoubtedly true, b u t not where legitimacy is concerned. T h u s the state of Tegea could after all have rigorously enforced a rule of double civic ascendance for citizenship, and therefore severely bastardized mëtroxenoi, and debarred them from citizenship and succession, but all this would have had little bearing upon X uthias and his family, since he was him self xenos in any case (as no d o ubt was his wife), and neither he him self nor any child of his entertained any claim upon the citizenship. An alien man cannot by definition have m etroxenic children: as far as the host state is concerned, all bastards of aliens are in the same relationship of succession to him as bastards of double civic ascendance are to their citizen fathers. T herefore, the high status of bastards in the succession to the alien X uthias can at m ost be indicative of a com paratively high status of double civic ascendance bastards alone, and not m etroxenic bastards, to their citizen fathers. But it need not be indicative even of this: the state of Tegea may have cared nothing at all for the way in which aliens organized their family, and X uthias may simply have made the order of succession up off the top of his head. T h e only way in which our initial conclusion, namely that mëtroxenoi were adm itted to the citizenship in Tegea, can be allowed to stand is upon the assum ption that X uthias, despite his alien status, is em ploying a common legal form ula used in tem ple deposits, and not one specific to metics. Some think that X uthias was in fact a Spartan depositing his money outside his city in order to avoid its austere currency laws.20 But, for w'hat it is w orth, the family organization described here by X uthias does not obviously correspond w ith the details of Spartan family organization as o u t­ lined in the previous chapter. A fourth-century inscription from t e n o s relating to a phratry or a sim ilar body lays dow'n some tantalizing and confusing stipula­ tions w ith regard to nothoi. A lthough we cannot be sure about the 2,1 S e e J e f f r e y 1 9 9 0 [ L S A G \ G u id e n o . 8 5 9 ] : 2 1 2 ; c f . P a t t e r s o n 1 9 9 0 : 5 4 n . 5 6 .

286

The Classical and Hellenistic City

actual definition of bastardy there, in particular, whether or not mêtroxenoi were bastardized, the inscription raises a number of points of interest. Law of introduction. A wife with a he-goat. A son with a he-goat. Do not introduce him before his father is 50 years old. Do not thrust away (apösai) a boy of the same father if the father has died in the intervening years. It is not permitted to introduce a nothos. If a nothos is not thrust out (exôthêtai), introduce him at the same age as in the case of legitimates. Whoever introduces a nothos, let him pay 25 drachmas. Let him swear at the hearth and provide two witnesses that he thinks the nothos is his (oiomenon). And let the introducer also swear that he is of the same father or the son of a brother. And let the mother swear too. Whoever fails to persuade any of those present is to be fined 5 drachmas. (IG [Guide nos. 57-8] xii Suppl., no. 303)21

This inscription, like a great many Greek legal inscriptions, is elliptical and apparently changes subject abruptly and without manifest indications that it is doing so. Thus the second sentence, ‘Do not thrust away . . .’, probably means that the phratrymen are required to permit a boy to be introduced by a brother (of the same father) if the father is dead. And the sentences from ‘And let the introducer . . .’ almost certainly do not relate specifically to the introduction of nothoi, the immediately preceding subject, but rather detail provisions for oaths of introduction to be sworn by the father of any boy, or his surrogates, upon that child’s intro­ duction. Since the introduction of wives is mentioned before that of sons, it appears that one first introduces one’s wife to the phratry, presumably at marriage, in preparation for the introduction of the sons one will have of her in due course. One thinks, very loosely, of the Athenian gamëlia. The wife’s role in the phratry is of con­ tinuing importance, for she is required to swear to the paternity of sons in certain circumstances: the choppy organization of the prescriptions leaves us uncertain whether wives are required to swear upon the introduction of all boys, or whether they simply constitute one the categories that may act as introducer if the father is no longer living. There is no mention of the introduction of daughters: evidently they are not introduced to their father’s 21 This is the latest and best text; it can be found also, with some significantly different conjectures to fill lacunae, at Schwyzer 1 9 2 3 [Guide no. 3 8 ] : no. 7 8 4 a and Graindor 1 9 1 7 : 5 4 - 6 7 (with full commentary).

The Cities of the Classical Period

287

phratry, although they will of course subsequently be introduced to their husband’s phratry as wives in their own turn. Unfortunately there is no clear indication in the inscription as to how Tenos actually defined its nothoi. It is tempting, given the context of discussion of nothoi here, to think that the phratry would, for its own purposes, have regarded those boys as nothoi whose mother had not been formerly introduced to them. But we have no way of knowing what factors might have impeded such an introduction: the absence of marriage alone? Or was alienness also a bar? The provisions relating to these nothoi, whatever their back­ ground, are certainly curious: first their admission is outlawed outright, but then, rather illogically, conceded after all upon the payment of a special sum. It is almost as if even in the very framing of the legislation an unresolved struggle continues between an instinctive repugnance for bastards and something more rational, whether it be pity or the desire to make money. The word for their hypothetical rejection, exôthëtai, seems, for what it is worth, to be a harsher term than that used for the hypothetical rejection of legitimate candidates (apösai). It is interesting that the admission of nothoi is accompanied by the payment of money, rather than the sacrifice of a he-goat. Perhaps it was felt that nothoi should not participate in sacred rites, as at Athens. It is not clear how the admission price for nothoi, 25 drachmas, relates to the usual price of a he-goat. Is it greater, and therefore intended to be punitive? Or is it the same, and therefore intended to be the equivalent of a sacrifice but without the religious significance? Or is it smaller, and therefore intended to recognize the lesser value of a nothos? The price probably did not differ very greatly from the cost of the he-goat: an inscription from second-century Cos has a kid (eriphos) at 10 drachmas and an adult goat (aix) at 20.22 Beyond this we can only speculate. If this is indeed a phratry inscription, and phratries in Tenos played a broadly similar role to those of Athens, then perhaps the (apparently reluctant and variable) admission of nothoi did mean that those that were admitted were entitled to the fruits of citizenship. Perhaps then the admission price for nothoi should rather be compared to the price paid by the nothoi at Byzantium to be admitted to the "

D i t t e n b e r g e r S y l t .' n o .

G u id r n o .

25]); cf.

G ra in d o r

621, l i n e s 9-11 1917: 61.

( n o t in D i t t e n b e r g e r

1915—24 [ S y l t

288

The Classical and Hellenistic City

citizenship during the city’s financial crisis. The conciliatory aspect of this inscription’s attitude towards nothoi has something in common with the attitude displayed towards them by the hellenistic Coan cult of Heracles, as we shall shortly see.23 Whether mitroxenoi were categorized as nothoi or not, it seems likely that they could acquire citizenship, whether that was as legitimates or as nothoi. It is at any rate on the basis of this possi­ bility that, despite all the remaining obscurities, it has seemed on balance more appropriate to locate Tenos in the pro-metroxenic group of classical bastardy regimes. u On this text see Graindor 1917: 54-65. Christophilopoulos 1951: 76, and Latte 1937: 1074.

The Hellenistic Relaxation

A number of factors may have contributed to the undermining of the prevalent double civic ascendance rule in the hellenistic period.

POPULATION

MIXING

In the economic upheavals of the hellenistic period people came from all over the Greek world to live on the margins of the great commercial cities like Athens, Delos, Rhodes, and Miletus. Vatin well remarks: These people did not dream of returning to live in their original home state and worried little about the political rights which had lost much of their significance and prestige; these strangers married amongst themselves, formed a stock, and tended to constitute a homogenous class of Greeks bearing their original ethnic by tradition, but in reality being citizens of the world, because they no longer belonged to any city. (Vatin

1970: 128-9) We see couples of disparate (ostensible) provenance being given citizenship in Miletus in the late third century—Ephesus and Samos, Mylasa and Halicarnassus, etc.—and similar cases could be quoted from Rhodes and Delos.' Thus these cities contained large, theoretically ‘second-class citizen’ populations that knew of no political bastardy. The growing phenomenon of mercenaries will also have contributed to this mêlée. Many of these ‘metic’ aliens will have been eventually accommodated as citizens under increasingly frequent grants and sales of citizenship.2 The Egyptian chora experienced a similar phenomenon, as we shall see 1 See Rostovtzcff 1941: 1 1189-247, Ferguson 1911: 89, and Roussel 1916: 72- 9 6 .

2 See

Robert 1940a: 40.

290

The Classical and Hellenistic City

in Chapter 13.I*3 McKechnie understands the increased mobility of Greek populations in the later fourth century as entailing an ‘internationalisation’ of Greek society, and considers that the Greek world is henceforth much more powerfully conceptua­ lized as one big system rather than a series of discrete (polis) systems.4

EPIGAMY

AND

MIXED

MARRIAGE

There survive a great many treaties establishing the reciprocal right of epigamy (‘intermarriage’) between pairs of states. Although a few of these are known from the classical period (such as the early fourth-century treaty in which Olynthus recognized reciprocal epigamy with her satellite states),5 it is overwhelmingly a hellenistic phenomenon. Hellenistic epigamy treaties relate to places all over the Greek world: e.g. we have one made between Messene and Phigalia in c.240,6 and an early second-century treaty between Troezen and Hermione.7 Cretan cities appear to have been particularly keen on making them, both with each other and with external states: e.g. we have a late third-century’ treaty between Cretan Hierapytna and the Cretan Arcades,8 and a late second-century treaty between the same Hierapytna and the Magnesians.9 There also survive many inscriptions recording grants of the right of epigamy by a state to individual aliens (all men in fact: we shall explain why below): e.g. Laconian Cotyrta gave epigamy to a Spartan in the second century,10Iand Thessalian Gonnoi gave epigamy to a wide range of individuals in the last three centuries BC, including three from Larissa." These treaties and grants have been conveniently collected and reviewed by I Cf. Vatin 1970: 143 and Christophilopoulos 1951: 84. 4 McKechnie 1989: 4. 5 Xenophon Helleniea 5. 2. 19. * Dittenberger 1915-24 [Sylt.1-, Guide no. 25]: no. 472=Schwyzer 1923 [Guide no. 38]: no. 71; cf. Christophilopoulos 1951: 71. ’ IG [Guide nos. 57-8] iv \ no. 77 and no. 752 (=Schwyzer 1923 [Guide no. 38]: no. 104); cf. Christophilopoulos 1951: 72. * Guarducci 1935—50 (/. Crel.\ Guide no. 169]: iii. 29, no. ib; cf. Christophilopoulos 1951: 72. 9 Ibid. iii. 42, no. 3c; cf. Christophilopoulos 1951: 72. 10 1 G [Guide nos. 57-8] v, nos. 961 and 976; cf. Christophilopoulos 1951: 73. II Arbanitopoulos 1911-15: nos. 113,114, and 243.

291

The Hellenistic Relaxation

Christophilopoulos.12 Such agreements between states increas­ ingly whittled away at blood exclusivity. The rise in epigamy is clearly concomitant with and itself contributes to the decline of metroxenic bastardy. However, Christophilopoulos overestimates the extent to which epigamy undermined existing conventions of exclusivity. He argues that if a state granted epigamy, whether to another state or to an individual, it must not otherwise have per­ mitted mixed marriages, but must have been a regime of double civic ascendance. This superficially attractive interpretation of epigamy is shown to be wrong by the case of Axos in Crete. In the early second century a x o s made a treaty of epigamy with Aetolia, and ought therefore, according to Christophilopoulos’ understanding, to have been a double civic ascendance regime. The inscription that reveals this fact is one that claims ‘federal citizenship’ (koinopoliteia) in Aetolia for a citizen of Axos, Epicles, and in so doing it tells us much about his background. His father, Eraton of Axos, married a wife in Cyprus, who was therefore surely Cypriot. Epicles, the child of this union, is explicitly described as ‘a citizen of ours’ {politas hamos). It appears from this therefore that Axos did allow metroxenic citizenship. Epicles led a colourful life: the inscription tells that he was sold as a war-captive to Amphissa, and then bought back his freedom and married a woman of Amphissa. The children of this union are also mentioned by the Axian text, and although they are not explicitly described as citizen, both the precedent set by their father himself and the fact that they are actually considered worthy of mention in this text suggest that they were indeed of that status. This episode then, in addition to testifying further to metroxenic citizenship in Axos, also vividly demonstrates the tenacity with which Axos was prepared to uphold the rights of its expatriate citizens through the generations as they moved from state to state around the Greek world, ever diluting their Axian blood.'3 The reason that a state permitting mixed marriage can still meaningfully give grants of epigamy is as follows. With very rare exceptions (the case of Thasos, just considered, might arguably be one), when a state admits mixed marriage, it will accept as legiti­ mate citizens the children of its male citizens and alien women, 12 1 9 5 1 : 7 1 - 4 . n

G u a rd u c c i

1 9 3 5 -5 0

[/.

C r e t.\

G u id e

no.

1 6 9 ]:

ii,

p.

v,

A xos

no.

1 9 = D i t t c n b e r g c r 1 9 1 5 - 2 4 [ S y / / .* ; G u id e n o . 2 5 ] : n o . 6 2 2 b = S c h w y z c r 1 9 2 3 [G u id e n o . 3 8 ]: n o . 189. C f. V a tin 1 9 7 0 : 1 22.

2Ç2

i.e. mëtroxenoi, but not children of its female citizens and alien men, i.e. ‘patroxenoi’. This was the situation, as we have already seen, in pre-Periclean Athens. The reason for this distinction is simple: citizenship is a personal status which is passed down in the male line. So when such a state makes a grant of epigamy to an alien man, and it is significant that all extant grants of epigamy by single states to individual aliens are to men,14the state permits him to have children by one of its own women, and guarantees to those children the status of legitimate citizens in itself. Thus, a grant of epigamy legitimates children that would otherwise have been patroxenic nothoi. Therefore, when an agreement of epigamy is made, it does not tell us anything about the policy of the partici­ pating states towards mëtroxenoi. All that it actually tells us about the participating states is the unremarkable fact that they did not normally accept ‘patroxenoi’ as citizens, and henceforth, within a limited sphere, were going to do so. Or, to be strictly accurate, it need only tell us that one of the participating states did not normally admit ‘patroxenoi’, since diplomatic considerations could demand that an agreement of epigamy be expressed recipro­ cally, even if the citizenship policy of only one of the partners was effectively modified. Christophilopoulos also misguidedly argues, for similar reasons, that grants of epigamy made by single states to individual aliens were honorific but practically useless. He is right that a citizen of state A cannot have children legitimate in the eyes of state A, simply for having been granted epigamy by state B, which is to say that state B cannot unilaterally debastardize state A’s metroxenic bastards. But it was never the purpose of such epigamy grants that one state should interfere in the citizenship matters of another. The point is that by a grant of individual epigamy to a citizen of state A state B legitimates in its own eyes any children he should have with one of its own women. In other words, by granting epigamy state B undertakes to accept as legitimate citizens of itself children that it would otherwise have considered to be patroxenic bastards. This is an extremely valuable concession to an expatriate citizen of state A resident in state B, and this was doubtless the situation of most recipients of individual grants of epigamy. Noteworthy here also is an inscription from m i l e t u s , which records a treaty of sympoliteia, ‘merging of citizenships’, of that 14 C h r i s t o p h i l o p o u l o s 1 9 5 1 : 7 3 - 6 .

The Hellenistic Relaxation

293

state with p i d a s a in the year 182: ‘The Pidasaeans are to be citizens of the Milesians, and so are their children and all their wives that are Pidasaeans by birth (physei) or citizen women (politides) of a Greek city’ (Kawerau and Rehm 1914 [Milet; Guide no. 210]: i. 3 no. 149, line 10). Thus it seems that the Pidasaeans had been admitting mixed marriage (at any rate with Greek women) hitherto.15

THE

LEAGUES

AND

EPIGAMY

The leagues that came to flourish in the hellenistic world con­ tributed greatly to the rise of epigamy. This was a process that had in fact begun before the hellenistic age: Xenophon has Cleigenes assert in 382 that the incipient Olynthian League would become increasingly indissoluble ‘if they were going to be bound together with each other by the epigamies and the rights of landownership (enktisis) in each other’s states for which they had voted’.16 Larsen believes that federal citizenship in the hellenistic period normally entailed active citizenship in one city of the confederacy and the rights of a kind of passive citizenship, comprising epigamy and enktisis and perhaps some other rights, in all the other cities of the confederacy.17 It seems probable that under such an arrangement nothoi of all kinds were at least passive citizens. An inscription from 272 or 262 attests that by the time in question the a e t o l i a n l e a g u e and the Acarnanians had recog­ nized the right of epigamy for each other’s citizens in their territory.18 The cities or townships of the Aetolian League must have first conceded epigamy to each other before a man could be granted epigamy qua Acarnanian with the League as a whole without further qualification. However, although the decree also grants citizenship (politeia) to the Acarnanians in Aetolia, this does not mean, pari passu, that there only existed in Aetolia a single Aetolia-wide citizenship body, to the exclusion of locally based ” Cf. Vatin 1970: 123. '* Xenophon Hetlenica 5. 2. 19; cf. Schwahn 1931: 102. 17 L arsen 1957: 25-6.

11 Dittcnberger 1915-24 [ S y ll.}\ G u id e no. 25]: no. 421. line 11. Cf. Vatin 1970: 130. Christophilopoulos 1951: 72, and Schwahn 1931: too. Cf. also the gift of ’federal citizenship' (koinopoliteia) in Aetolia to the Axian Epicles in the early 2nd cent., as discussed above.

294

The Classical and Hellenistic City

citizenships in the constituent cities.” There may have been a two-tier system along the lines that Larsen advocates. The evidence bearing upon the policies of constituent states on the citizenship status of mëtroxenoi is inconclusive. Thus Lamia, a constituent state of the Aetolian League, granted in 218/17 its own citizenship {politeia) to a poetess of Smyrna, Aristodama, because she had given numerous public readings and her poems flattered Aetolia.20 Perhaps then citizenship was necessary for mothers to be able to produce state citizens at Lamia, but this is far from certain as the decree’s primary function is clearly honorific. A dedication inscription of around 200 by a Ptolemaic officer, Euphrainetus, to accompany an altar erected to Artemis in Xanthus, also bears inconclusively on the question. Euphrainetus explains his dedica­ tion by saying that he is ‘an Aetolian officer, but Xanthian on his mother’s side’.21 The simple interpretation of this is that Aetolian mëtroxenoi enjoyed citizenship. However, the term ‘Xanthian’ in this inscription must be more local than political, for it is extremely unlikely that Euphrainetus was a citizen of Xanthus, since he was merely ‘patroxenos’ to the state (and, as we have seen, ‘patroxenoi’ hardly ever enjoyed citizenship rights). One may therefore wonder whether ‘Aetolian’ likewise is more local than political. If the former, then it tells us nothing of the policy either of any constitutent state of the League, or of the federal state itself. Epigamy is attested between the states of the a c a r x a n i a n l e a g u e by the treaty, just discussed, that it made with the Aetolian League. Furthermore, the league specified that new citizens could exercise their citizenship in any single city of Acarnania desired (‘let him have the citizenship [politeia] of Acarnania in whichever city he wishes . . .’).22 It is also possible that any existing citizen could re-register to a different state. Similarly, the C r e t a n l e a g u e as an entity bestowed citizenship upon the Magnesians, which implies the existence of a federal citizenship and epigamy between constituent cities.23 19 See Vatin 1970: 131, Christophilopoulos 1951: 72, Larsen 1957: 5-26, and Schwahn 1931. 20 Dittenberger 1915-24 [ S y ll.); G u id e no. 25]: no. 532; cf. Hannick 1976: 141 with n. 29 and Lérat 1952: i. 84. 21 T itu li A tia e M in o ris [G uide no. 59], ii, no. 2263=Dittenberger 1903-5 [O G IS-, G u id e no. 26]: no. 91. Cf. Vatin 1970: 127-8. 22 I G [G uide nos. 57-8] ix. 1, no. 445. Cf. Larsen 1957: 6. 21 Kem 1900 [/. Magnesia-, G u id e no. 209]: no. 20=\lichel 1900 [G uide no. 28]: ii, no. 438.

The Hellenistic Relaxation

295

The states of the a c h a e a n l e a g u e also possibly enjoyed epigamy with each other: a large list of the Achaean war-dead from the constituent state of Epidaurus in 146 reveals that many of them were not registered in the local tribes of Epidaurus, and hence not citizens of it. However, there are so many of them that they must have enjoyed civil rights there, even though it was not their ancestral city.24 It is likely, but not certain, that the cities of the n e s i o t i c or ‘ i s l a n d ’ l e a g u e enjoyed epigamy with each other. The typical formula of citizenship grants by the league bestows citizenship upon worthy individuals in all its cities, which would seem exces­ sively generous unless citizens of the cities in the league could move around the cities and exercise a fairly full set of rights there themselves.25 The a r c a d i a n l e a g u e seems to have been an exception to the rule and not to have had a federal epigamy, as in 240 Messenia concluded an agreement of epigamy with the state of Phigalia alone, and not the whole body of the Arcadians;26 and, as we have already seen, Arcadian Orchomenos had had to provide specially for the accession of alien wives to its citizen body in its synoecism with Euaimon in around 350.27

SYNOECISMS

The great synoecisms of the hellenistic age encouraged and accommodated uprooted Greeks. These new foundations could only be established through multiple ‘mixed’ marriages. The step from agreements of epigamy and isopoliteia, ‘reciprocal citizenship rights’, between two neighbouring states to their full synoecism was a small one (as the synoecism of Miletus and Pidasa, already discussed, shows).28 The foundation of the Arcadian League’s 24 I G [G uide nos. 57-8] iv-\ no. 28. Cf. Larsen 1957: 6. M Thus I G [G uide nos. 57—8] xi. 4, nos. 1038-9 and 1046 (cf. also nos. 1040 and 1042). 2* Dittenberger 1915-24 [ S y l l . \ G u id e no. 25]: no. 472 = S chw yzer 1923 [D ialectorum G raecarum exem pla epigraphica potiora; G u id e no. 38]: no. 71. Cf. Vatin 1970: 131 and Christophilopoulos 1951: 72. 27 I G [G uide nos. 57-8] v. 2=Bengston 1962— [Staatsrerträge-, G u id e no. 669]: ii. no. 297. Cf. Hannick 1976: 141-2 and 145 and Christophilopoulos 1951: 78-9. •’* Kawerau and Rehm 1914 [A tilet; G u id e no. 210]: iii. 1, no. 149. Cf. Vatin 1970: 130.

synoecism at Megalopolis was a bigger step, as the Arcadian states did not as a rule enjoy epigamy with each other (see above); none the less, the constituent populations clearly had much in common. But the most extreme forms of synoecism in Greek terms were those royal synoecisms whereby a city was created from nothing, and welcomed Greeks (and indeed non-Greeks) from all over the Greek world: such were Antioch and Demetrias.29 Many non­ citizen nothoi of the older states thus had the opportunity to become full citizens of one of these many new communities.

THE

SALE

OF

CITIZENSHIP

The sale of citizenship apparently became common in the hellenistic world. We have seen that in the late fourth century Byzantium sold its citizenship to its mêtroxenoi and ‘patroxenoi* because of shortage of funds (and that these were evidently con­ sidered to be the non-citizens most worthy of citizenship). Robert extrapolates from this case and argues that shortage of funds was always the reason behind the sale of citizenship; he argues that this was the case in particular with the sale of citizenship by p h a s e l i s . 20 Our knowledge of this comes from a reference by the proverb collector Macarios: ‘Citizenship in the year of Lysis’: a proverb denoting unworthiness. For they say that the Phaselites decreed that anyone who wanted could be a Phaselite31 citizen upon payment of a mina, and then the proverb arose after a great number of unworthy people had been enrolled. (Macarios 8. 26 (in Leutsch and Schneidewin 1839-51 [CPG]: ii. 217))

Macarios gives no clue as to the period to which this refers, though it is usually thought to be the hellenistic. I disagree with Robert: it seems that anxiety about manpower shortage was as much an incentive for the sale of citizenship. Since Phaselis itself sold citizenship for the pitiful sum of 1 mina to any comer, and indeed allowed itself to be swamped by new citizens, manpower rather than money was surely what this state at any rate desired. ?9 See Préaux 1978: ii. 402-8 and McKechnie 1989: 54-60. 50 Robert 1940a. 31 The word ‘Phaselite’ (Phasêlitên), which can only be a complement to ‘anyone who wanted’ (ton boulomenon), appears to be oddly misplaced in the text: see Robert 1940a: 39-40; see Treuber 1887: 180 n. 2 for a different view.

The Hellenistic Relaxation

297

Byzantium charged 30 minas, Dyme 6o, Thasos 30, and Ephesus 6 (as we shall see). Anyone at all (ton boulomenon), it seems, was entitled to take up the Phaselite offer (though Macarios may gloss over some restrictions), and presumably nothoi seized the opportunity. Since the measure is specifically associated with a year-long eponymous magistracy, it seems to have been a temporary and finitely operative measure, though its effects would have been long lasting.32 An inscription attests the selling of citizenship by d y m e in the third century to those that were resident in its territory (epoikoi).33 Unlike Phaselis’ sale, this one was evidently intended to be rather exclusive: the price of citizenship, a talent, i.e. 60 minas, is the highest recorded for the sale of citizenship anywhere in the Greek world,34 and the offer was not open to slaves (presumably includ­ ing freed ones) or the sons of slaves. Provisions are made for the inclusion of children: those already born can benefit from their father’s purchase of citizenship provided that the boys are less than 17 and the girls unmarried. Dittenberger inserts the word gnësion into a lacuna to make the father swear that any son he brings to the citizenship is ‘legitimate’ (not ‘of the blood’, for this is specified separately). But why should Dyme care about the legitimacy of aliens? And if it did, why should it care only about the legitimacy of males? If the city did indeed require its enfranchised aliens—or rather, the sons (alone) of its enfranchised aliens—to be born legitimate, the only rational motivation for such a requirement would have been to put on airs and graces. But the city is clearly doing that by pitching the price of its citizenship so high in the first place. Another inscription attests the sale of citizenship by e p h e s u s in the early third century for 6 minas: ‘[It was decreed . . .] to make citizens (politai) for 6 minas each men that are free and born of free parents, not more than te[n . . . ’ (Wankel and Merkelbach 1979-81 [I . Ephesos; Guide nos. 199-206]: no. 2001,35 lines 9-10). Although the price is not very high, the severe limits placed on the numbers to be enrolled at any given point indicate that in this case it is indeed money rather than population that is sought.36 Ephesus too 32 R o b e r t 1 9 4 0 a : 4 1 . 33 D i t t e n b e r g e r 1 9 1 5 - 2 4 [ S y l t. 3; G u id e n o . 2 5 ] : n o . 5 3 1 . 34 C f . C h r i s t o p h i l o p o u l o s 1 9 5 1 : 8 1 - 3 a n d R o b e r t 1 9 4 0 a : 3 9 - 4 0 . 35 A l s o = D i t t e n b e r g e r 1 9 1 5 - 2 4 [S y lt. 3; G u id e n o . 2 5 ] : n o . 3 6 8 .

H C f. R o b e r t 1 9 4 0 a : 3 9 - 4 0 .

298

The Classical and Hellenistic City

clearly wished to retain some degree of exclusivity in only permit­ ting trickles of non-citizens into its citizen body, and in requiring that all admitted be free and born of free parents. We also appear to have an epigraphical trace of another third-century Ephesian citizenship sale: ‘to make three people citizens, to the benefit of the people.’37 A fragmentary inscription tells that a s p e n d o s accorded citizen­ ship to some ‘Pamphylians, Lycians, Cretans, Hellenes, and Pisidians’ between the years of 301 and 298.38 The phrase ‘they are to be citizens’ appears in the tenth line. Later on, in the fifteenth, we find the phrase ‘if one of them wishes to be enrolled into a tribe, let him pay the sum of money the city wishes’.39 Since it appears already to have been declared that the newcomers are citizens in line 10, it is possible that the entry into a tribe for which the men must pay marks an optional advance to a further grade of citizen­ ship. Hellenistic Greeks certainly worried about declining citizen numbers. A famous inscription from Larissa, an inscribed letter from Philip V, attests her anxiety about population depletion in 219. In his letter Philip advised the city to give her citizenship to other Thessalians and other Greeks in the city until he could think of others worthy of the citizenship.40 And Polybius complained: In o u r tim e c h ild le s s n e s s a n d , in s h o rt, p o p u la tio n s h o rta g e h a d afflicted th e w h o le o f G re e c e . B e c a u se o f th is c itie s h a v e b e e n d e s e rte d , a n d la n d h a s c e a s e d to b e c u ltiv a te d , a lth o u g h w e h a v e n o t b e e n in th e g rip o f c o n tin u o u s w a rs o r c o n d itio n s o f p e stile n c e . . . P e o p le h a v e b e c o m e p re ­ te n tio u s , a v a ric io u s , a n d id le , a n d w is h n e ith e r to m a rry , n o r, if th e y m a rry , to re a r th e c h ild re n th a t a re b o rn to th e m . (P o ly b iu s 36. 17)

By contrast, Aristotle had thought that in his day the population of Greece was maintaining itself.41 It matters little whether Polybius was right about his own day (although in fact archaeological justification for Polybius’ view has been found):42 what is significant is that an intelligent Greek believed and fretted that population was in decline, and this evidences the anxiety that gave 37 M ichel 1900 [G uide no. 28]: no. 495, line 1. 38 W ilhelm 1911-21: iv. 61-2, no. 2. See Segré 1934 (for the date) and R o b ert 1940a: 39-40. 39 I tran slate here th e text as pu b lish ed by Segré 1934. 40 D itte n b erg er 1915-24 [Sylt.*; G u id e no. 25] no. 543. 41 A ristotle P olitics 1270a. 42 See Alcock 1989: 106.

The Hellenistic Relaxation

299

rise to the sale of citizenship. Certainly some old population centres did go into decline: by Strabo’s day Messenia was depopu­ lated, Arcadia devastated, and Thebes a little town.41 There had been, it seems, a stark reversal in attitude towards the prospect of ‘a multitude of citizens’ since the classical period.

TWO-TIER

CITIZENSHIP

(?) A N D

RHODES

Possibly, concomitantly with the mixing of populations, some hellenistic cities developed two-tier citizenship systems. It has been argued that such a phenomenon occurred at Alexandria, Rhodes, Cyrene, and Cos,44 all major cities in different ways within the Ptolemaic sphere of influence; we have seen that, just possibly, Aspendos had something similar. According to Larsen’s view of federal citizenship, a kind of two-tier system may have operated within leagues too, in so far as a member of a league enjoyed political (i.e. full citizen) rights in one city of the league (i.e. his patris or 'homeland’), but just civil rights in the others, such as epigamy and enktësis (see above). All the evidence for this two-tier phenomenon is contentious, especially that relating to the ‘Ptolemaic’ cities, for which it is most vigorously argued, but if it did exist, then we can suppose that where it did bastards at least enjoyed the lesser form of citizenship. Let us then turn to the Ptolemaic cities. For his city of c y r e n e the first Ptolemy, Soter, issued an edict concerning the citizens at some point before 3 0 6 . 45 The inscribed edict specifies that the mother of legitimate Cyrenean citizens need not herself be Cyrenean, but can also be a Libyan woman drawn from within a defined local area: ‘Those men will be citizens (politai) that are born of a Cyrenean father and a woman of Cyrene, and those men that are born from the Libyan women between Katabathmos and Automalax’ (SEG [Guide no. 8 2 0 ] ix, no. I , lines 1 - 2 ) . It is not clear whether Ptolemy was here redefining citizenship or merely (re-)codifying it.46 This semi*’ S tra b o C362, 388 and 403; cf. V atin 1970: 232. ** By e.g. F raser 1972: i. 48 -9 and S h e rw in -W h ite 1978: 153-4. 45 F o r th e date of the edict C hristo p h ilo p o u lo s 1951: 79 and M odrzejew ski 1984: 357 guess 321; F raser 1972: i. 48 guesses 308/7. 44 F or the background to the edict see T ae g er 1929 (fanciful), C ham oux 1953: 209, H annick 1976: 146, H o rn 1943: 184-5, and Jones 1971: 355.

300

The Classical and Hellenistic City

closure of the citizen body need not have been particularly stringent, as in practice most wives must have come from within the area defined, and indeed the original settlers must have married native women in order to begin their families (see Part IV ad init.). And in any case, since the group of permissible Libyan women was only defined geographically, it was probably quite open, since it was doubtless available to any woman to move into the specified area. Laronde identifies Katabathmos as the gulf of Solloum and Automalax as at the bottom of the Greater Syrtis, the two coastal points that represent the outer limits of the tribes with whom the Cyreneans enjoyed continuous relations.47 Nor are the Cyreneans likely to have had any rigorous or formal tests as to what constituted ‘Libyanness’ in a woman. Hellenistic Cyrene was then technically a double civic ascendance society, but one that left a great deal of scope for metroxenic entry. There has been specu­ lation as to the extent of intermarriage with the local population, but not fruitfully: it is now thought that there are rather more names of Libyan origin in the Cyrenean onomasticon than used to be believed, but onomastics strictly speaking only provide a guide to cultural fusion not blood fusion (a point we shall return to in Part IV).4« Within this body of citizens (politai) there is another body, the politeuma, which has rights to magistracies and consists of ‘the ten thousand’.49 Fraser believes that products of marriages with Libyan women were confined to the larger and lesser body, whilst only those of ‘pure’ Cyrenean descent could belong to this élite politeuma and therefore hold office. However, it is clear that the body of the politeuma is open too, since the inscription specifies that any citizen (politis) with a property qualification of 2 0 Alexander-minas may belong to it.50 The politeuma was then defined only timocratically, and mitroxenoi of Libyan mothers were not statutorily excluded from it. The most important (but most difficult) evidence for gradated citizenship and the place of bastardy within such a system comes from RHODES. From the hellenistic period down to around 2 0 0 we have epigraphic evidence explicitly relating to mitroxenoi (the 47 L aronde 1990: 178. 48 Few L ibyan nam es in the onom asticon: C ham oux 1953: 222 and 1959: 351 and V atin 1970: 134; many: L aronde 1990: 178. 49 L ine 6; cf. T ae g er 1929: 440-1. 50 L ines 7-16.

301

The Hellenistic Relaxation

matros de xenas, i s a t t a c h e d t o t h e r e l e v a n t n a m e s ) . S o m e o f t h e s e mëtroxenoi w e r e c l e a r l y c i t i z e n s . B u t w e r e a l l mëtroxenoi c i t i z e n s ? O r s h o u l d t h e f a c t t h a t i n s c r i p t i o n s n o t i c e

p h r a s e ‘o f a l i e n m o t h e r ’ ,

in d iv id u a ls ’ m e tro x e n y b e ta k e n to in d ic a te th a t o n ly a se le c t fe w of

th e m

w ere

g iv e n

c itiz e n sh ip ?

O r

th a t

mëtroxenoi a l i k e

a ll

e n jo y e d a le sse r o r q u a lifie d fo rm o f c itiz e n sh ip ? L e t u s tu r n to th e e v id e n c e . i . M o s t i m p o r t a n t is a n i n s c r i p t i o n f r o m

a ro u n d zo o , a sta tu e

b a s e u p o n w h ic h a n A p o llo d o tu s h o n o u r s h is fa th e r H e ra c litu s a n d is t h e n (nam ed

in tu r n

h o n o u red

b y h is o w n

so n , a lso c a lle d H e ra c litu s

fo r h is g ra n d fa th e r, as u su a l).

In

th e

le ft c o lu m n ,

in a

p o s itio n th a t w a s d o u b tle s s b e lo w a s ta tu e o f h is fa th e r, th e e ld e r H e ra c litu s,

A p o llo d o tu s

w ro te :

‘A p o l l o d o t u s ,

of

th e

d em e

of

mëtroxenos.' T h i s t e x t i s r e p e a t e d i n

N e tte ia , th e so n o f H e ra c litu s,

th e rig h t c o lu m n , d o u b tle s s as a title fo r th e a c c o m p a n y in g s ta tu e o f A p o llo d o tu s h im s e lf d e d ic a te d in tu r n b y h is so n , th e y o u n g e r H e ra c litu s.

B e lo w

th is

e x p lic it d e d ic a to ry

title

te x t b y

in th e

th e

rig h t

c o lu m n

read s

y o u n g e r H e ra c litu s:

S a m ia n , th e so n o f A p o llo d o tu s , to w h o m

a

m o re

‘H e r a c l i t u s ,

th e rig h t-o f-re sid e n c e

(epidamia) h a s b e e n g i v e n , [ d e d i c a t e s t h i s s t a t u e o f ] h i s f a t h e r t o th e

g o d s . ’ 51 T h e

S a m ia n

e th n ic

th a t

th e

son

o f th is

R h o d ia n

mëtroxenos a c c o r d s h i m s e l f i s a p u z z l e . H i l l e r v o n G a e r t r i n g e n d e sp e ra te ly

tra n sp o se d

d e d ic a tin g

H e ra c litu s

fa th e r

and

id e n tic a l

H e r a c l i t u s . 52 B u t a p a r t f r o m

son,

to

w ith

m ake

th e

th e

e ld e r

younger h o n o u red

th e fa c t th a t th is m a k e s n o n s e n s e o f

th e a r r a n g e m e n t o f th e te x ts , if A p o llo d o tu s h a d b e e n th e s o n o f a S a m ia n

fa th e r

m e re ly

mëtroxenos b u t

im p la u sib ly

and

arg u ed

an

a lie n a

m o th e r, fu ll

v e rsio n s

of

he

not

have

( xenos ) .53 M a n y

a lie n th e

w o u ld

id e a

th a t

th e

been have

y o u n g er

H e ra c litu s w a s e n title d to S a m ia n c itiz e n s h ip b e c a u s e h is m o th e r, an

a lie n

to

R hodes,

w as

a

S a m i a n . 54 B u t h e

w o u ld

have

been

‘p a t r o x e n o s ’ t o S a m o s , a n d i t i s t h e r e f o r e v e r y u n l i k e l y t h a t h e w a s e n title d

to

assum e

th a t

S a m ia n

e x tra o rd in a ry

th e

c itiz e n sh ip

younger

as

o f

H e ra c litu s

g ra n t o f S a m ia n

rig h t. has

c itiz e n sh ip

W e

m u st,

som ehow

I

th in k ,

re c e iv e d

an

(n o d o u b t h is m o n e y

51 M aiuri 1925 [G uide no. 137]: no. 19. 52 H iller von G aertrin g en 1931: 766-7. 53 C hristophilopoulos 1951: 79 n. 35, M aiuri 1925: 31, and L atte 1937: 1073. 54 T h u s M aiuri 1925: 31, P ugliesi-C arratelli 1953: 490, and C hristo p h ilo p o u lo s 1951: 80.

302

The Classical and Hellenistic City

helped here), or that he is, curiously, sporting a bogus ethnic (possibly based upon his mother’s actual origin), which had no effect in Samos itself. 2. An undatable fragment of a statue base records the existence of a female mêtroxenos, the wife of Philon.51*55 3. An inscription recording by deme the donors for the restora­ tion of Athene’s dress and temple cups, of a date somewhere between the late fourth century and the third, lists among the demesmen of Dryitai an individual qualified as mêtroxenos, Sosicles the son of Cosmocles.56 4. Finally, a list of marines from about six ships of the type called ‘tremiola’, from c. 265-260, qualifies three of its number as mêtroxenos: Euxenos the son of Cratinos and Callicrates and Damatrios, the sons of Arideices. This list gives us no information about citizenship, as it records no demotics at all, not even for the officers.57 The fact that metroxeny is recorded in these diverse contexts implies that the manner of birth is of continuing social relevance. Now we would, a priori, imagine that, if mêtroxenoi had a distinct status, they would have been at some social disadvantage. But the fact that Apollodotus records his own metroxeny in his own honorific inscription shows that he is not ashamed of it (perhaps he is even proud of it: ‘Look how far I’ve come!’). And the fact that Philon, who is apparently though not explicitly a citizen, can marry a metroxenic woman perhaps indicates that female mêtroxenoi were licensed to bear legitimate citizen children—or perhaps we had better say ‘non-metroxenic’ children.58 But if so, then why bother to mention the status? Latte argued from the Apollodotus inscription that mêtroxenoi were ‘lesser citizens’, because Apollodotus’ father, the elder Heraclitus, was phylarch (‘tribal chief’) of the tribe of the ‘city’ of Ialysia,59 but Netteia, Apollodotus’ own deme, belonged to the ‘city’ of Lindos, and he cannot therefore have belonged to the same deme as his father. So Netteia, thinks Latte, was a deme of 51 M aiu ri 1925 [G uide no. 137]: no. 130. 54 B linkenberg 1941 [G uide no. 138]: ii. 1, no. 51 C i , lines 26-7, w ith co m m en ­ tary a t p. 246. 57 Ibid. no. 88, lines 286-7, " i t h com m entary. Cf. also H annick 1976: 137 and P u g lieae-C arratelli 1953: 489. M C f. H annick 1976: 138. w See line 6.

The Hellenistic Relaxation

303

‘lesser citizenship’, to which mëtroxenoi were allocated.60 But, apart from the pleonasm of Apollodotus’ defining of himself as mêtroxenos that this theory entails, a ‘deme of lesser citizenship’ is unparalleled in any known Greek political system: Latte’s analogy with the weighted Roman tribes in the Comitia centuriata seems hardly relevant. But the difference in tribe between father and son here does remain a problem. The extreme case for a system of gradated citizenship into which such a distinction might fit was put by Rostovtzeff, whose views, with varying modifications, have found much support. He envisaged no less than four tiers, which I list here in descending order:61 1. citizens belonging to the three ancient ‘cities’ of the island, officially denoted by patronymic and demotic; 2. citizens denoted by patronymic only, but no demotic; 3. minor citizens denoted only by the general term ‘Rhodian’ (Rhodios), a quality possessed by strangers granted ‘right-ofresidence’ (epidamia)\ 4. mëtroxenoi. Obviously the Apollodotus inscription, in which a mêtroxenos is shown to belong to a deme, which instantly collapses group (1) into group (4), is incompatible with this scheme. Also, the distinc­ tions between categories (1) and (2) are dissolved by instances in which the same citizen is attested in different contexts with and without demotic.62 Furthermore an inscription of the second century records a Plutarch, an Apamean sculptor, who has been given the citizenship and should therefore belong to category (3) of RostovtzefFs scheme, who none the less has risen to hold the highest magistracies, including the presidency (prytaneia).63 And there remain in any case a great many unresolved difficulties surrounding the relationship between citizenship and epidamia.M RostovtzefFs most influential disciple in the matter of gradated w L atte 1937: 1037.

M R ostovtzeff 1941: ii. 689-70; sim ilar views at H iller von G aertrin g en 1931: 766-7; cf. P ugliese-C arratelli 1953: 483-5. G rad ated citizenship o f som e kind is still cham pioned by H annick 1976: 138 and n. 18. 1,2 See Pugliese-C arratelli 1953: 236-7 w ith n. 2. •J T h e inscription is p u blished at Pugliese-C arratelli 1942: 151, no. 7; cf. Pugliese-C arratelli 1953: 486. M F or w hich see Pugliese-C arratelli 1953: 488-91 and 1942: 169 an d V atin 1970: 124-5 an955 [LSAM \ Guide no. 730]: no. 73, lines 6-8).6 We recall the archaic Athenian stipulation that the nine archons be ‘Athenian on both sides for three generations (ek trigonias)’;7*the principle is discussed by Aristotle.® Similarly, Pausanias tells that the Ionian settlers of MILETUS under their leader Miletos killed the entire male population of the island, then known as Anactoria, and married their wives and daughters.9 2 Cf. Pomeroy 1975: 46 and 54. 3 Herodotus 1. 146; cf. Coldstream 1993: 96-7. 4 Xenophon H ellenica 2. 1. 15; cf. Fraser 1972: i. 72. 5 Meiggs and Lewis 1969 [M L \ G uide no. 35]: no. 32=Dittenberger 1915-24 [S y ll. 3; G uide no. 25]: no. 45; cf. Fraser 1972: ii. 1095 n. 499. 6 Also=Dittenbergcr 1915-24 [S v //.3; G uide no. 25]: no. 1015. 7 Pollux O nom astiko n 8. 85. 1 Aristotle P olitics 1275b. Cf. also Christophilopoulos 1951: 77. Busolt and Swoboda 1926: ii. 947 n. 4, and Hannick 1976: 144. 9 Pausanias 7. 2. 3; cf. Rougé 1970: 315 and Coldstream 1993: 97-8.

324

Hellenistic Eygpt

The earliest graves at p i t h e c u s a e contain female burial orna­ ments that are particularly Campanian in style. From this Buchner and Coldstream hypothesize that the first generation of women at Pithecusae were taken from the local native population, and vigorously preserved their own culture after marriage.10 There is a legend of some mixing of blood later on in the successor colony to Pithecusae, Cumae: ‘Later, when the Campanians gained control of the city, they committed many outrages against the inhabitants, and they even married their women. Even so, many traces of Greek order and customs still survive there’ (Strabo C243).11 The settlers of c y r e n e likewise took no women, and therefore married local ones.12*Callimachus tells that ‘Phoebus rejoiced greatly as the belted warriors of Enyo danced with the yellow-haired Libyan women,’12 and Pindar records a legend of friendly relations between the colonists and the locals, in which the ancestors of Telesicrates canvassed for the hand of the daughter of the Libyan king of the Giligami.14 Herodotus tells that the women of Cyrene also passed down their ancestral customs in the female line.15 Ptolemy Soter’s edict suggests that marriage with local barbarian women was permitted into the hellenistic period (see Part III). M a s s i l i a in the remote west was similarly colonized by Phocaeans that had to marry local women, a fact that was enshrined in their foundation legend. Athenaeus, quoting the Aristotelian Constitution of Massilia, relates how the colonist Euxenos (‘good guest-friend’) married the daughter of the local king, Aristoxene (‘best of guest-friends’), and tells that the Massilian noble family of the Protiades was descended from them .14 But by the hellenistic period the city was fiercely maintaining its hellenic purity. Livy tells that the Massiliotes refused to mix with the neighbouring tribes, but had, in the words he gives to a Roman ambassador in 189, ‘a pure nature untainted 10 Buchner 1979: 133-5 and Coldstream 1993: 91. 11 Cf. Hannah and Hannah 1990: 276. 11 Herodotus 4. 150-8 and Meiggs and Lewis 1969 [ML; Guide no. 35]; no. 5; cf. Vatin 1970: 134, Chamoux 1953: 129, Rouge 1970: 316-17, and Fraser 1972: i. 71. ” Callimachus Hymn 2. 85-6. 14 Pindar Pythian 9. 105. Cf. Chamoux 1953: 19-20 and 223-4, Fraser 1972: i. 787 and ii. 1095. 15 Herodotus 4. 186. Cf. Pomeroy 1984: 122 with n. 89 and Chamoux 1953: 129 and 134. 14 Athenaeus 567; cf. Justin 43. 3-4. Cf. Clerc 1927-9: i. 116, 147, and 188, Rougé 1970: 312 and 314, and Clavel-Levèque 1977: 19-20.

Greeks and Barbarians

325

by contamination from the locals’.17 Strabo tells of Massilia in his day: It is a double city, divided by a wall, formerly containing some neigh* bouring Indiceti, who, although living to their own constitution, none the less wished to have the same surrounding fortification as the Greeks for the sake of safety, and this is a two fold fortification, being divided in the middle by a wall. In time they came together into one citizen body using a mixture of barbarian and Greek customs, which happened with many other peoples too. (Strabo C160)

Doubtless those bom of mixed marriages in particular had been among those that had wished to live in the enclave: a city of bastards? O l b i a presents a similar case. The Black Sea colonies in general appear to have been quite exclusive. This, at any rate, is the picture we get from onomastics in the area, but it is of course theoretically possible that there was a significant amount of inter­ marriage which is disguised by the hellenization of the barbarian stock. Thus epitaphs from the Tauric Chersonnese in the third century exhibit no barbarian names at all;18 an agonistic catalogue from third-century Gorgippa contains only Greek names;19 a list of over thirty-nine citizens from third-century Panticapaia exhibits only one name of certain barbarian origin, ‘Thabyttion, son of Thagys’;20 lists of generals from first-century Messambria contain only pure Greek names.21 Returning to Olbia itself, of 254 names analysed from second-century records, only four are non-Greek.22 Blood exclusivity as well as cultural exclusivity is demonstrated by a decree in honour of Protogenes.23 The decree tells how a community of mixellënes, people of mixed Greek and barbarian blood, which lived in the paröreia, the inland hill country of Olbia just near the city, was allied with the Olbians against the full barbarians. This entire community, numbered at 17 Livy 37. 54. Cf. Vatin 1970: 141-3 and Fraser 1972: ii. 1095 n. 499; pace Clerc 1927-9: i. 460 and Robert 1938: 205-9. " Latysev 1885-1901 [IO SP E ; Guide no. 125]: iv, nos. 130-2. '* Ibid.: iv, no. 432. w Ibid.: iv, no. 205. 11 Mihailov 1958-70 [/. Bulgaria; Guide no. 16]: no. 326. Cf. Vatin 1970: 141—2. 11 Knipovitch 1955 on Latysev 1885-1901 [IOSPE; Guide no. 125]: i, no. 114 . etc. Cf. Vatin 1970: 141, Fraser 1972: 99 1095 n. 499. Knipovitch concludes that the population was a homogeneous whole. Cf. Minns 1913: 471 and Graham 1964: 106-7 (contra Knipovitch). !! Latysev 1885-1901 [IOSPE; Guide no. 125]: i, no. 16.

Hellenistic Eygpt over 1,500, was exterminated by the barbarians. Vatin imagines a ‘mongrel’ population excluded by the Greeks, yet still living with and allied to the community to which they felt close.24 Shafranskaya gathers much evidence for mixëllenes acting as mercenaries.25 We have already considered the possibility in Part III that the mercenary life may have been one that particularly attracted nothoi. Egyptian evidence will also point this way. After Alexander had acquired his vast oriental empire the exigences of consolidation induced him to develop policies of intermarriage between his Macedonian (and Greek) men, many already married, and Asian women.26 These policies were almost certainly underpinned by a positive ideology of racial fusion.27 But Alexander was aware of the problems of amphimetric strife: when he sent 10,000 veterans home after the Opis mutiny he bade them leave their new children in Asia lest they should be a source of discord with the children they had left at home and their mothers.2* Alexander also founded many cities with populations mixed from Macedonian veterans and indigenous locals: Alexandrias in Egypt, the H indu-Kush, on the Jaxartes, Alexandria-Charax, Gaza in Phoenicia, and Arrigaion in India.29 Some believe that within the walls of these cities there was segre­ gation rather than integration,30 but the Egyptian Alexandria at any rate seems to have been integrated (see below). Alexander’s foundation policy seems to have influenced the Seleucids in particular.31 After Alexander’s style Antioch was founded with soldiers of Seleucus, diverse contingents of Greeks, and part of the population of old Antigoneia. Possibly Syrians and Jews were there from the start, Seleucus perhaps giving the latter citizenship. However, the races may have been divided by walls, as 24 Vatin 1970: 141-2. 25 1956: 46-8. 26 e.g. Arrian Anabasis 7. 4. 7-8, Chares FGH 125 F4, Justin 12. 4. 2-10. See Berve 1938: 157-68, Lane Fox 1973: 419 and 427, Bosworth 1980a: 11-12, 14, 18, and Badian 1964: 201. 27 Arrian Anabasis 7. 11. 9, Plutarch Moralia 329bc, and Diodorus 18. 4. 4. Fusion-ideology was vigorously argued by Tarn 1933 and 1948: ii. 399-450, Berve 1938, and Schachermeyr 1953. M odem scholars are more sceptical: thus Badian 1958 and Bosworth 1980a (qualified by Hammond 1983). 28 Arrian Anabasis 7. 12. 2. 29 The evidence is collated by Briant 1978: 75 and 83, 1982: 78, 88-92. 20 Tcherikover 1927: 190-4 and Foucher 1939: 439. 11 So thinks Peremans 1981: 273.

Greeks and Barbarians

327

in Massilia.12 Beroia (Alep) was founded by the addition of new Macedonian quarters to the existing Syrian town,11 and Seleucus’ foundation of Seleuceia on the Tigris comprised a Macedonian colony augmented by indigenous people from nearby Babylon.14 32 Strabo C750; cf. Kuhrt and Sherwin-White 1993: 169, Downey 1969: 78-80, 115 and 1941: 89 and 95; important reservations are expressed by Briant 1978: 83-4. 89. and 91. 33 Briant 1978: 89 and Sauvaget 1940: 48-51. 34 Appian Syrian Wars 58; cf. Briant 1978: 84 and Kuhrt and Sherwin-White 1993: 166.

Hellenistic Egypt: The Chora

Our most enlightening evidence for the legitimacy behaviour of expatriate Greeks towards each other and the indigenous barbarians derives from hellenistic Egypt. The evidence is for the most part that of practice rather than interdiction: some 100 papyrus contracts relating to marriage.1

LEGAL

SYSTEMS

IN

THE

CHORA

The cities of Alexandria, Ptolemais, and Naucratis were, in legal terms, exclusively ‘Greek’ communities (although non-Greeks could reside there); outside these, Greeks from all over the hellenistic world migrated into the open territory or chöra in the wake of the Macedonian invasion, many as members of Ptolemy’s army. They were generally organized into townships known as politeumata, but these were not autonomous states with defined memberships.2 So, despite the linguistic, cultural, and religious gulf between these Greeks and the Egyptians, there was no difference in citizenship status. But the two communities had their own legal systems: the old Egyptian one (perhaps modified by Soter), presided over by the laocritai or ‘judges of the people’3(a papyrus from 118 emphasizes the specifically Egyptian character of this court),4 and the new Greek system of dikastêria or ‘lawcourts’, which were substan­ tially the creation of the second Ptolemy, Philadelphus.5 Ptolemaic 1 Listed at Montevecchi 1936, 1973: 203, and Peremans 1981: 274. 2 See Wolff 1974: 68, pace Schubart 1910 and Taubenschlag 1955: 2-4. 3 Wolff 1981: 314, 1974: 69-95, 1939- 64, Fraser 1972: i. 107, and Modrzejewski 1975

4 P. Tebt. i. 5 at lines 205-20; cf. Taubenschlag 1955: 19. 5 Wolff 1974: 73.

The Chora

329

edicts were superior to both these court systems,4*6 though none seems to have borne directly on matters of marriage and legiti­ macy. Whether the two basic legal systems developed by and large autonomously7 or by Ptolemaic design,8 the laocritai were intended for the daily use of the Egyptians and the dikastëria for the Greeks. But all courts were open to both groups, and, as far as contract law was concerned, it was the language in which the contract was written that determined which court was competent to adjudicate in matters relating to it.9 Hence we must consider bastardy in Egyptian law as well as Greek, since it constituted a part of the wider legal system which the Greeks of the chora inhabited. And as we shall see, some children that could have been considered bastards by Greek law (or better, custom) would not have been so by Egyptian law.

THE

SEPARATION

THE

OF

THE

IMPOSSIBILITY

OF

STATE

AND

POLITICAL

PRIVATE

LAW:

BASTARDY

The constitutional structure of hellenistic Egypt precluded the possibility of ‘political’ bastardy in the chora: by this I mean that bastardy and citizenship could never be harnessed in one equation, as they were in Pericles’ citizenship law, and the laws of the cities surveyed in Part III. There were no ‘nationals’ constituting the state of Egypt in contrast to ‘aliens’; ‘Egypt’ was just a portion of the lands under the sway of Ptolemy.10 Before him all its inhabi­ tants were individuals and equals; foreign birth did not affect one’s relationship with him, nor, a fortiori, did bastard birth. For bastards in Alexandria and the other cities of Egypt however the situation differed in that a city-state intervened between them and Ptolemy, a state of a more or less traditional structure that was therefore capable of political bastardization. However, once such a city-bastard took up residence in the chora, he can have suffered no political disadvantage as against the Greeks around him. 4 Fraser 1972: i. 107-9 and Wolff 1974: 75 (cf. 69), pace Taubenschlag 1955: 12-14. 7 As Wolff 1981 and Préaux 1958. 8 As Wolff 1974: 68 and 75-6. 9 See Wolff 1981: 313-14, 1974: 71, and 1970: 217-18, Modrzejewski 1969: 157-61, and Bagnall 1982-3: 19. Cf. Taubenschlag 1955: 2 and 20. 10 Wolff 1981: 315-18, Bagnall 1971 and 1982-3: 19 n. 39.

330

Hellenistic Egypt

Outside the city-state, many of the distinctive features of marriage law disappear, such as engyé (with the possible exception of the very early P. Eleph. i) and the epiclerate." Native Egyptian bastardy and marriage The Egyptian marital papyri bear out Diodorus’ remarks on Egyptian bastardy: Amongst the Egyptians, the priests marry one woman, but the rest as many women as each man chooses. And they rear all the children that are born out of necessity,112 for the sake of a multitudinous population, con­ sidering that this contributes more than anything to the prosperity of the country and the cities, and they consider none of those that are born nothos, not even if he is bom from a woman that has been bought for money. (Diodorus i. 80. 3-4)

In view of Diodorus’ remark, it may be significant that the only nothoi recorded in the context of native Egyptian culture are those of priests: a late third-century papyrus mentions ‘nothoi of priests’;13 a papyrus from the late third or early second century lists 92 priests, 14 nothoi, and 10 priestly scribes;1415a papyrus from 119 refers to ‘the [sc. legitimate] sons of priests and priestesses and their nothoi'; , s a papyrus from 71/2 a d has ‘bastards of the priest’ as cultivators of temple land, distinguished from the priests them­ selves.16 Also, Heliodorus tells that Homer was the divine bastard of an Egyptian priestess, but the tale is purely Greek, employing a pun specific to Greek.17 Since Egyptian priests could not marry outside caste, Wilcken argued that the nothoi were such as being born (in the literal sense) ‘half-caste’.18 But Diodorus’ remark raises the possibility that they were nothoi qua not being born of the one designated partner of a priest or priestess, and this suppo­ sition finds support in two papyri, of which one is datable to 137, which lay down rules for a priestly association and prescribe a high fine or expulsion for the priest that commits adultery with the wife 11 Modrzejewski 1981: 247-8. 12 It had been thought that children with names derived from kopros, ‘excre­ ment’, had been picked up from a dung heap on which they had been exposed, but this idea is dismissed by Pomeroy 19846. 15 BGU x. 1937. 14 P. Petrie iii. 59b. 15 UPZ 194, line 14. 16 P. Tebt. ii. 302. 17 Heliodorus Ethiopica 3. 14. 4. '* Wilcken 1902-3: 10-11 and ad UPZ ii. 194, line 14.

The Chora

33»

of a fellow member.” The New Kingdom Indictment Papyrus contains a series of accusations against priests, mainly Penanuqet, and adultery is among them.20 Calderini had thought that nothos was merely a designation for a low grade of priest (cf. hierodoulos or ‘priestly slave’) and had nothing to do with bastardy as such, but this view has not found general acceptance.21 It is true though that they had a part in temple life and were of lower rank than the ordinary priests. The lack of a concept of bastardy outside the priesthood may be partly explained by the fact—or at any rate is certainly concomi­ tant with the fact—that landed property was passed down in the female line from mother to daughter. And in some respects sons saw themselves as successors to their mothers rather than their fathers, employing metronymics rather than patronymics. As Watterson well observes: ‘maternity is a matter of fact, paternity is a matter of opinion.’22 Marriage seems to have been not at all rigorously defined. To begin with, as Diodorus states, men could be polygamous. A 20th Dynasty papyrus appears to attest such a union (though some think it refers to serial rather than concurrent wives): ‘The citizeness A, wife of B, (and) the citizeness C, his other wife, in total two’ (P. Mayer A. 13. c. 6-7).23 Polygamy is certainly attested for the bureaucratic classes of the Middle Kingdom,24 and more generally in the New. In the latter, for example, a papyrus concerning the tomb robberies of the 20th Dynasty mentions a goldworker, Ramose, of about 1100, whose wife Mutemhab said that he had two other wives now dead and a third still living.25 Herodotus, however, says that all Egyptians w’ere monogamous, but his Egyptian contacts were, perhaps significantly, mainly priests.26 It is possible that there were attempts to differentiate ^ Papyrus at Erichsen 1959: line 19 (137 bc) and P. Cairo 31179. line 22. Cf. Pestman 1961: 57. 20 Text at Gardiner 1940: 73-82; cf. Eyre 1984: 93. 21 Calderini 1953: 359, Youtie 1975: 26-7. Otto 1905-8: i. 220 n. 5. Reymond and Bams 1977: 27, and Gilliam 1947: 189 n. 47. 22 1991: 23. 2> Cf. Pestman 1961: 3. Taubenschlag 1955: 102-3. Allam 1975: 1166-7, and Watterson 1991: 67. 24 Simpson 1974 and Watterson 1991: 67. 25 Translation at Peet 1930: 156-7, with text at plates xxxiv-xxxv; cf. also Watterson 1991: 67. 2* Herodotus 2. 92; Lloyd 1975-88: i. 89-100.

Hellenistic Egypt between the statuses of concurrently held female partners: it has, for instance, been suggested that the term msddt, ‘hated’, which is found in association with some women-partners, defines a lesser status of ‘concubine’.27 It has also been suggested that the different terms applied to monogamously held partners, hmt and hbsyt, are also indicative of different statuses.28 But neither of these sugges­ tions has gained general acceptance.2930124*6 Egyptian marriage was open-ended. The only performative requirement for it was the act of cohabitation, and this was true even for royal couples (although some royal marriages may have been accompanied by ceremonial, there was nothing obligatory about this).10 Marriage was a matter for individuals, and the state took no interest in it: it was not a ‘juridical’ matter.1' The Hermopolis West code states that all children (sc. in default of will) are entitled to inherit, and a wide range of bequest patterns is attested.12 However, marriages between common Egyptians could be accompanied by, though they were not constituted by, the drawing up of a financial contract to regulate the management of property in a marriage and the succession to it, and this contract, like all contracts, was a matter of public record and had to be notarized.11 It is significant that the financial contract was some­ times not drawn up until some years after the commencement of the cohabitation.14 There were four types of financial contract available, and of these the sh n s’nh, ‘document of causing to live’ or ‘maintenance contract’, bound the husband to consider as heirs only children bom of the woman in question,15 although in one contract of this sort the husband stipulates the exception that a specified child of a previous union may be included among his heirs.16 This type of contract seems to have come into fashion just before the Macedonian conquest, with the earliest of them dating from 361.17 The structuring of heritability is of course closely akin 27 See Erman 1892 and cf. VVatterson 1991: 68. 29 Edgerton 1931: 6-9. 29 Watterson 1991: 62. 30 Pestman 1961: 30 and 50-2, Allam 1975: 1163, 1981: 116-17, Eyre 1984: 100, and Watterson 1991: 59-61. 31 Allam 1981: 116 and Watterson 1991: 61. 32 Pestman 1961: pp. ix, 98, 118-19, and 121 and Mattha 1941. 33 Watterson 1991: 61-2. 34 See Pestman 1961: 25-6, Tanner 1967: 15-16, and Allam 1981: 117. 33 Pestman 1961: 13-48, Allam 1981: 119, and Watterson 1991: 65. 36 P. Mich. 121 v (Greek). 37 Watterson 1991: 65.

The Chora

333

to but not identical with differentiation by legitimacy. It will also be worth while to note here that Egyptian women were legally competent, and from the 26th Dynasty on the brides actually made these financial contracts in their own name. The marriage group was open. As for the inner boundary, the Greek sources believed that the Egyptians married full sisters,3* and this is well borne out by the tale of the children of the pharaoh Mernebptah.3’ Some scholars, however, think that full-sister marriage was confined to the royal family, and doubt whether the common Egyptians practised it (there is no undisputed example of it amongst commoners); the Greeks may have been misled by the use of ‘brother’ and ‘sister’ as conventional terms of endearment between couples.40 And kings at any rate are attested as marrying their daughters: Amenhotep III married his daughter Sitamun (polygamously), Akhenaten married his daughters Meritaten and Ankhesenpaaten, and Rameses II also married two of his daughters.41 At the outer boundary Egyptians married other castes (priests excepted) and races. Naunachte married men of different caste,42 although Herodotus tells that swineherds had to marry each other because no one else would touch them.43 The organiza­ tion of the Egyptian population by profession meant that marriage with a local was likely, ipso facto, to be a marriage within caste. In the New Kingdom we find Egyptians marrying Nubians and Syrians,44 and, in the Ptolemaic period, Greeks, as we shall see.45 As to unions between free and slave, it seems that children followed the status of their mother. It is unlikely that any formal recognition was given to unions with slave-women, and the children born of slave-women were themselves slave, although often emancipated.46 The Egyptians outside the priesthood did however have a concept of adultery.47 At one’s underworld judgement one had to w Diodorus i. 27. 1; cf. Philo Special Laics 3. 23-4. * P. Cairo 30646, trans, at Lichtheim 1973-80: iii. 127-8; cf. Watterson 1991: 56. 40 Pestman 1961: 3-4, Cemy 1954, Hopkins 1980: 312, Allam 1975: 1164 and 1170, Taubenschlag 1955: 111, and Watterson 1991: 56-7 {pace whom Herodotus 3. 31 clearly refers to Persian, not Egyptian law ). 41 Watterson 1991: 56, 151. 154-5. 42 Cemy 1945: 44. 45 Herodotus 2. 47. 44 P. Turin 2021, lines 3 and 11. 45 See Pestman 1961: 4 and Allam 1975: 1164-5. 46 Allam 1975: 1165-6 and Taubenschlag 1955: 72-3. 47 The evidence for adulten* practice is collated and reviewed by Eyre 1984.

Hellenistic Egypt declare that one had not copulated with a married woman.48 Diodorus tells that rape of a married woman was punished with castration, whereas a man that committed adultery with the consent of the adulteress was to receive a thousand blows with a rod, whilst the adulteress was to have her nose cut off.49 A papyrus shows an adulterer brought to court and being threatened (albeit ineffectually) with mutilation.50 In the fictional Westcar papyrus a cuckold burns his wife to death and feeds her paramour to a magical crocodile.51 Some marriage contracts deprive the wife of her property in the event of her adultery.52 Women that had been accused of adultery by their husbands and swore oaths against it had to be given up by their husbands.53 Herodotus relays the entertaining tale of an Egyptian king who was told by an oracle that he could recover his lost sight by bathing his eyes in the urine of a woman that had only lain with her husband, and had to try a great number of women before he found one.54 It seems, however, that the Egyptians were not very concerned about men copulating with unmarried women.55 Despite their concern about adultery, the Egyptians do not appear to have practised anything that could be compared with Greek seclusion.56 It says much for the physical freedom permitted to women that Rameses III claimed to have made the roads of Egypt safe for a woman to go unmolested wherever she wished.57 Egyptian custom was significant for the Greek settlers in the chora in two ways. The child of any cohabitation union, a union necessarily without contract, and therefore not particularly subject to Greek law, could escape ‘illegitimacy’ under Egyptian law;58 in this way Greek fathers could, in theory at any rate, justify bequests to ‘bastards’. Secondly, Greek law too came to recognize cohabita­ tion marriage, almost certainly influenced by the Egyptian system (although other factors may have contributed, as we shall see), which ultimately meant that the ‘Egyptian escape’ for those of Greek culture became obsolete. Indeed it will be seen that Greek 48 49 50 51 52 53 34 55 57

See Eyre 1984: 95. Diodorus 1. 78. 3-4; cf. Eyre 1984: 96. P. DM (Deir el-Medina) 27; cf. Eyre 1984: 100. Text at Erman 1966: 36-8; cf. Watterson 1991: 69-70. See Pestman 1961: 56, 61, 71, and 156 and Eyre 1984: 98-9. Allam 1975: 1174 and 1177, and Pestman 1961: 56. Herodotus 2. 111 ; cf. Watterson 1991: 69. See Eyre 1984: 95. 54 Watterson 1991: 25. P. Harris i. 78, lines 8-9. 58 Taubenschlag 1955: 114.

The Chora

335

marital practice in the chora came to resemble the practices described here in a number of respects.

E N C H O R 1C G R E E K

MARRIAGE

LAW

Apatores T he Graeco-Roman Egyptian evidence reveals the statusdesignation apatör, ‘fatherless child’.59 The term is peculiar to the Arsinoite nomi, and corresponds to the Oxvrhynchite phrase chrêmatizôn (ek) metros, ‘taking his name from his mother’.60 It is, however, clear that this status is strictly a Roman phenomenon since it is not attested until 1 1 b c ,61 and Plutarch implies that the term was used as equivalent to the Latin spurius.62 Apatores should not then be allowed to confuse our investigation into the Ptolemaic period. (In fact they appear to stem from Roman military ‘marriages’, which had no legal effect, and the offspring of which were necessarily spurii, although these were stable, planned relationships.63) There are a few texts from the Ptolemaic period in which individual men appear to be designated by metronymics only, but all examples are ‘involved either in palaeographic or linguistic ambiguity’.64 The development of the contracts Since no Graeco-Egyptian law could make reference to citizen­ ship, as the immigrants’ home cities would have done, enchorie Greeks could marry a Greek from any city, or any non-Greek, without prejudice to their children’s (public) legitimacy. In our earliest contract, P. Eleph. i of 311, a ‘Temnian’ man marries a ‘Coan’ woman, and subsequent marrying Greek couples likewise usually have different ethnics. T he ethnic is of little real significance, except, at most, in the first generation of immigrants, 99 Fully documented and investigated by Calderini 1953 and Youtie 1975; cf. Christophilopoulos 1946: 135 n. 3. 90 Youtie 1975: 20. 61 Calderini 1953: 358-9 and Youtie 1975: 26. Still, 11 bc was prior to the first Roman census, which occurred in either 19/20 ad or 33/4 ad; see Hopkins 1980: 3 1 2 - 13 -

62 Plutarch

Moralia 288e-f; cf. Youtie 1975: 24. 93 Youtie 1975: 23-4, 28-31, and 33 and Calderini 1953: 361 and 368-9. 64 Youtie 1975: 26.

336

Hellenistic Egypt

since offspring took their father’s ethnic, whatever their mother’s origin, so that an ‘Athenian’ in Egypt would seldom have qualified for Athenian citizenship.65 Let us consider the contracts themselves. The first of these, P. Eleph. i, exhibits interesting peculiarities, and is best discussed separately later on. The rest of the contracts fall into two broad groups, although, for reasons that will become apparent, they came to resemble each other closely:66 the syngraphe synoikisiou (or synoikisiou), ‘contract of living together’ (e.g. P. Gen. 21), and the syngraphe homologias or ‘contract of agreement’ (e.g. P. Tebt. iii. 815). Originally marriages employed both documents. The homologias was, at first, simply a financial document comprising stipulations about dowry which was made prior to the marriage itself.67 The synoikisiou was made after the marriage had taken place, and attested that it had been performed in accordance, as Wolff sees it, with the ‘old and solemn’ Greek form of ekdosis, the ‘giving-out’ of the bride from the guardianship of her father into that of her husband, although it is not clear whether the Greeks actually persisted with the physical custom of the hand-over of the bride that ekdosis had once denoted.68 In the course of the hellenistic period the homologias came to usurp the position of the synoikisiou: thus the making of the homologias came to be postponed until after the marriage had been completed, i.e. until the point when the synoikisiou would have been made, whilst the synoikisiou was abandoned.69 Thus, P. Tebt. iii. 815, a homologias of 282/1, is merely a dowry agreement, which anticipates the attestation of the marriage in a future synoikisiou, but P. Tebt. i. 104, a homologias of 92, is made after the marriage has already begun and is itself sufficient to ‘attest’ the marriage, and there is no anticipation of a synoikisiou.70 A homologias of intermediate date, P. Par. 13 of c.157, exhibits an intermediate phase, in which the marriage begins with a homologias, but the husband undertakes to draw up a synoikisiou within a year. Similarly, the three Philadelphian homologias contracts, P. Freib. 26, 29, and 30, of 179/8, stipulate that the synoikisiou contract will be drawn up in 65 * 67 “ ** 70

Taubenschlag 1955: 104 and Modrzejewski 1980: 59. Wolff 1939: 11 Ibid.: 119. See Ibid.: 17-18. Ibid.: 19-28, 1952: 171-4 and Vatin 1970: 168-73. Wolff 1939: 7-20 and 67-8 and Vatin 1970: 168-73.

The Chora

337

the future, within thirty days of the wife requesting it.71 The fact that the second document will only be drawn up at the wife’s request suggests that it is not required for the completion of marriage, and the demand for it therefore seems to be more social than legal.72 The second contract, if it is made, will be drawn up before some officials referred to as ‘those that deal with marriage contracts’ (tön pragmateuomenön tas gamikas syngraphas), and then deposited in the public record office at Crocodilopolis.73 The actual function of this second contract is a mystery: possibly it imposed certain restrictions on the husband’s succession, limiting it, for example, to the children he had of the wife in question (as is suggested of the Alexandrian hierothytai contracts below, and as in the Egyptian s ’nh contract). The shift in the balance of importance between the homologias and the synoikisiou is demonstrated also by the transferral forwards from the synoikisiou to the homologias of clauses that stipulate how the couple are to behave towards each other.74 Despite its decline, the synoikisiou did not entirely die out: there are a few examples of them even from the Roman period, particularly from Oxyrhynchus. The decline of the synoikisiou is generally regarded as a result of the decline of the institution that it attests, ekdosis. But why did it decline? Wolff thinks it was because ekdosis was an institution of the traditional city-state, and of no use to the family once it was divorced from the political and sacral organization of the state. There is much in this, though in making this argument he perhaps a little unjustifiably takes classical Athenian marriage law as typical of all traditional Greek city marriage law, and takes ekdosis rather than engyë as the rite that guaranteed phratry entry.75 Vatin compatibly sees the decline of ekdosis as appropriate to the fluid society of the Greeks in the Egyptian chora, freed from the ‘sluggishness’ imposed by the complex social life of the cities.76 The decline of ekdosis should also be linked to—indeed may be wholly explained by—the decline of the practice of the guardianship of women. The fundamental purpose of ekdosis was to transfer guardianship of a woman from one man, her father, to 71 Wolff 1939: 10-2 and 20, 1952: 171, and Vatin 1970: 169. 72 Wolff 1939: 27 and 1952: 171; cf. Vatin 1970: 169. 73 Wolff 1939: 21-3 and 67 and 1952: 173. Wolff 1939: 26. 73 Ibid.: 28 and 31. 76 Vatin 1970: 173.

338

Hellenistic Egypt

another, her husband. The need for guardianship, or the possi­ bility of maintaining it, disintegrated in the chora since Greek women could and apparently did have recourse to Egyptian law under which they suffered no such disability. A notable token of the decline of the custom of ekdosis is the appearance of so-called auto-ekdosis by women, as seen in P. Giss. i. 2 of 173: it is a con­ tradiction in terms for the bride to give herself away, for the woman that of her own accord transfers her guardianship from one man to another is effectively guardian of herself. Similarly, as Vatin notes, in the homologias P. Freib. 29 of 179/8 the bride has herself become the subject of the contract, rather than the object of a contract made by two men.77 The gradualness of the decline of ekdosis in itself reveals that it was never a legal requirement for the Greeks of Egypt. Indeed it never could have been, for in the chora there was no marriage law as distinct from contract law. For early generations of Greek settlers ekdosis was, as Wolff says, ‘just a form of conservative respectabil ity ’.78 In many ways the developments which the contracts underwent are explicable simply with reference to the fact that the enchorie Greeks were freed from the constraints of life in the city. This is the view held by Wolff and Vatin.79 But the degree to which their contract practice finally came to resemble native Egyptian practice is too striking for the influence of native custom to be discounted. For the Greeks came, just as the Egyptians did, to cohabit first, without any legal act (P. Tebt. i. 104 of 92), and then subsequently to regulate the union with a contract that was primarily one of financial import.80 But whatever its cause, this final situation exhibits what is in Greek terms an astonishingly lax attitude to the surveillance of legitimacy. P. Eleph. i and the ‘legitimate wife’ The early and distinctive P. Eleph. 1 of 311 begins: Contract of living together (syngraphi synoikisias) of Heraclides and 77 Wolff 1939: 26-7 and 1952: 167-8, Vatin 1970: 170-2, Modrzejewski 1984: 361 and 1981: 252-5. n Wolff 1952: 173-4 and cf. 1939: 28-9. ” Wolff 1939: 31, Vatin 1970: 164 and 173. *° As Taubenschlag 1955: 113-14 and Fraser 1972: i. 71.

The Chora

339

Demetria. Heraclides (the Temnian)81 takes Demetria the Coan as his legitimate wife {gynaika gnësian) from her father Leptines the Coan and her mother Philotis. Heraclides, as a free man, takes Demetria as a free woman. (P. Eleph. i)

The term syngraphe synoikisias, so closely akin to syngraphi synoikisiou , is already used, but there are some important differences from P. Tebt. iii. 815 and its type. For Vatin the explicit affirmation by Heraclides that he has received the woman from her guardian (and later her dowry also), and that he now regards her as his legitimate wife, indicates that this contract reflects a preceding engyë, not merely an ekdosis.82 If we accept this, then we would have yet an earlier phase in Ptolemaic marriage practice where bastardy was again in flux. But although this contract is more specific about the ekdosis itself, there is no actual mention of a preceding engyë, and so the contract need not ultimately differ in this respect from the P. Tebt. iii. 815 type. However, the specification of the all-important word gnësian, ‘legitimate’, never again to be found in a Ptolemaic contract, also appears to link the text to the old world. In subsequent contracts the brides are designated gynaikes gametai, ‘married women’, which focuses on the woman herself, and her relationship with her husband, rather than on her capacity to produce offspring (we shall put this shift in context below). By applying the term gnësian, ‘legitimate’, to his wife Heraclides must mean that he will treat Demetria as the progenitrix of legitimate children, gnësioi paides.83 At Athens the declaration (by the father) of the legitimacy, g n ê s io të s ,

of the children from a prospective union was part of the

speech-act that constituted betrothal: ‘I betroth this woman for the ploughing of legitimate children.’84 The (we presume) individualistic wording of this marriage contract precludes a 81 On this certain but neglected emendation by Rubensohn, see Modrzejewski 1981: 248 and 1984: 360. 82 Vatin 1970: 165-6, 168, and 172. Modrzejewski 1981: 248 also sees this contract as transitional between engyë and the mature Graeco-Egyptian system. However Wolff 1939: 72 thinks the contract belongs back in the old world of the city-state and is effectively pre-Ptolemaic in context. 8* T he transference of the epithet is perhaps a little awkward, but it can be paralleled, for Xenophon Cyropaedia 4. 3. 1 also uses the phrase gnësiai gynaikes to mean legitim ate wives’, i.e. ‘progenitrices of legitimate children’; cf. Modrzejewski 1981: 250. 84 e>g. Menander D ysk o lo s 842; cf. Gomme and Sandbach 1973 ad P ericeirom en e ioio.

Hellenistic Egypt speech-act here, but gnêsian is still very meaningful—because meaningless. Without a state to give surveillance and indeed meaning to ‘legitimacy’, Heraclides must give her father assurances that he will treat Demetria as if it did, with legitimacy being conceived of in terms of a vague norm derived from the customs of the cities. Thus the morality lives on beyond the insti­ tution that supports it.85 Fully concomitant with the assertion of the wife’s role as progenitrix of his ‘legitimate’ offspring is another of Heraclides’ undertakings among his marital obligations: ‘Let it not be allowed for Heraclides to bring in another woman/wife on top of Demetria (gynaika allën epeisagesthai) to the insult of Demetria, nor let it be allowed for him to make children (teknopoieisthai) from another woman/wife’ (P. Eleph. i). Since Leptines has no city-state, which would in itself have provided him with the guarantees and protec­ tions that he desires for his daughter’s status, he must himself write the exclusivity which he wishes her to enjoy into the contract. Her status is considered to be primarily dependent upon her child-producing capacity: it is only by ensuring that she alone can be the mother of Heraclides’ children, and therefore that Heraclides will privilege the offspring of no other woman before hers, that Demetria’s status can be guaranteed. Vatin crucially begs the question when he paraphrases this prohibition ‘ne pas engendre bâtards’ (‘not to father bastards’),86 for it is precisely because the bastard/legitimate distinction has no legal and only a precarious social recognition that the prohibition against begetting children elsewhere has to be made—it was never necessary in the strictly regulated legitimacy regime of classical Athens. In the u Vatin 1970: 166 and Préaux 1959: 147—50 read the description of the wife as 'legitimate' in a very literal way, and understand Heraclides to be saying that he accepted Demetria from her parents on the basis that she was their legitimate child. They take as evidence for this the fact that Heraclides declares not only the name of the father of the bride, but that of her mother too, the identity of the latter supposedly being relevant to the legitimacy of the former's children. But in later synoikisiou contracts the mother equally participates in the tkdosis of her daughter, and in these there is no attempt to link her participation to the legitimacy of her daughter. Except in the unlikely event of her mother Philotis being a slave— Demetria is specified as ‘free’—the union between Leptines and Philotis could at worst have been one between different foreign nationals, leaving Demetria metroxenic, yet Heraclides is himself planning just such a union between nationalities—or probably already ‘ethnics’. The only conceivable importance of Demetria’s legitimacy to Heraclides is if he hoped to inherit from her father through her as an heiress. ** Vatin 1970: 167.

The Chora

341

stateless chora, the only way that a man could show a fellow immigrant that he considered the man’s daughter to be his wife was by ensuring that the children he had of her alone should become his heirs: legitimacy is spoken of, but only exclusive heritability is offered.*7 Later, in P. Gen. i. 21, for example, the husband is forbidden contact with other women and must promise that his property will go to the children of the union in question. (Pomeroy, however, thinks monogyny clauses were felt necessary because of the polygamous examples of the kings).88 The threat of amphimetric strife seems to be felt particularly keenly here. P. Eleph. i contrasts with later contracts in other ways. In P. Giss. i. 2 of 173 and P. Tebt. i. 104 of 92 the husband’s duties are broadly similar to those outlined in P. Eleph. 1, but one small modification is crucially significant: Let it not not be allowed for him to bring in another woman/wife on top of Olympias, nor to keep a concubine (pallakë) or a catamite (paidikon), nor to make children from another woman/wife whilst Olympias still lives, nor to keep another house which Olympias will not manage. (P. Giss. i. 2)

The association between the oikos and (a constructed) legitimacy are manifest here (cf. Chapter 2). In this text the provision against begetting children by another wife or concubine is perhaps even more explicit, but by 173 certainly a free concubine must have been legally indistinguishable from a free wife, and the word ‘concubine’ therefore seems to be used by way of persuasive definition. We significantly find no examples of (free) concubinage as distinct from marriage in hellenistic Egypt: every union other than a fleeting one was a kind of marriage. But even slaveconcubines were a threat in that they and their children could be easily freed.89 Wolff goes so far as to consider enchorie marriage as a whole a kind of concubinage (pallakeia), and the provision against pallakeia in these documents a purely theoretical ‘memory from the homeland’.90 But it is the new prohibition against the keeping of a catamite that brings us into a different world. Pomeroy thought the prohibition’s purpose was to prevent the husband squandering the K7 Cf. Wolff 1952: 170. KH Pomeroy 1984*1: 96-8. K Cf. P. Tebt. iii. 974; cf. Vatin 1970: 168, 203, and 238. **' Wolff 1952: 169-70 and 1970: 67-8.

Hellenistic Egypt family’s resources,91 but the location of the clause between ‘nor to keep a concubine’ and ‘nor to make children’ shows that the clause addresses matters of sex rather than matters of money. The cultural ideal of monogyny remains, but it is no longer conceived solely or primarily in terms of the guaranteeing of the status of offspring, but in terms of respect, sexual and other, for one’s wife. With no state above to take an interest in descent line, legitimacy loses its significance, and if a family structure is to be maintained, children must now derive their status from respect for their mother, not vice versa. Hence the growing idealization of the ‘common life’ (koinos bios) in the contracts.92 We may also detect again in this development the influence of Egyptian culture, which tended to idealize the wife. Ptahhotep, the writer of Wisdom Literature, had advised: ‘When you prosper, set up a household for yourself. Love your wife passionately, as is proper. Fill her belly, clothe her back. Soothe her body with perfumed oil. Gladden her heart as long as you live, for she is a fertile field of her lord’ (Text at Lichtheim 1973—80: i. 69, para. 2i).93 The seeds of this development are already in P. Eleph. 1: as Modrzejewski notes, the ‘voice of the couple’ already breaks through the other­ wise impersonal document at line 5, ‘that we are . . .’ (einai de hëmas); already the bride is assuming more importance than her guardian.94 Adultery No evidence relates directly to the fate of adulterine bastards: where detected, they were doubtless aborted or exposed as a rule. However, the marriage contracts stipulate sanctions against adultery on the part of women. Already in P. Eleph. 1 Demetria is to lose her dowry if she transgresses. Here and in many other contracts we find a stipulation against the wife spending a night away from home without her husband’s approval, which is clearly a measure to limit adultery.95 91 Pomeroy 19841z: 96. 92 Vatin 1970: 202-4 and Pomeroy 1984a: 97. 93 Cf. Allam 1975: 1177-8. Pestman 1961: io, 32, and 121, and Watterson 1991. S8 .

94 Modrzejewski 1981: 249. 95 Vatin 1970: 167 and 201, and Pomeroy 1984a: 88 and 95-6.

The Chora

343

M oney

The contracts evince an increasing formal respect for wives. The Greek and Egyptian legal systems between them allowed women a high degree of financial independence: the wife always retained ownership of her dowry (though the husband had the use of it); wives could get security on their husbands’ property; marriage contracts often stipulate that a husband may not dispose of any property without his wife’s consent; a Greek woman could use Egyptian law without recourse to her guardian; soldier’s wives (aposkeuai ) could claim legal privileges in their husband’s absence.96 One particularly noteworthy borrowing from Egyptian law was the syngraphe trophitis or 'contract of maintenance’, a contract in which the Greek husband pledged a certain part of his property to the maintenance of his wife; this was strongly reminis­ cent of the Egyptian sh n s ’nh contracts.97 We have seen that heritability was the nearest institution to legitimacy in the Egyptian chora. A wide range of succession patterns is found: Dryton’s different wills prescribe variously equal division of property among children of both sexes, equal shares between both sex groups as a whole (i.e. half to the one boy Esthladas, and half for his five sisters between them), and primogeniture.9" The marriageable group

At the inner boundary of the marriageable group no legal incest prohibitions are known. There is no certain instance of full-sister marriage between non-royal Greeks of the Ptolemaic period, though it may well have occurred.99 The citizenshipless nature of the chora precluded the legal imposition of an outer boundary on the marriageable group. The gradual disintegration of cultural resistance to intermarriage can be traced in the contracts.100 From the very first contract, P. Eleph. See Taubenschlag 1955: 120—30, Pomeroy 1984a: 91-3, 110-17 and 119-21. 1961: 35-6 and 41-8. i)H Pomeroy 1984a: 112 and 199 n. 64, Montevecchi 1936: 100-5, and Boswinkel and Pestman 1978: 32 n. 1. w See Thierfelder i960, Modrzejewski 1964, 1984: 354, Hopkins 1980: 312, and Pomeroy 1984a: 85. lno Modrzejewski 1984, 1980, and cf. 1981:247-52.

U1 See Pestman

344

Hellenistic Egypt

i of 311, we already find Greeks of different ethnics intermarrying: a Temnian and a Coan; in BGU iii. 1463 of 247/6 we find a marriage between a Macedonian and a Cretan; in P. Tebt. iii. 815 of 228-221 we find one between a ‘Salaminian of the Epigone’ and a Cyrenean; and in P. Giss. i. 2 of 173 we find one between an Athenian and a Macedonian.101 These partners have no interest in the laws of the ‘fatherlands’ denoted by their ethnics. Even the earliest P. Eleph. 1 now seems not to have been specifically influenced by Coan law. In an inscrip­ tion of 224-221, to which we shall return, a ‘Cyrenean’ Demetrius appears to flout the marriage law of the state denoted by his ethnic in marrying an Egyptian woman, whereas citizenship in Cyrene depended upon birth from a Cyrenean or Libyan woman.102 P. Giss. i. 2 of 173 is often cited as another example of the flouting of home state marriage law: in it a Macedonian bride, Olympias, gives herself in auto-ekdosis to an Athenian, Antaeus. Antaeus is thus held to flout the Athenian double civic ascendance principle, and to be preparing to father children that would not have been entitled to citizenship in his home state.103 While it is surely true that Antaeus made the union without reference to the law of his ‘home’ state, this particular example does in fact fall down, since, as we saw, by the middle of the second century and probably from as early as 229 the double civic ascendance principle had ceased to operate in Athens. In any case, it is very unlikely that Antaeus himself was entitled to the citizenship, since his ethnic only requires that he had an Athenian ancestor in the male line, and his ancestry probably contained much non-Athenian blood long before the double civic ascendance requirement ceased to operate.104 Indeed his ethnic may not even have meant as much as that: the people of the chora had neither the means nor the interest to validate the claims of new immigrants to the ethnics they sported. The opposite picture, that of expatriate true Athenian citizens attempting to maintain the rights of their descendants to citizenship in the city (at a time when the double 101 Cf. Modrzejewski 1984: 360-1 and 373. 1980: 57-8, 1983: 147-50, and Pomeroy 1984a: 87. 102 Wilcken and Mitteis 1912: no. 5i=Bemand 1975-81 [Guide no. 325]: i, no. 2 (pp. 19-22). Cf. Modrzejewski 1984: 363. 10:1 Cf. Modrzejewski 1984: 361, 1980: 57, 1981: 252, Vatin 1970: 170-1, and Wolff 1939: 26. 1-8* ----- ( 1911—15), 44OeooaXiKal imypafaC'y apyaioXoyucn (1911), I 23“ 49; (1912), 60-IOI; (1913). 25-52; (1914)» 4-23; (1915)* 8“ 27. Arnim, H. Von (1921-4), Stoicorum veterum fragmenta (4 vols., Leipzig). A r n o t t , W. G. (1975), Menander, Plautus and Terence, Greece and Rome New Surveys in the Classics 9 (Oxford). ----- (1982), Menander, Loeb, vol. i (Cambridge, Mass.). A s h e r i , D. (1961), ‘Sulla Legge di Epitadeo’, Athenaeum, n s 39: 45-6. ----- (*963), ‘Laws of Inheritance, Distribution of Land and Political Constitutions in Ancient Greece’, Historia, 12: 1-21. A u s t i n , M. M. (1970), Greece and Egypt in the Archaic Age, PCPS suppl. 2 (Cambridge). B a c h o f e n , J. J. (1861), Das Mutterrecht (republished 2 vols., 1948, Basle). B a d i a n , E. (1958), ‘Alexander the Great and the Unity of Mankind’, Historia, 7: 425-44 = Griffith 1966: 287-303. ----- (1964), Studies in Greek and Roman Historiography (Oxford). ----- (1982), 4A King’s Notebooks’, HSCP 72: 183-204. B a c n a l l , R. S. (1971), ‘The Ptolemaic Trierarchs’, CE 46: 356-62. ----- (1982-3), ‘Papyrology and Ptolemaic History: 1956-80*, CW 76: 15-21. B a i n , D. (1983), Menander: Samia , ed. with trans, and notes (Warminster). Baslez, M. (1984), L'Etranger dans la Grèce antique (Paris). B a u e r , A. (1967), Themistokles: Literary, Epigraphical and Archaeological Testimonia (2nd edn., augmented and rev. F. J. Frost, Chicago). B e a u c h e t , L. (1897), L'Histoire du droit privé de la république athénienne (Paris). B e l o c h , K. J. (1912-27), Griechische Geschichte (2nd edn., 4 vols., 8 parts, Strasbourg). B e n g s t o n , H. (1969), Griechische Geschichte von den Anfängen bis in die römischer Kaiserzeit, Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft 3/4 (4th edn., Munich). ----- and S c h m i t t , H. H. (1962- ), Die Staatsverträge des Altertums (2+ vols., Munich; i: 1962, ii: 1969); Guide no. 669. [Staatsverträge] B e n n d o r f , O., H e b e r d e y , R., K e i l , J., et al. (eds.) (1906), Belege gesammelt in Forschungen in Ephesos (Vienna); Guide no. 197.

380

References

E. (ed.) (1975-81), Recueil des inscriptions grecques du Fayoum, i (3 vols., Leyde); Guide no. 325. B e r v e , H. (1938), ‘Die Verschmelzungpolitik Alexanders des Grossen’, Klio, 31: 135-68 = Griffith 1966: 103-36. ----- (1967), Die Tyrannis bei den Griechen (2 vols., Munich). B e t h e , E. (1907), ‘Die dorische Knabenliebe’, Rh. M. 62: 438-75. B e t z , H. D. (1986), The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation, Including the Demotic Spells, i: Texts (Chicago). (Partial translation of Preisendanz I973-4)Bbvan, E. (1987), ‘The Goddess Artemis and the Dedication of Bears in Sanctuaries’, BSA 82: 17-21. B i c k e r m a n , E. (1975), ‘La Conception du mariage à Athènes*, Bolettino dell* Istituto di diritto romano, 3rd ser. 17: 1-28. B i c k n e l l , P. (1982), ‘Themistokles’ Father and Mother’, Historia, 31: 161-73. B i l l i g m e i e r , J., and T u r n e r , J. A. (1981), ‘The Socio-economic Roles of Women in Mycenean Greece: A Brief Survey from Evidence of the Linear B Tablets’, in H. P. Foley, (ed.), Reflections of Women in Antiquity (Philadelphia), 1-18. B i n g e n , J. (1957), ‘Le Papyrus de gynéconome (P. Hibeh 196)’, CE 32: B e rn a n d ,

337- 9 -

A. (1989), Plutarch: Life of Kimon, Institute of Classical Studies Bulletin Supplement 56 (London). B u n k e n b e r g , C. (ed.) (1941), Lindos, fouilles de l'acropole IÇ02-14, ii (vol. ii in 2 parts, continuous pagination, Copenhagen); Guide no. 138. Blok, J. (1987), ‘Sexual Asymmetry.* A Historiographical Essay’, in J. Blok, and P. Mason (eds.), Sexual Asymmetry (Amsterdam), 1-58. B o a r d m a n , J. (1972), ‘Heracles, Peisistratus and Sons’, RA 57-72. ----- (*975). ‘Heracles, Peisistratus and Eleusis’, JH S 95: 1-12. B o e c k h , A., et al. (eds.) (1828-77), Corpus inscriptionum Graecorum (4 vols., Berlin); Guide no. 51. [CIG] B o e g e h o l d , A. L. (1994), ‘Perikles’ Citizenship Law of 451/0 B.C.’, in Boegehold and Scafuro 1994: 57-66. ----- and S c a f u r o , A. C. (eds.) (1994), Athenian Identity and Civic Ideology (Baltimore). B o i s a c q , E. (1 9 5 0 ), Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque ( 4 th edn., Heidelberg). B o m m e l a e r , J.-F. (1981), Lysandre de Sparte: Histoire et traditions (Paris). B o n d , G. (1981), Euripides: Heracles, with introd. and commentary (Oxford). B o n d , J., and W a l p o l e , A. S. (1879), The Phormio of Terence, with Notes and an Introduction (London). B la m ire ,

References

381

R. J., and S m i t h , G. (1930-8), The Administration of Justice from Homer to Aristotle (2 vols., Chicago). B o r i n g , T . A. (1979), Literacy in Ancient Sparta (L eiden). B o r n m a n n , F. (1962), Euripidis Andromacha (Florence). B o s w i n k e l , E., and Pestman, P. W. (1978), Textes grecs, démotiques et bilingues, Papyrologica Lugduno-Batava 19 (Leiden). B o s w o r t h , A. B. (1980a), ‘A lexander and th e Iran ian s', JH S 100: 1-21. ----- (19806), A Historical Commentary on Arrian's History of Alexander (Oxford). B o u r g u e t , E. (1927), Le Dialecte laconien (Paris). B o u r r i o t , F. (1976), Recherches sur la nature du genos: Etude d'histoire sociale athénienne: Périodes archaïque et classique (Lille). B o w m a n , A. K. (1986), Egypt after the Pharaohs (London). B o z z a , F. (1934a), ‘II matrimonio nel diritto dei papiri dell’ epoca tolemaica', Aegyptus, 14: 205-44. ----- (19346), ‘II matrimonio nel diritto attico', Annali de! Seminario giuridico della R. Universita di Catania, 1: 352-83. B r a d f o r d , A. S. (1986),4Gunaikokratoumenoi: Did Spartan Women Rule Spartan Men?’, Anc . W. 14/1-2: 13-18. B r a u n , T. F. R. G. (1982), ‘The Greeks in Egypt’, Cambridge Ancient History, iii.a 3: 32-56. B r a u n s t e i n , O. (1911), ‘Die politische Wirksamkeit der griechischen Frau: Eine Nachwirkung vorgriechischen Mutterrechtes' (diss., Leipzig). B r e u c h , A. (1969), Paides e parthenoi (Rome). B r e m m e r , J. (1977), 44R K w o o a p y t s " M n e m o s y n e , 30: 369-74. ----- (1980), ‘An Enigmatic Indo-European Rite: Pederasty*, Arethusa, 13: 279-98. B r i a n t , P. (1978), ‘Colonisation hellénistique et populations indigènes [i]’, Klio%60: 57-92. ----- (1982), ‘Colonisation hellénistique et populations indigènes ii'f Klio, 64: 83-98. B r o w 'n , P. G. McC. (1983), ‘Menander’s Dramatic Technique and the Law of Athens’, CQ 33: 412-20. ----- (1990), ‘Plots and Prostitutes in Greek New Comedy’, Papers of the Leeds International Latin Seminar, 6: 241-66. B r u l é , P. (1987), La Fille d'Athènes: La Religion des filles à Athènes à l'époque classique: Mythes, cultes et société (Paris). ----- (1990), ‘Enquête démographique sur la famille grecque antique’, REA 92: 233-58. B o n n e r,

G . (1979), ‘Early O rien talisin g A spects of th e E uboean C o n n ectio n ’, in D . and F. R idgw ay (eds.), Italy before the Romans (L o n d o n ), 29-43.

B u c h n e r,

382 B u ffib re ,

References F. (1980), Éros adolescent: La Pédérastie dans la Grèce antique

(Paris). W. (1965), ‘Demaratus, Astrabakos und Herakles: Königs­ mythos und Politik zur Zeit der Perserkriege (Herodot 6. 67-9)*, Mus. Helv. 22: 166-77. - - - - - - - ( * 9 8 3 ) , Homo Necans: The Anthropology of Ancient Greek Sacrificial Ritual and Myth (Berkeley); trans, of Homo Necans (Berlin, 1972). ----- (1985) Greek Religion, Archaic and Classical ( O x f o r d ) ; t r a n s , o f Griechische Religion der archäische und klassische Epoche, Die Religionen der Menschheit 15 (Stuttgart, 1977). B u r n e t t , A. P. (1 9 8 3 ), Three Archaic Poets ( L o n d o n ) . B u s h a l a , E. W. (1969), ‘The Pallake of Philoneus’, AJP 90: 65-72. B u s o l t , G., and S w o b o d a , H. (1926), Griechisches Staatskunde, i, Hand­ buch der Altertumswissenschaft 4/1/1 (3rd edn., 2 vols., Munich). C a g n a t , R., et al. (eds.) (1906-27), Inscriptiones Graecae ad res Romanas pertinentes (3 vols., Paris); Guide no. 673. [IGR(R)] C a i z z i , F. D. (1966), Antisthenis fragmenta (Milan). C a l a m é , C. (1977), Les Chœurs des jeunes filles en Grèce archaïque (2 vols., Rome). C a l d e r i n i , A. (1953), ‘Apatores’, Aegyptus 33: 358-69. C a n t a r e l l a , E. (1991), ‘Moicheia: Reconsidering the Problems', in M. Gagarin (ed.), Symposium içço: Papers on Greek and Hellenistic Legal History (Cologne), 289-96. C a r c o p i n o , J. (1935), L'Ostracisme athénien (Paris). Carey, C. (1991), ‘Apollodorus’ Mother: The Wives of Enfranchised Aliens in Athens’, CQ 41: 84-9. C a r g i l l , J. (1983), 7 G IIa 1 and the Athenian Kleruchy on Samos’, GRBS 24: 321-32. C a r l i e r , P. (1984), La Royauté en Grèce avant Alexandre (Strasbourg). C a r t l e d g e , P. (1976), ‘Seismicity and Spartan Society’, LCM 1: 115-19. ----- (1978), ‘ L i t e r a c y i n t h e S p a r t a n O l i g a r c h y ’ , JH S 98: 25-37. ----- (1979), Sparta and Lakonia (London). ----- (19810), ‘Spartan Wives: Liberation or Licence?', CQ 31, 84-105. ----- (19816), ‘The Politics of Spartan Pederasty', PCPS 27: 17-30. ----- (1987), Agesilaos and the Crisis of Sparta (London). C a t a u d e l l a , Q. (1948), Eroda: I Mimiambi (Milan). Cbrny, J. (1945), ‘T h e W i l l o f N a u n a c h t e a n d t h e R e l a t e d D o c u m e n t s ’ , JEA 31: 29-53. ----- ( * 9 5 4 ) . ‘Consanguineous Marriages in Pharaonic Egypt’, JEA 4 0 : * 3- 9 C h a m o u x , F. (1953), Cyrène sous la monarchie des Battiades (Paris). ----- (1959), ‘L’île de Thasos et son histoire’, REG 72: 348-69 (reviewing Pouilloux 1954-8). B u rk b rt,

R eferences

383

P. (1968-80), Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque : Histoire des mots (4 vols., Paris). C h a p o t , V. (1929), ‘Astos*, RE A 31: 7-12. C h r i m e s , K. M. T. (1949), Ancient Sparta (Manchester). C h r IST O PH IL O PO U L O S, A. P. (1946), Eyéaeis yovéïwv Kai T€Kvuüv Kara t o ßvljavTLvov S tV c u o y , EvfißoXal . . . t o v IX X tjvikov Kal t o v pwfiaÏKOV SiKalov . . . 4 (Athens). ----- (1951), “ô /Lt€T* aXXoSanijç ydfioç Kara to apxaiKov iXXrjviKOv Kai cXXrjviOTiKOv SiKaiov”, flpayiiaTetai rrjs AKaSrjpilaç AOrpuov, i 7/2; repr. in A. P. Christophilopoulos, AUaiov k o i loropiai puKpà lAcXerrniaTaXAthens, 1973), which pagination is used. C i m i n o , G. (1976), *11 problema dei nothoi e il filopericleismo erodoteo in Hdt. I. 173’, Annali della Scuola normale superiore di Pisa%6: 9-14. C l a r k , G. (1989), Women in the Ancient World, Greece and Rome New Surveys in the Classics 21 (Oxford). C l a v e l - L e v è q u e , M. (1977), Marseille grecque (Marseilles). C l e r c , M. (1893), Les Métèques athéniennes (Paris). ----- (1927-9), Massilia (2 vols., Marseilles). C o h e n , D. (1984), ‘The Athenian Law o f Adultery*, RIDA 3rd ser. 31: i47-6s;=Cohen 1991: ch. 5. ----- (1990), ‘The Social Context of Adultery at Athens*, in P. Cartledge, P. Millett, and S. Todd (eds.), Nomos: Essays in Athenian Law , Politics and Society (Cambridge), i47-65=Cohen 1991: ch. 6 (slightly modified version). ----- (1991), Law, Sexuality and Society (Cambridge). C o h e n , E. (1973), Ancient Maritime Courts (Princeton). C o l d s t r e a m , J. N. (1993), ‘Mixed Marriages at the Frontiers of the Early Greek World*, OJA 12: 89-108. C o l e , D. (1976), “ ‘Asty** and “Polis**: “City** in Early Greek* (diss., Stanford University, Calif.). C o l e , S. G. (19840), ‘The Social Function of Rituals of Maturation: The Koureion and the Arkteia*, ZPE 55: 233-44. ----- (19846), ‘Greek Sanctions Against Sexual Assault’, CP 79: 97-113. C o l l a r d , C. (1981), Euripides, Greece and Rome New Surveys in the Classics 14 (Oxford). C o l l e d g e , M. A. R. (1990), ‘Some Observations on Greek Art in Western Asia after Alexander’s Conquest*, in Descœudres 1990: 323-8. C o L L iT Z , H., and B e c h t e l , F. (eds.) (1884-1915), Sammlung der griechi­ schen Dialekt-Inschriften (4 vols., 5 parts, Göttingen); Guide no. 39. [(S) GDI] C o M P A R E T T i , D. (1894), ‘Le leggi dei Gortyna e le altre inscrizioni arcaiche cretesi edite e illustrate*, Monumenti antichi%3, cols. 93-241. C

h a n t r a in e ,

384

References

R. v a n (i Q75)* ‘Le Mythe de la gynécocratie-doulocratie argienne', in C. Préaux (hon.), Le Monde grec: Hommages à C. Préaux (Brussels), 355^4C o n n o r , W. R. (1971), The New Politicians of Fifth Century Athens (Princeton). ----- (1994), ‘The Problem of Athenian Civic Identity’, in Boegehold and Scafuro 1994: 34-44. Cox, C. A. (1989), ’Incest, Inheritance and the Political Forum in FifthCentury Athens', Ç785: 34-46. C r a i k , E. (1984), ’Marriage in Ancient Greece', in E. Craik (ed.), Marriage and Property (Aberdeen), 6-9. C r o i s s a n t , F., and S a l v i a t , F. (1966), ’Aphrodite gardienne des magis­ trats: Gynéconomes de Thasos et polemarques de Thèbes', BCH 90: 460-3. C u m o n t , F. (ed.) (1926), Fouilles de Doura-Europos (1922-3) (Paris); Guide no. 293. C u n n i n g h a m , I. C . (1 9 6 6 ), 4H e r o n d a s 4 ’, CQ n s 16: 1 1 3 -2 5 . ----- (1971), H erodas: Mimiambi (Oxford). D a l e , A. M. (1954), Euripides: Alcestis, ed. with an introd. and commen­ tary (Oxford). D a r e s t e , R., H a u s s o u u e r , B., and R e i n a c h , T. (eds.) (1898-1904), Recueil des inscriptions juridiques grecques, 2nd series (2 vols., Paris); Guide no. 703. D a s c a l a k i s , A. (1965), The Hellenism of the Ancient Macedonians; trans, of P cAAtjvaq/ios rns apyaias Matcehovias (Athens, 1990). D a u b e , D . (1 9 7 7 ), The Duty of Procreation ( E d i n b u r g h ) . D a v ie s , J. K. (1971), Athenian Propertied Families (Oxford). ----- (1978), ‘Athenian Citizenship: The Descent Group and its Alternatives', CJ 73: 105-21. D a y , J., and C h a m b e r s , M. (1962), Aristotle's History of Athenian Democracy, University of California Publications in History 73 (Berkeley and Los Angeles). D e l o r m e , J. (i960), Gymnasion (Paris). D e n B o e r , W. (1954), Laconian Studies (Amsterdam). D e n n i s t o n , J. D . (1952), The Greek Particles (2nd edn., Oxford). D e S a n c t i s , G. (1912), Atthis: Storia della repubblica atheniense (Turin). D e s c c e u d r e s , J.-P. (ed.) (1990), Greek Colonists and Native Populations (Oxford). DETIENNE, M. (1977), The Gardens of Adonis: Spices in Greek Mythology (Hassocks); trans, of Les Jardins d*Adonis: La Mythologie des aromates en Grèce (Paris, 1972). ----- (1989), L'Écriture d'Orphée (Paris). ----- and V e r n a n t , J.-P. ( 1978), Cunning Intelligence in Greek Culture and CoMPERNOLLE,

References

Society ( H

a s s o c k s ); tra n s , o f

385

Les Ruses d'intelligence: La Métis des grecs

(P a ris , 1 9 7 4 )-

L. (1908-26), ‘Birth’, in J. Hastings (ed.), Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics (1908-26), ii. 648-9. ----- (1 9 3 2 ), Attische Feste ( B e rlin ). D e v e r e u x , G. (1 9 6 5 ), ‘La Psychanalyse et l’histoire: Une application à l’histoire de Sparte’, Annales ESC 20: 18-44. D i c k i s o n , S. K. (1973), ‘Abortion in Antiquity’, Arethusa%6: 159-66 (reviewing Nardi 1971). D il l e r , A. (1935), ‘Scrutiny and Appeal in Athenian Citizenship’, CP 30: 302-11. ----- (1937), Race Mixture among the Greeks before Alexander (Urbana). D it t e x b e r g e r , W. (ed.) (1903-5), Orientis Graeci inscriptiones selectae (2 vols., Leipzig); Guide no. 26. [O G /fS;] ----- (ed.) (1915-24), Sylloge inscriptionum Graecarum (3rd edn., 4 vols., Leipzig); Guide no. 25. [SyllA or SIG *] D o v e r , K. J. (1964), ‘Eros and Nomos’, BICS 11: 31-42. ----- (1974), Greek Popular Morality in the Time of Plato and Aristotle (Oxford). ----- (1976), ‘The Freedom of the Intellectual in Greek Society’, Talanta, 7: 24-54=K. J. Dover, The Greeks and their Legacy (London, 1988), D eubxer,

I35-58-

----- (1978), Greek Homosexuality (Cambridge, Mass.). ----- (*993). Aristophanes: Frogs, ed. with introd. and commentary (Oxford). D o w d e x , K. (1989), Death and the Maiden: Girls Initiation Rites in Greek Mythology (London). D o w x e y , G . (1941), ‘Strabo on Antioch: Notes on his Method*, TAPA 72: 85-95. ----- (1969), A History of Antioch in Syria from Seleucus to the Arab Conquest ( P r i n c e t o n ) . D r o y s e x , J. G . ( 1 8 7 7 - 8 ) , Geschichte des Hellenismus ( 2 n d e d n ., 3 v o ls ., 6 p a rts , G o th a ).

Du Bois, P . (1988), Sowing the Body (Chicago). D u c k w o r t h , G . (1 9 5 4 ), The Nature of Roman Comedy ( P r in c e to n ) . D u x b a b ix , T. J. (1948), The Western Greeks: The History of Sicily and South Italy from the Foundation of the Greek Colonies to 480 BC (Oxford). E d g e r t o x , W. F. (1 9 3 1 ), Notes on Egyptian Marriage, Chiefly in the Ptolemaic Period (Chicago). E h r e x b e r g , V. (1933). “Afoflaf”, RE 16/1, cols. 382-4. ----- (*939). “ Tpo^ioi”, RE 2nd ser. 7/a/i, cols. 675-6. ----- (1951), The People of Aristophanes (2d edn., Oxford).

386 E

l - A b b a d i,

References M. A. H. (1962), 'The Alexandrian Citizenship', JE A 48:

106-23. , H., and Merkelbach, R. (eds.) (1972), Die Inschriften von Erythrai und Klazomenai (2+ vols., Bonn); Guide no. 54. E n g e l s , D. (1980), 'The Problem of Female Infanticide in the GraecoRoman World’, CP 75: 112-20. ----- (1984), ‘The Use of Historical Demography in Ancient Athens’, CQ 34: 386-93. E r b s e , H., (1969-88), Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem (7 vols., Berlin). E r d m a n n , W. (1934), Die Ehe im alten Griechenland, Münchener Beitrage zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte 20 (Munich). ----- (*939). 'Die Rolle der Mutter bei der Verheiratung der Tochter nach griechischem Recht’, Z S S 544-6. E r i c h s e n , W. (1959), Die Satzungen einer ägyptischen Kultgenossenschaft aus der Ptolemäerzeit (Copenhagen). E r m a n , A. (1892), ‘Miscellen’, Z A S 30: 63. ----- (1966), The Ancient Egyptians: A Sourcebook of their Writings (New York). E y b b n , E . (1980-1), ‘Family Planning in Graeco-Roman Antiquity’, Ancient Society, 11-12: 5-82. E y r e , C. J. (1984), ‘Crime and Adultery in Ancient Egypt’, JEA 70: 92-105. F a n t h a m , E. (1975), 'Sex, Status and Survival in Hellenistic Athens: A Study of Women in New Comedy’, Phoenix, 29: 44-74. F e r g u s o n , W. S. (1910), 'The Athenian Phratries’, CP 5: 257-84. ----- (1911), Hellenistic Athens (London). ----- (*938), ‘The Salaminioi of Heptaphylai and Sounion’, Hesperia, 7: 3- 5----- (1944), ‘The Attic Orgeones’, Harvard Theological Review, 37: 61-140. F o n t e n r o s e , J. (1978), The Delphic Oracle (Berkeley). F o r b e s , C. A. (1945), ‘Expanded Uses of the Greek Gymnasium’, CP 40: 32-42. F o r r e s t , W. G. G. ( i 9 6 0 ) , ‘Themistokles a n d Argos’, CQ 10: 2 2 1 - 4 1 . ----- (1966), The Emergence of Greek Democracy (London). ----- (1968), A History of Sparta g$o-ig2 BC (London). F o r s t e r , E. S. (1927), Isaeus, Loeb (Cambridge, Mass.). F o u c a u l t , M. (1985), The Use of Pleasure, History of Sexuality 2 (New York); trans, of L'Usage des plaisirs (Paris, 1984). F o u c h e r , A. (1939), ‘La Nicée d’Afghanistan’, CRAI , 435-47. F o x h a l l , L. (1989), 'Household, Gender and Property in Classical Athens’, CQ 39: 22-44. ----- (1991). ‘Response to Eva Cantarella*, in M. Gagarin (ed.). E

ngelm ann

References

387

Symposium iç ç o : Papers on Greek and Hellenistic Legal H istory (C ologne), 297-304. F r a e n k e l , E. (i9 6 0 ), Elementi Plautini im Plauto (F lorence); tran s., w ith ad d itio n s, of P l a u t e i n i s c h e s i m P l a u t u s (B erlin, 1922). F r a e n k e l , M ., and H a b i c h t , C. (eds.) (1890-1969), Die Inschriften von Pergamon (3 vols., B erlin); Guide no. 193. F r a s e r , P. M . (1957), review of C ham oux 1953, Gnomon 29: 15-22. ------ (1961), ‘B ibliography: G raeco-R om an E gypt: G reek In scrip tio n s i960*, J E A 47: 139-49------- (1972), Ptolemaic Alexandria (3 vols., O xford). ------- and M a t t h e w s , E. (1987), Lexicon of Greek Personal Names , i: The Aegean Islands, Cyprus, Cyrenaica (O xford). F r a z e r , J. G . (1921), Apollodorus: The Library , L oeb (2 vols., L ondon). F r e d e r s h a u s e n , O. (1912), ‘W eitere S tudien ü b er das R echt bei P lautus u n d Terenz*, Hermes , 47: 199-249. F r i s k , H . (1960-72), Griechisches etymologisches Woerterbuch (3 vols., H eid elb erg ). F r o s t , F. J. (1980), Plutarch's Themistocles: A Historical Commentary (P rin ceto n ). ------- (1 9 9 4 ), ‘A s p e c ts o f E arly A th e n ia n C itizen sh ip * , in B o e g e h o ld an d

S cafuro 1994: 4 5 -56. A. (1953), The Ancestral Constitution: Four Studies in Athenian Party Politics at the End of the Fifth Century B C (L ondon). G a g a r i n , M . (1981), Drakon and Early Athenian Homicide Law, Yale Classical M o n o g rap h s 3 (N ew H aven). G a r d i n e r , A. H . (1940), Ramesside Administrative Documents (L o n d o n ). G a r l a n d , R. S. J. (1990), The Greek Way of Life (L ondon). G e a g a n , D . J. (1967), Athenian Constitution after S u lla , H esp eria S u p p le m en t 12 (P rinceton). G e o r g o u d i , S. (1992), ‘C reating a m yth of m atriarchy*, in G . D u b y and M . P erro t (general eds.) and M . S chm itt P antel (volum e ed.), A History of Women in the West, i: From Ancient Goddesses to Christian Saints (1992), 449-63; trans, of Storia delle donne in Occidente, i: Antichita (R om e, 1990). G e r n e t , L. (1954-60), Démosthène: Plaidoyers civils (4 vols., Paris). ------- (1964), Droit et société en Grèce ancienne (Paris). ------- (1981), The Anthropology of Ancient Greece (B altim ore); trans, of Anthropologie de la Grèce antique (Paris, 1968); includes ‘T h e M arriages of T y ra n ts ’ at 279-88. G i a l l o m b a r d o ( P r e s t i a n n i ), A. M . (1976-7), ‘D iritto m atrim oniale, ered itario e din astico nell M acedonia di F ilippo II*, R S A 6-7: 81-110. G i l b e r t , G . (1881-5), Handbuch der griechischen Staatsalterthümer (2 vols., L eipzig). F uks,

388

References

(1977), Illegitimacy, Sexuality and the Status of Women (Oxford). E. H. (1947), ‘The Archives of the Temple of Soknobraisis at Bacchias’, YCS 10: 181-281. G I l u LA, D. (1980), ‘The Concept of the Bona Meretrix: A Study in Terence's Courtesans’, RFIC 108: 142-65. G i v e n - W i l s o n , C., and C u r t e i s , A. (1984), The Royal Bastards of Medieval England (London). G l o t z , G. (1892), ‘Expositio’, in C. Daremberg and E. Saglio (eds.). Dictionnaire des antiquités grecques et romaines d'après les textes et les monuments, ii/i (D-E), 930-9. NB the complex Glotz exposurebibliography is conveniently charted by Brulé 1987: 174 n. 646. - - - - - - - ( 1 9 0 4 4 7 ) , L 'Ordalie dans la Grèce primitive: Etude de droit et de mythologie (Paris). ----- (19046), La Solidarité de la famille dans le droit criminel en Grèce (Fontemoing). ----- (1906), Études sur l'antiquité grecque (Paris). G o l d e n , M. (1979), ‘Demosthenes and the Age of Majority at Athens’, Phoenix, 33: 35-8. ----- (1981), ‘Demography and the Exposure of Girls at Athens', Phoenix, 35: 3 *6- 33----- (*985). ‘“Donatus" and Athenian Phratries’, CQ 35: 9-13. ----- (1986), ‘Names and Naming at Athens: Three Studies’, EMC 5: 245-69----- (1990), Children and Childhood in Classical Athens (Baltimore). G o m m e , A. W. (1930), ‘Some Notes on Fifth Century History’, JH S 50: 106-7; repr. in Gomme 1937: 87-8. ----- (1933), The Population of Athens in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries BC (Glasgow). ----- (*937)» Essays in Greek History and Literature (Oxford). ----- A n d r b w e s , A., and D o v e r , K. J. (1945-81), A Historical Commentary on Thucydides (5 vols., Oxford). ----- and S a n d b a c h , F. H. (1973), Menander: A Commentary (Oxford). G o u l d , J. (1980), ‘Law, Custom and Myth: Some Aspects of the Social Position of Women in Classical Athens’, JH S 100: 38-59. Gow, A. S. F. (1952), Theocritus, ed. with trans, and commentar)- (2nd edn., 2 vols., Cambridge). - - - - - - - a n d P a c e , D . L . (1 9 6 5 ), The Greek Anthology: Hellenistic Epigrams (2 vols., Cambridge). G r a f , F. ( 1 9 8 5 ) , Nordionische Kulte: Religionsgeschichtliche und epigraphische Untersuchungen zu den Kulten von Chios, Erythrai, Klazomenai und Phokaia (Rome). G r a h a m , A. J. (1964), Colony and Mother City in Ancient Greece (Manchester). G ill, D .

G illia m ,

References

389

P. (1917), ‘In scrip tio n s grecques (A thènes, M egare, Tenos)*, R A 6: 1-67. ------ (1927), Athènes sous Auguste (C airo). G riffith , G . T . (1935), M ercenaries in the Hellenistic W orld (C am bridge). ------ (ed.) (1966), Alexander the Great: The M ain Problems, Views and C o ntro v ersies ab out Classical A n tiq u ity 3 (C am bridge). G r i f f i t h s , A. (1989), ‘W as C leom enes M ad?’, in A. Powell (ed.), Classical S p a rta : The Techniques behind her Success (L o n d o n ), 51-7. G r z y b e k , E. (1989), ‘D ie griechische K o nkubine und ihre “M itg ift” , Z P E 76: 206“ 12. G u a r d u c c i , M . (1937-8), L'istituzione della fratria nella Grecia antica e nelle colonie dT ta lia , M em . dei. L incei 6 (2 vols., R om e). ------ (ed.) (1935-50), Inscriptiones Creticae (4 vols., Rom e); Guide no. 169. G ra in d o r,

[ / . Cret.]

W . (1988), ‘M ilesische B ü rg e rre c h ts- u n d P ro x en iev e rleihungen d er h ellenistischen Z eit’, Chiron , 18: 383-419. H a b i c h t , C. (1961), ‘F alsche U rk u n d e n zu r G eschichte A thens im Z eitalter d er Perserkriege*, Hermes , 89: 1-35. ------ (1982), Studien zu r Geschichte A thens in hellenistischer Z e it , H y p o m n em ata 73 (G ö ttin g en ). H a g u e , R. (1988), ‘M arriage A thenian Style*, Archaeology , 41/3: 32-6. G ü n th e r,

H a l l , E . (1 9 8 9 ), Inventing the Barbarian: Greek Self-Definition through

Tragedy (O xford). R. (1984), ‘Sources for the A thenian A m p h id ro m ia’, G R B S 25: 243-51. a m m o n d , N . G . L. (1956), ‘ii. T h e P hilaids and the C h erso n ese’ CQ 6:

H a m ilto n ,

H

113-29. ------ (1972), A History of Macedonia , i (O xford). ------ (1982), ‘T h e P elo p o n n ese’, Cambridge Ancient H istory , iii.2 3:

321- 59 * ------ (1983), ‘T h e T e x t and M eaning o f A rrian vii 6. 2-5*, J H S 103: 139- 44 * , P. and R. (1990), ‘A th en s-S icily -C am p an ia: W arrio rs and P ain ters’, in D escœ udres 1990: 267-9. H a n n i c k , J. M . (1976), ‘D ro it de cité et m ariages m ixtes’, Class. A n t. 45: 133-48. H a n s e n , M . H . (1976), Apagôgë , Endeixis and Ephëgësis against Kakourgoi, A tim oi and Pheugontes (O dense). ------ (1986), Demography and Democracy (H erning). ------ (1991), The Athenian Democracy in the Age o f Demosthenes (O xford). H a r d i n g , P. (1987), ‘R hetoric and P olitics in F o u rth C en tu ry A th en s’, Phoenix , 41: 25-39. H

annah

390

References

E. (1990), ‘Did the Athenians Regard Seduction as a Worse Crime than Rape?', CQ 40: 370-7. H a r r is , W. V. (1986), ‘The Theoretical Possibility of Extensive Infanticide in the Graeco-Roman World’, CQ 36: 114-16. H a r r is o n , A. R. W. (1947), ‘A Problem in the Rules of Intestate Succession at Athens', CR 61: 41—2. ----- (1968-71), The Law of Athens (Oxford; i: 1968; ii: 1971). H a r t l e y , S. F. (1975), Illegitimacy (Berkeley and Los Angeles). H a r t o g , F. (1988), The Mirror of Herodotus (Berkeley); trans, of Le Miroir d'Hérodote (Paris, 1980). H a r v e y , D. M. (1984), ‘The Wicked Wife of Ischomachos’, EMC 3: 68-70. ----- (1985), ‘Women in Thucydides', Arethusa, 18: 67-90. H a t z f e l d , J. (1940), Alcibiade: Étude sur l'histoire d'Athènes à la fin du Ve siècle (Paris). H a u s s o u u e r , B. (1889), ‘Une liste de métèques milésiens’. Revue de philologie, 23: 80-7. H e a d l a m , W. (1922), H erodas: The Mimes and Fragments, ed. A. D. Knox (Cambridge). H e d r ic k , C. W., Jr. (1990), The Decrees of the Demotionidai (Atalanta). ----- (1991), ‘Phratry Shrines of Attica and Athens’, Hesperia, 60: 241-68. H e i t s c h , E. (1984), Antiphon aus Rhamnus (Mainz). H e n d e r s o n , J. (1987), Aristophanes: Lysistrata, ed. with introd. and notes (Oxford). ----- (1991), The Maculate Muse (2nd edn., Oxford). H e n r y , M. H . (1985), Menander's Courtesans and the Greek Comic Tradition, Studien zur klassischen Philologie 20 (Frankfurt). — —(1986), ‘Ethos, Mythos, Praxis: Women in Greek Comedy', in M. B. Skinner (ed.), Rescuing Creusa: New Methodological Approaches to Women in Antiquity, Special Issue Helios 13/2 (Lubbock, Tex.), 141-50. H e r c h e r , R. (ed.) (1871), Epistolographi Graeci (Paris). H e r m a n , G. (1987), Ritualised Friendship and the Greek City (Cambridge). H e r m a n n , K. F., and S w o b o d a , H . (1913), Lehrbuch der griechischen Staatsalterthümer (Tübingen). H e r z o g , R. (1899), Koische Forschungen und Funde (Leipzig). H e u b e c k , A., and H o e k s t r a , A. (1989), A Commentary on Homer's Odyssey, vol. ii, books ix-xvi (Oxford). H i g n e t t , C. (1952), A History of the Athenian Constitution (Oxford). H il l e r v o n G a e r t r in g e n , F. (ed.) (1906), Die Inschriften von Priene (Berlin); Guide no. 208. ----- (1931)» ‘Rhodos’, RE suppl. 5, cols. 731-840. H

a r r is ,

References

391

S. J. (1983), ‘Social Order and the Conflict of Values in Classical Sparta*, Chiron, 13: 239-81. ----- (1986), ‘Land tenure and Inheritance in Classical Sparta’, CQ 36: 378-406. ----- (1989), ‘Inheritance, Marriage and Demography: Perspectives upon the Success and Decline of Classical Sparta', in A. Powell (ed.), Classical Sparta: The Techniques behind her Success (London), 79-121. H o l z b e r g , N. (1974), Menander: Untersuchungen zur dramatischen Technik (Nuremberg). H o m b e r t , M., and P r é a u x , C. (1952), Recherchas sur le recensement dans l'Égypte romaine, Papyrologica Lugduno-Batava 5 (Brussels). H o p k i n s , M. K. (1965-6), ‘Contraception in the Roman Empire’, CSSH 8: 124-51. ----- (1980), ‘B ro th e rs ister Marriage in Roman Egypt’, CSSH 22: 303-54. H o p p e r , R. J. (1976), The Early Greeks (London). H o r n , R. (1943), ‘Kyrene’, Die Antike, 19: 163-213. H o r x b l o w e r , J. (1981), Hieronymus of Cardia (Oxford). H o r n b l o w e r , N. S. R. (1987), Thucydides (London). How, W. W., and W e l l s , J. (1912), A Commentary on Herodotus (2 vols., Oxford). H r u z ( a ), E. (1892-4), Beiträge zur Geschichte des griechisch und römisch Familienrechts, i: Ehebegrundung nach attischen Rechte; ii: Polygamie und Pellikat nach griechischem Rechte (Erlangen). H u m p h r e y s , S. C. (1974), ‘The Nothoi of Kynosarges’, JH S 94: 88-95. ----- (1978), Anthropology and the Greeks (London). ----- (1983), The Family, Women and Death: Comparative Studies (London). ----- (1989), ‘Family Quarrels’, JH S 109: 182-5. H u n t e r , V. (1994), Policing Athens (Princeton). H u w a r d a s , S. G. (1931), Beiträge zum griechischen und gräko-ägyptischen Eherecht der Ptolemäer und früher Kaiserzeit, Leipziger Rechtswissenschaftliche Studien 64 (Leipzig). Inscriptiones Graecae (1903- ) (sundry editors, volumes, and editions, Berlin); Guide nos. 57-8 [/G]; IG i3 (1981, ed. D. M. Lewis) is Guide no. 61. J a c o b y , F. (1923-58), Die Fragmente der griechische Historiker (15 vols., Berlin). ----- (1944), ‘Genesia: A Forgonen Festival of the Dead’, CQ os 38: 65-75; German version in F. Jacoby, Abhandlungen zur griechischen Geschichtsschreibung (Leiden, 1956), 243-59. J a r d é , P. (1925), Les Céréales dans l'antiquité grecque, i: La Production, Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 130 (Paris). H o d k ix s o n ,

392

References

H. (1939), Couroi et courites: Essai sur l'éducation Spartiate et sur les rites d'adolescence dans l'antiquité hellénique (Lille). J e f f r e y , L. H. (1990), The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece (2nd edn., Oxford); Guide no. 859. [LSAG] J o n e s , A. H. M. (1967), Sparta (Oxford). ----- (1971), The Cities of the Eastern Provinces (2nd edn., Oxford). J u s t , F. P. R. (1976), ‘Ideas about Women in Classical Athens’ (B. Litt, diss., Oxford). ----- (1989), Women in Athenian Law and Life (London). K a e r s t , J. (1892), ‘Die Briefwechsel Alexanders des Großen’, Philologus, 51: 602-22. K a g a n , D. (1963), ‘The Enfranchisement of Aliens by Cleisthenes’, Historia, 12: 41-6. K a h r s t e d t , U. (1922), Griechische Staatsrecht (Gottingen). ----- (1934), Staatsgebiet und Staatsangehörige in Athen (Stuttgart). K a m e r b e e k , J. C. (1947), ‘De novis carminibus Alcaei (P. Oxy 18. 2165)’, Mnemosyne, 3rd ser. 13: 161-82. K a n n i c h t , R ., and S n e l l , B. (eds.) (1981), Tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta, ii (Göttingen). [T. Gr. F] K a s e r , M. (1971-5), Das römische Privatrecht (2nd edn., 2 vols., Munich). K a s s e l , R., and A u s t i n , C. ( 1 9 8 3 - ), Poetae comici Graeci fragmenta (7 vols., Berlin). [K-A or PCG] K a w e r a u , G., and R e h m , A. (eds.) (1914), Milet, i/3: Das Delphinion in Milet (Berlin); Guide no. 210. K e a r n s , E. (1985), ‘Change and Continuity in Religious Structures after Cleisthenes*, in P. A. Cartledge and F. D. Harvey (eds.), Crux: Essays Presented to G. E. M. De Ste . Croix on his 73th Birthday, History of Political Thought 6, issue 1-2 (Sidmouth), 189-207. K e l l y , D. H. (1979), ‘Lysias 12. 72*, Historia, 28: 98-101. K e m b e r , O. (1973), ‘Anaxagoras* Theory of Sex-Differentiation and Heredity’, Phronesis, 18: 1-14. K e r n , O . (1 9 0 0 ), Die Inschriften von Magnesia am Maeander (Berlin); Guide no. 2 0 9 . K e u l s , E (1974), The Water-Carriers in Hades: A Study of Catharsis through Toil (Amsterdam). ----- (1985), The Reign of the Phallus (New York). K e y e s , C. W. (1940), ‘Half-Sister Marriage in New Comedy and the Epidicus’, TAPA 71: 217-29. K il m e r , M. F. (1982), ‘Genital Phobia and Depilation*, JH S 102: 104-12. K i n d s t r a n d , J. F. (1 9 9 0 ), ‘A Collection of Apophthegmata in an Oxford Manuscript’, in S. Teodorsson (ed.), Greek and Latin Studies in J e a n m a ir e ,

References

393

Memory of Cajus Fabricius , Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia 54

(Gothenberg), 141-53. G. S., et al. (1985-93), The Iliad: A Commentary (6 vols., Cambridge). ------- R a v e n , J. E., and S c h o f i e l d , M. (1983), The Presocratic Philosophers (2d edn., Cambridge). K n i p o v i t c h , T. N. (1955), ‘La Population de Olbia du VIe au Ie siècle avant n.e. d’après les données des sources épigraphiques*, M atériaux et recherches archéologiques en URSS> 50: 138-54 (in Russian). Résumé in E. Belin De Ballu, L'Histoire des colonies grecques du littoral nord de la M er Noire (Paris, i960), 46, no. 181. K n o x , B. M. W. (1983), ‘The Hippolytus of Euripides’ in C. Segal (ed.), Oxford Readings in Greek Tragedy (Oxford), 311-31. K o e r t e , A. (1933), ‘Die attischen Xenodikai*, Hermes , 68: 238-42. K o n s t a n , D. (1983), Roman Comedy (Ithaca, NY). ----- (1993), ‘The Young Concubine in Menandrian Comedy*, in R. Scodel (ed.), Theater and Society in the Classical World (Ann Arbor), 139-60. ----- (1994), ‘Premarital Sex, Illegitimacy, and Male Anxiety in Menander and Athens*, in Boegehold and Scafuro 1994: 217-36. K r e l l e r , H. (1 9 1 9 ), Erbrechtliche Untersuchungen a u f Grund der gräcoägyptischen Papyrusurkunden (Leipzig). K u h r t , A., and S h e r w i n - W h i t e , S. M. (1993), From Sam arkand to Sardis (London). K u p is z e w s k i, H. K. (1965), ‘Menanders Dyskolos und seine Bedeutung für die Kenntnis des griechischen und römischen Recht’, in F. Zucker (ed.), Menanders Dyskolos als Zeugnis seiner Epoche (Berlin), 115-37. K y l e , D. G. (1993) Athletics in Ancient Athens (2nd edn., London). L a b a r b e , J. (1953), ‘L’Age correspondant au sacrifice du koureion et les données historiques du sixième discours d’Isée*, Bulletin de l'Académie royale de Belgique , 39: 358-94. L a c e y , W. K. (1968), The Family in Classical Greece (London). L a m b e r t , S. D. (1993), The Phratries o f Attica (Ann Arbor). L a n e F o x , R. (1973), Alexander the Great (London). ----- (1985), ‘Aspects of Inheritance in the Greek World*, in P. A. Cartledge and F. D. Harvey (eds.), C ru x : Essays Presented to G. E. M . De S te . Croix on his 75th B irthday , History of Political Thought 6, issue 1-2 (Sidmouth), 208-32. L a r o n d e , A. (1990), ‘Greeks and Libyans in Cyrenaica’, in Descceudres 1990: 169-80. L a r s e n , J. A. O. (1929), ‘Notes on the Constitutional Inscription from Cyrene*, C P 24: 351-68. ----- (1957), ‘Lycia and Greek Federal Citizenship’, S O 33: 5-26. ----- (1964), ‘Epirote Grants of Citizenship to Women’, C P 59: 106-7. K irk ,

394

References

J. A. O. (1967), ‘Epirote Grants of Citizenship to Women once more’, CP 62: 255-6. ----- (1968), Greek Federal States: Their Institutions and History (Oxford). L a s l b t t , P., O o s t e r v e e n , K., and S m i t h , R. M. (eds.) (1980), Bastardy and its Comparative History (Cambridge, Mass.). Contributions by: Laslett, MacFarlane, Oosterveen, Smith (R. M.), Stewart, Newman, Levine, Wrightson, Smout, Meyer, van der Walle, Blayo, Knodel and Hochstadt, Gaunt, Kalvemark, Matovic, Wells, Smith (D. S.), Hartley, Hayami. L a t t e , K. (1937), ‘Nothoi\ RE 17, cols. 1066-74. ----- (1941), ‘Phratrioi theoi’, RE 20/1, cols. 756-8. L a t y s e v , B. (ed.) (1885-1901), Inscriptiones antiquae orae septentrionalis Ponti Euxini Graecae et Latinae (3 vols., St Petersburg); Guide no. 125. [IOSPE] L e a c h , E. R. (1966), Rethinking Anthropology, LSE Monographs on Social Anthropology 22 (London). ----- ( i 970 > ‘Polyandry, Inheritance and the Definition of Marriage’, in J. Goody (ed.), Kinship (London), 151-62. L e d l , A. (1907-8), ‘Das attische Bürgerrecht und die Frauen*, W S 29 (1907), 173-227, and 30 (1908), 1-46, 173-230. L educ, C. (1992), ‘Marriage in Ancient Greece’, in G. Duby, M. Perrot, and P. Schmitt-Pantel (eds.), A History of Women, i: From Ancient Goddesses to Christian Saints (Cambridge, Mass.), 233-95, trans, of Storie delle donne in Occidente, i: Antichita (Rome, 1990). L e f è v r e , E. (1978), Der Phormio des Terenz und der Epidikazomenos des Apollodor von Karystos, Zetemata 74 (Munich). L e f k o w it z , M. R. (1986), Women in Greek Myth (London). ----- and F a n t , M. B. (1992), Women's Life in Greece and Rome (2nd edn., London). L e h m a n n , C. F. (1982), ‘Noch einmal Kassu: Kissioi, nicht Kossaioi’, Zeitschrift für Assyrologie, 7: 328-34. L e n a r d o n , R. J. (1956), ‘The Archonship of Themistocles, 493/2’, Historia, 5: 401-15. ----- (1978), The Saga of Themistocles (London). L erat, L. (1952), Les Locriens de l'ouest (2 vols., Paris). L e s c h h o r n , W. (1984), Gründer der Stadt: Studien zu einen politisch­ religiösen Phänomenon der griechischen Geschichte (Stuttgart). L e u t s c h , E. L. v o n , and S c h n e i d e w i n , F. G. (1839-51), Corpus paroemiographorum Graecorum (2 vols., Göttingen). L é v i - S t r a u s s , C. (1963), Structural Anthropology (New York); trans, of Anthropologie structurale (Paris, 1958). L e w i s , D. M. (1 9 7 7 ), Sparta and Persia: Lectures Delivered at the University of Cincinnati, Autumn 1976, in Memory of Donald W. L arsen,

References

395

Bradeen , Cincinnati Classical Studies n s i (Leiden). ----- (1983), ‘Themistocles* Mother*, Historia , 32: 245. L e w i s , N. (1983), Life in Egypt under Roman Rule (Oxford). ----- (1982), ‘Dryton*s Wives: Two or Three?*, C E 57: 317-21. L i c h t h e i m , M. (1973-80), Ancient Egyptian Literature (3 vols., Berkeley and Los Angeles). L i d d e l l , H. G., Scott, R., and Jones, H. S. (1968), A Greek-English Lexicon (9th edn., Oxford). L i e b e s n y , H. (1936), ‘Ein Erlass des Königs Ptolemaios II. Philadelphos über die Deklaration von Vieh und Sklaven in Syrien und Phoenikien (PER inv. Nr. 24. 553. gr.)*, Aegyptus , 16: 255-88. L i p s i u s , J. H. (1905-15), Das attische Recht and Rechtsverfahren (3 vols., Leipzig). L loyd, A. B. (1975-88), Herodotus / / , introd. and commentary (3 vols., Leiden). L l o y d - J o n e s , H. (1967), 'Heracles at Eleusis’, M a ia y 19: 206-29. L o r a u x , N. (1978), ‘Sur la race de femmes et quelques-unes de ses tribus*, Arethusa , 11: 43-87. ----- (1981), Les Enfants d A théna (Paris); trans, as The Children of Athena (P r in c e to n , 1 993).

----- (1986), The Invention of Athens: The Funeral Oration in the Classical C ity (Cambridge, Mass.); trans, of LTnvention dA thènes: Histoire de Voraison funèbre dans la cité classique (Paris, 1981). ------- (1 9 8 7 ), Tragic Ways of Killing a Woman (C a m b r id g e , M a ss.).

D. (1962), ‘Mothakes*, Historia , 11: 427-35. ----- (1981), ‘Zwischen Politen und Metöken: Passivbürger im klassichen Athen?’, K lio , 63/1: 159-78. M a c a n , R. W. (1895-1908), Herodotus , commentary on books 4-9 (4 vols., London). M acC ary, W. T., and W i l l c o c k , M. M. (1976), Plautus Casina , ed. with introd. and commentary (Cambridge). M a c D o w e l l , D. M. (1962), Andocides: De mysteriis , ed. with introd. and commentary (Oxford). L o tz e ,

------- (1 9 6 3 )1

A thenian Homicide Law in the Age o f the Orators

(Manchester). ----- (1971), Aristophanes: Wasps , ed. with introd. and commentary (Oxford). ----- (1976), ‘Bastards as Athenian Citizens’, CQ 70: 88-91. ----- (1978), The Law in Classical Athens (London). ----- (19820), ‘Love versus the Law*, G R 29: 42-52. ----- (19826), Gorgias: Encomium of Helen , ed. with introd., trans., and commentary (Bristol). ----- (1986), Spartan Law (Edinburgh).

References ----- (1989), ‘The Oikos in Athenian Law*, CQ 39: 10-21. M c K e c h n i e , P. (1989), Outsiders in the Greek Cities in the Fourth Century BC (London). M c S h a n e , R. B. (1964), The Foreign Policy of the Attalids of Pergamum (Urbana, 111.). M a c u r d y , G. H. (1932), Hellenistic Queens (Baltimore). M a f f i , A. (1989), ‘Matrimonio, concubinato e filiazione illegitima nell* Atene degli oratori’, in G. Thuer (ed.), Symposion 1985 (Cologne), 177-24. M a i d m e n t , K. J. (1941), Minor Attic Orators, i: Antiphon and Andocides, Loeb (Cambridge, Mass.). M aiuri, A. (ed.) (1925), Nuova silloge epigrafica di Rodi e Cos (Florence); Guide no. 137. M a l k i n , I. (1987), Religion and Colonisation in Ancient Greece (Leiden). M a n v i l l e , P. B. (1990), The Origins of Athenian Citizenship in Ancient Athens (Princeton). ----- (1994), ‘Toward a New Paradigm of Athenian Citizenship*, in Boegehold and Scafuro 1994: 21-33. M a r t e l l i , M. (1984), ‘Prima di Aristonothos*, Prospettiva, 38: 2-15. M a r t i n , V. (1955), ‘L’Onomastique comme indice des rapports entre indigènes et occupants dans l’Égypte gréco-romaine*, in Actes du V ille congrès international de papyrologie (Vienna), 85-90. M a t t h a , G. (1941), ‘The Legal Code of Hermopolis West*, Bulletin de Vlnstitut d’Ègypte, 23: 297-312. M e i g c s , R. (1972), The Athenian Empire (Oxford). ----- and L e w i s , D. (eds.) (1969), A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions (Oxford); Guide no. 35. [ML] M e n d e l s , D. (1979), ‘Sparta in Teles* Peri phugës\ Eranos, 77: 111-15. M e r i t t , B. D., W a d e - G e r y , H. T., and M c G r e g o r , M. F. (eds.) (1939-53), The Athenian Tribute Lists (4 vols.: i, Cambridge, Mass.; ii-iv, Princeton); Guide no. 65. [ATL] M i c h e l , C. (1900), Recueil descriptions grecques (Brussels); Guide no. 28. M i c h e l l , H. (1952), Sparta (Cambridge). M i h a i l o v , G. ( e d . ) (1958-70), Inscriptiones Graecae in Bulgaria repertae (4 vols., Sofia); Guide no. 116. M i n n s , E. H. (1913), Scythians and Greeks: A Survey of Ancient History and Archaeology on the North Coast of the Euxine from the Danube to the Caucasus (Cambridge). M i t t e i s , L. (1891), Reichsrecht und Volksrecht in den östlichen Provinzen des römischen Kaiserreichs (Leipzig). ----- and W i l c k b n , U. (1912), Grundzuge und Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde (2 vols., 4 fascs., Leipzig). M o d r z e j e w s k i , J. M. (1964), ‘Die Geschwisterehe in der hellenistischen

References

397

Praxis und nach römischen Recht*, Z SS RA 81: 52-82. ----- (1969), ‘La Règle de droit dans l’Égypte Ptolémaïque*, in Essays in Honour of C. Bradford Welles, American Studies in Papyrology 1 (New Haven), 125-74. ----- ( 1975 )» ‘C h r é m a tiste s et laocrites*, in Le Monde grec: Hommages à Claire Préaux (Brussels), 699-708. ----- (1980), ‘Un aspect du “couple interdit” dans l’antiquité*, in L. Poliakov (ed.), Le Couple interdit: Entretiens sur le racisme: La Dialectique de Valtérité socio-culturelle et la sexualité, Le Savoir his­ torique 13 (Paris), 5 3 -7 3 ; a simplified version of Modrzejewski 1984. ----- (1981), ‘La Structure juridique du mariage grec*, in E. Bresciani et al. (eds.), Scritti in onore di Orsolina Montevecchi (Bologna), 231-68. ------- (1 9 8 3 ), ‘L e S ta tu t d e s H e llè n e s d ’É g y p te lagid e: B ilan et p e r sp e c tiv e s

de recherches*, REG 96: 241-68. ----- (1984), ‘Dryton le Crétois et sa famille, ou, les mariages mixtes dans l ’É g y p te h e llé n istiq u e * , in C e n tr e G . G lo tz (p r e se n te r ), Aux origines de Vhellènisme: La Crète et la Grèce: Hommage à Henri van Effenterre (P a ris), 3 5 3 -7 7 o m m s e n , T. (1862-75), The History of Rome (4 vols., London); trans, of Römische Geschichte (5 vols., Berlin 1868-85). M o n t e v e c c h i , O. (1936), ‘Ricerche di sociologia nei documenti dell* Egitto greco-romano’, Aegyptus, 16: 3—83. ----- 0973 )» Ta papirologia (Turin). ----- (1976), ‘II censimento romano d’Egitto’, Aevum, 50: 72-3. M o r e t t i , L. (ed.) (1967-75), Inscrizioni storiche ellenistiche (2 vols., Florence); Guide no. 36. MossÉ, C. (1969), La Tyrannie dans la Grèce antique (Paris). ----- (1979)* ‘Citoyens actifs et citoyens passifs dans les cités grecques*, RE A 81: 241-9. ----- ( 1 9 9 1 ) 1 ‘L a P la ce d e la pallaké d a n s la fa m ille a th én ien n e* , in M. Gagarin (ed.), Symposium içço: Papers on Greek and Hellenistic Legal History (Cologne), 273-9. M ü l l e r , C. and T. (1853-70), Fragmenta historicorum Graecorum (5 vols., Paris). M ü l l e r , O. (1899), Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des attischen Bürger­ und Eherechts, Jahrbuch für classische Philologie, suppl. 25 (Leipzig). N a g y , G. (1974), Comparative Studies in Greek and Indic Meter (Cambridge, Mass.).

M

------- (1 9 8 5 ), ‘T h e o g n is and M egara: A P o e t’s V isio n o f h is C ity*, in

G. Nagy and T. J. Figueira (eds.), Theognis of Megara: Poetry and the Polis (Baltimore), 22-81. N a i r n , J. A. (1904), The Mimes of Herodas (Oxford). N a r d i , E. (1971), Procurato aborto nel mondo greco-romano (Milan).

398

References

R. (1971), ‘Remarks on the Analysis o f Kinship and Marriage', in R. Needham, Rethinking Kinship and Marriage (London), 1-34. N e w t o n , C. T. (ed.) (1883), Ancient Greek Inscriptions in the British Museum, ii (London); Guide no. 663. [(G)IBM] N i l s s o n , M. P. (1951), Cults, Myths, Oracles and Politics in Ancient Greece (Lund). ------(1955—61), Geschichte der griechisches Religion (2nd edn., 2 vols., Munich). O a t e s , J. F. (1963), ‘The Status Designation: Perses tes epigones’, YCS 18: 1-129. O b e r , J. (1989), Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens (Princeton). O ’B r i e n , J. V . (1 9 9 3 ), ‘Hera, Nurse of Monsters', in J. K. King (hon.), and M. Deforest (ed.), Woman's Power, Man's Game (Wauconda, 111.), 109-28. O b p k e , A. (1 9 3 4 ), ‘Amphithaleis in griechischen und hellenistischen Kult', Archiv fur Religionswissenschaft, 31: 4 2 - 5 6 . O g d e n , D. (1993), ‘Cleisthenes of Sicyon, leustër', CQ 43: 353-63. ------(1994), ‘Crooked Speech: The Genesis of the Spartan Rhetra', JH S 114: 85-102. O liva, P. (1971), Sparta and her Social Problems (Amsterdam). O l l i e r , F. (1933-43), Le Mirage Spartiate (2 vols., Paris). Osborne, M. J. (1981-3), Naturalisation in Athens (4 vols., Brussels). O s b o r n e , R. G. (1985), Demos: The Discovery of Classical Attica (Cambridge). O t t o , W. (1905-8), Priester und Tempel (2 vols., Leipzig). P a g e , D. L. (1938), Euripides: Medea, ed. with introd. and commentary (Oxford). P a o l i , U. E. (1930), Studi di diritto attico (Florence). ------(1962), Comici latini e diritto attico (Milan). P a r k e , H. W., and Wormell, D. E. W. (1956), The Delphic Oracle (2nd edn., Oxford). P a r k e r , R. C. T. (1983), Miasma (Oxford). ------(1987), ‘Myths of Early Athens’*in J. Bremmer (ed.), Interpretations of Greek Mythology (London), 187-214. P a t o n , W. R., and H ic k s , E. L. (1891), The Inscriptions of Cos (Oxford); Guide no. 149. P a t t e r s o n , C. (1981), Pericles' Citizenship Law of 451-0 BC (Salem, Mass.). ------(*985)1 ‘“Not Worth Rearing”: The Causes of Infant Exposure in Ancient Greece’, TAPA 115: 103-23. ------(1986), ‘Hai Attikai', Helios, 13/2: 49-67, repr. in M. B. Skinner, (ed.), Rescuing Creusa: New Methodological Approaches to Women in Antiquity (Lubbock, Tex., 1987), 49-67. N

eedham ,

References

399

----- (1990), ‘Those Athenian Bastards’»Class. A n t. 9/1: 3 9 - 7 3 . ----- (1991a), ‘Marriage and the Married Woman in Athenian Law*, in S. B. Pomeroy (ed.), Women's History and Ancient History (Chapel Hill, NC), 48-72. ------(19916), ‘Response to Claude Mossé*, in M. Gagarin (ed.), Symposium iggo: Papers on Greek and Hellenistic Legal History

(Cologne), 281-7. ----- (1994), ‘The Case against Neaera and the Public Ideology of the Athenian Family*, in Boegehold and Scafuro 1994: 199-216. P a u l y , A. F. v o n , and W i s s o w a , G. (1894)» R eQl Encyclopädie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft (Stuttgart, 1894-1972; suppi. 1903- )* P e e k , W. (ed.) (1955), Griechische Vers-Inschriften , i: Die Grabepigramme (Berlin); Guide no. 763. [G VI] P e e t , T. E. (1930), The Great Tomb-Robberies of the Twentieth Egyptian D ynasty , i: Text (London). P É L É K ID IS , C. (1962), Histoire de l'éphébie at tique: Des origines à 31 avant J .-C .

(P a ris ).

S. G. (1965), ‘The Last of the Matriarchs: A Study in the Inscriptions of Lycia*, Journal o f the Economic and Social History of the Orient , 8: 217-47.

P em b ro k e,

------ (1967), ‘W om en in C harge: T h e F u n ctio n of A lternatives in E arly

Greek Tradition and the Ancient Idea of Matriarchy*, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes , 30: 1-35. ----- (1970), ‘Locres et Tarente: Le Rôle de femmes dans la fondation de deux colonies grecques*, Annales E S C 25: 1240-67. W . ( 1 9 3 7 ) , Vreemdelingen en Egyptenaren en Ptolemaeisch Egypte (Amsterdam).

P erem a n s,

Vroeg-

----- (1981), ‘Les Mariages mixtes dans l’Égypte de Lagides*, in E. Bresciani et al. (eds.), Scritti in onore di Orsolina Montevecchi (Bologna), 273-81. ----- and V a n ’t D a c k , E. (1950-81), Prosopographia Ptolemaica (9 v o ls ., Louvain 1950-81; vol. vi [court] is 1968). P e r r y , B. E. (1967), The Ancient Romances (Berkeley and Los Angeles). P e s t m a n , P. W . (1 9 6 1 ), Marriage and M atrimonial Property in Ancient E gypt , Papyrologica Lugduno-Batava 9 (Leiden). ----- (1965), ‘Les Archives privées de Pathyris à l’époque ptolémaïque: La Famille de Peteharsemtheus, fils de Panebkhounis*, in E. Boswinkel, P. W. Pestman, and P. J. Sijpesteijn (eds.), Studia papyrologica varia , Papyrologica Lugduno-Batava 14 (Leiden), 46-105. ----- (1967), Chronologie égyptienne d'après les textes démotiques (322 av. J.-C.-453 a p .J .- C .) t Papyrologica Lugduno-Batava 15 (Leiden). P f e i f f e r , R. ( 1 9 4 9 - 5 3 ) , Callimachus (2 vols., Oxford).

400

References

, R. (1968), History of Classical Scholarship, i: From the Beginnings to the End of the Hellenistic Age (Oxford). PlCCIRILLI, L. (1982), ‘GYNE KLEITORIA, KUTORJA, ALITER1A moglie de Cimone?*, RF i 10: 278-82. P i c k a r d - C a m b r i d g e , A. (1962), Dithyramb, Tragedy and Comedy (2nd edn., rev. T. B. L. Webster, Oxford). ----- (1969), The Dramatic Festivals of Athens (2nd edn., rev. J. Gould and D. M. Lewis, Oxford). P l a s s a r t , A., with B l u m , G. (1915), ‘Orchomène d’Arcadie: Fouilles de 1913: Inscriptions ii, BCH 39: 53-127. ----- et al. (eds.) (1926-72), Inscriptions de Délos (7 vols., Paris); Guide no. 134P o l i a k o v , L. (ed.) (1977), Le Couple interdit (Paris). Contributions by: Poliakov, Danon, Bottero, Rausky, Modrzejewski, Arkoun, Roy, Marienstras, Labrousse, Duchet, Girard (P.), Viers, Wauthier, Hassoun. P o m e r o y , S. B. (1975), Goddesses, Whores, Wives and Slaves (New York). ----- (*983), ‘Infanticide in Hellenistic Greece', in A. Cameron and A. Kuhrt (eds.), Images of Women in Antiquity (London), 207-22. ----- (1984a), Women in Hellenistic Egypt (New York). ----- (1984A), ‘Copronyms and the Exposure of Infants in Egypt’, in Atti P

f e if f e r

del x v ii congresso di papirologia (N aples), 1341.

L. A. (1940), ‘Woman’s Place in Menander’s Athens', TAPA 71: 420-59. P o u i l l o u x , J. (1954-8), Recherches sur Vhistoire et les cultes de Thasos (2 vols., Paris). P o w e l l , A. (1988), Athens and Sparta (London). P r é a u x , C. (1958), ‘Pourquoi n’y eut-il pas de grandes codifications hel­ lénistiques?’, RIDA 3rd ser. 5: 365-87. ----- (1959), ‘Le Statut de la femme à l'époque hellénistique, principale­ ment en Égypte', Recueils de la Société Jean-Bodin pour Thistoire com­ parative des institutions, xi: La Femme (Brussels), 127-75. ----- (1978), Le Monde hellénistique (2 vols., Paris). P r e i s e n d a n z , K. (ed.) (1973-4), Papyri Graecae magicae (2nd edn., rev. A. Henrichs, 2 vols., Stuttgart). P r e u s s , A. (1975), ‘Biomédical Techniques for Influencing Human Reproduction in the Fourth Century B C, Arethusa, 8: 237-63. P u g l i e s e - C a r r a t e l l i , G. (1942), ‘Per la storia delle associazioni in Rodi antica’, A SA A n s i and 2: 147-200. ----- (1953), ‘Sullo stato di cittadinanza in Rodi’, in Studi in onore di Vincenzo Arangio-Ruiz (Naples), 485-91. ----- (1965), ‘II damos Coo di Isthmos', A SA A n s 25-6: 147-202. R a n k i n , H. D. (1986), Antisthenes Sokratikos (Amsterdam). Post,

References

401

A. E. (ed.) (1942), ‘O u lio s\ RE 18/2, cols. 1999-2000. E. D . (1969), The Spartan Tradition in European Thought (Oxford). R e d f i e l d , J . (1982), ‘N otes on the Greek Wedding*, Arethusa, 15: 181-201. R e i n m u t h , O. W. (1948), ‘T he Ephebate and Citizenship in Attica*, TAPA 79: 2 1 1 -3 1. R e m o n d o n , R. (1964), ‘Problèmes de bilingualism e dans l’Égypte lagide*, CE 39: 126-46. R e y m o n d , E. A. E., and B a r n s , J. W . B. (1977), ‘Alexandria and M emphis: Som e Historical Observations*, Orientalia, 46: 1-33. R h o d e s , P. J. (1978), ‘Bastards as Athenian C itizens’, CQ 72: 89-92. ------ (1981), Commentary on the Aristotelian Athënaiôn Politeia (Oxford). R o b e r t , L. (1933), ‘N otes d ’épigraphie hellénistique’, BCH 57: 485-91; repr. in his Opera minora selecta. ------ (1937), Etudes anatoliennes (Paris). ------ (1938), Etudes épigraphiques et philologiques (Paris). ------ (19400), ‘Sur un D icton relatif à Phasélis: La Vente du droit de cité’, Hellenica, 1: 37-42. ------ (19406), “ AfjitOaXrjs*y, HSCP suppl. 1: 509—19. R o b e r t s o n , M. (1972), ‘Monocrepis*, GRBS 13: 39-48. R o b e r t s o n , N . (1983), ‘T he Riddle of the Arrhephoria at A thens’, HSCP 87: 241-88. R o b i n s o n , C. A., Jr. (1936), ‘Alexander the Great and the Barbarians’, in Classical Studies Presented to E. Capps (Princeton), 298-305. ------ (1953)* ‘M otivations for A lexander’s U n iversalisai’, in G . E. M ylonas and D . Raymond (eds.), Studies Presented to D. M. Robinson (2 vols., St Louis), ii. 830-2. R o e s c h , P. (1965), Thespies et la confédération béotienne (Paris). R o l l e y , C. (1965), ‘Le Sanctuaire des dieux patrooi et le Thesm ophorion de T h asos’, BCH 89: 441-83. R o s i v a c h , V. J. (1987), ‘Autochthony and the Athenians’, CQ 37: 294-306. R o s t o v t z e f f , M . I. (1941), The Social and Economie History of the Hellenistic World (3 vols., Oxford). ------ B r o w n , F. E., and W e l l e s , C. B. (1939), The Excavations at DuraR a u b its c h e k ,

R aw son,

Europos: Preliminary Report of Seventh and Eighth Seasons of Work 1 9 3 3 -4 a n d 1 9 3 4 -5 (N ew Haven).

----- et al. (eds.) (1943-

), Dura-Europus Final Report (8 vols., sundry

parts, N ew Haven). R o u g e , J. (1970), ‘La Colonisation grecque et les fem m es’, Cahiers d'his­ toire, 15: 307—17. R o u g e m o n t , G. (ed.) (1977), Lois sacrées et règlements religieux, Corpus

402

References

des inscriptions de D elphes i (Paris); Guide no. 95. R o u s s e l , D . (1976), Tribu et cité: Étude sur les groupes sociaux dans les cités grecques aux époques archaïque et classique (Paris). R o u s s e l , P. (1916), Délos, colonie athénienne (Paris). ------ (1943), ‘L ’Exposition des enfants à Sparte’, R E A : 5-17. Royal A nthropological In stitu te (1951), Notes and Queries on Anthropology (London). R u b i n s t e i n , L. (1993), Adoption in iv. Century Athens (Copenhagen). R u d h a r d t , J. (1958), Notions fondamentales de la pensée religieuse et les actes constitutifs du culte dans la Grèce classique (Caen). ------ (1962), ‘La Reconnaissance de la paternité: Sa nature et portée dans la société athénienne’, Mus . Helv . 19: 39-64. R u n c i m a n , W . G. (1990), ‘D oom ed to Extinction: T h e Polis as an Evolutionary D ead-E n d ’, in O . Murray and S. R. F. Price (eds.), The Greek City from Homer to Aristotle (Oxford), 247-67. R uppersberg, A. (1911), “ÆiWvrjAaç”, Philologus, 70: 151-4. RUSCHENBUSCH, E. (1979), Athenische Innenpolitik im 5. Jahrhundert t/. Chr, (Bamberg). S a h i n , C. (ed.) (1 9 8 1 ), Die Inschriften von Stratonikeia (Bonn); Guide no. 226. S t e . C r o i x , G. E. M . d e (1970), ‘Som e Observations on the Property Rights o f Women*, CR 20: 273-8. ------ (1972), The Origins of the Peloponnesian War (London). ------ (1981), The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World (London). S a k K E L IO N , M . (1877), “/Icfc iç /i€0 * loroptwv €K tw v ArjfiooOévovs Xoyœv”, BCH 1: 137 - 5 5 S a l m o n , J. B. (1984), Wealthy Corinth (Oxford). S a u v a g e t , J. (1940), Alep (Paris). S a v a g e , C. A. (1907), The Athenian Family (Baltimore). S a x e n h o u s e , A. W. (1986), ‘M yths and the Origins o f Cities: Reflections on the Autochthony T hem e in Euripides’ Ion\ in J. P. Euben (ed.), Greek Tragedy and Political Theory (Berkeley), 252-73. S c a f u r o , A. C. (1994), ‘W itnessing and False W itnessing: Proving C itizenship and Kin Identity in Fourth-Century A thens’, in Boegehold and Scafuro 1994: 156-98. S c h a c h e r m e y r , F. (1953)» ‘D ie letzten Pläne Alexanders der G roßen’, Jahreshefte des Österreichischen archäologischen Instituts , 41: i i8-40=G rifl5th 1966: 322-44. S c h a f r a n s k a y a , N . V. (1956), ‘O m iksellinakh’, Vestnik drevnei istorii, 5 7 /3 [-Revue d ’histoire ancien]: 37-48. (Russian; French résum é in E. Belin D e Ballu, L ’Histoire des colonies grecques du littoral nord de la Mer Noire, 40, no. 129.) S c h a p s , D . M . (1977), ‘T h e W om an Least Mentioned*, CQ 27: 323-30.

References

403

------ (1979), E conom ic R ig h ts o f W om en in A n c ie n t Greece (Edinburgh). S c h m i t t , H. H. (1957), R o m u n d R h o d o s: G eschichte ihrer politischen B ezieh u n g en seit der ersten B erü h u n g bis zu m A u f geben des Inselstaates im römischen W e ltreic h , M ünchener Beiträge 40 (M unich). S c h o e m a n n , G . F., and L ipsiu s, J. H. (1 8 9 7 -1 9 0 2 ), G riechische A lth e r th u m e r (4th edn., 2 vols., Berlin). S c h o u l e r , B. (1984), L a T ra d itio n hellénique ch ez L ibanius (Paris).

W. (1910), ‘Spuren politischer Autonom ie in Ägypten unter den Ptolem äern1, K lio , 10: 41-71. S c h w a h n , U . (1931), ‘Das Bürgerrecht dçr sym politischen Bundes­ staaten bei den G riechen’, H e rm es , 66: 97-118. S c h w e r t h e i m , M . E. (1978), ‘Ein p ostum er E hrenbeschluss für Apollonis in Kyzikos*, Z P E 29: 213-28 (with plates xi-xii). S c h w y z e r , E. (1923), D ialectorum G ra eca ru m exem pla epigraphica potiora (Leipzig); G uide no. 38. S e a f o r d , R. A. S. (1987), ‘T h e Tragic W edding’, J H S 107: 106-30. ------ (1990), ‘T he Structural Problems of Marriage in Euripides’, in A. Powell (ed.), E u rip id es , W om en a n d S e x u a lity (L ondon), 151-76. S e a l e y , R. (1984), ‘On Lawful Concubinage in A thens’, C lass. A n t . 3: S c h u b a rt,

1 11 - 3 3 * ------ (1990), W om en a n d L a w in C lassical Greece (Chapel H ill, NC ). S e e b e r c , A. (1966), ‘Astrabika (H erodotus 6. 6 8 -9 )’, S O 41: 48-74. S e g r é , M. (1934), ‘Decreto di A spendos’, A e g y p tu s , 14: 253-68. ------ (1944-5), T itu li C a ly m n ii (Bergamo); G uide no. 152. S e i d l , E. (1962), P tolem äische R echtsgeschichte (2nd edn., Erlangen). ------ (1973)» R ec h tsg e sch ich te Ä g y p te n s als röm ischer P r o v i n z : D ie B e h a u p tu n g des ä g y p tisc h e n R e c h ts neben dem röm ischen (Sankt Augustin). S è v e , M.X1979), ‘U n decret de consolation à C yzique’, B C H 103: 327-59. S h e r k , R. K. (1984), R o m e a n d the G reek E a st to the D ea th o f A u g u stu s, Translated D ocum ents of G reece and Rom e 4 (Cambridge). S h e r w i n - W h i t e , S. M . (1978), A n c ie n t C o s , H ypom nem ata 51 (G öttingen). S h i p l e y , D. G. J. (1987), A H isto ry o f S a m o s 8 0 0 -1 8 8 B C (Oxford). S h o r t e r , E. (1976), T h e M a k in g o f the M o d e rn F a m ily (London). S i m p s o n , W. K. (1974), ‘Polygamy in Egypt in the M iddle Kingdom*, J E A 60: 100-5. S is s a , G . (1 9 9 0 ), G reek V irg in ity (Cam bridge, Mass.); trans, o f L e C orps virg in a l (Paris, 1987). ------ (1992), ‘T h e Sexual Philosophies o f Plato and Aristotle’, in G. Duby, M. Perrot and P. Schm itt-Pantel (eds.), A H isto ry o f W o m en , i: F rom A n c ie n t Goddesses to C h ristia n S a in ts (Cambridge, M ass.), 46-82; trans, o f S to r ie delle donne in O c cid en te , i: A n tic h ita (Rom e, 1990).

404 S n e ll,

References B. (1971), Tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta, i (G öttingen). [T. Gr.

F] F. (ed.) (1955), Lois sacrées de TAsie Mineure (Paris); Guide no. 730. [LSAM] S o l m s e n , F., and F r a e n k e l , E. (eds.) (1930), Inscriptiones Graecae ad inlustrandas dialectos selectae (Leipzig); Guide no. 41. S o m m e r s t e i n , A. H. (19870), Aristophanes: Birds, ed. with introd., trans., and commentary (W arminster). ------ (1987ft)» “Aiutnurjropcç”, CQ 37, 498-500. ------ (1989), Aeschylus: Eumenides, ed. with introd. and com mentary (Cambridge). S o u r v i n o u - I n w o o d , C. (1974), ‘T h e Votum o f 4 7 7 -6 BC and the Foundation o f Locri Epizephyrii*, CQ 24: 186-98. ------ (1988), Studies in Girls* Transitions (Athens). S t ä d t e r , P. A. (1989), A Commentary on Plutarch’s Pericles (Chapel H ill, N C ). S t e n g e l , P. (1893-4), “A^i8pofxla\ RE 1, c o l s . 1901-2. S t e v e n s , P. T . (1971), Euripides: Andromache, ed. with introd. and com mentary (Oxford). S t r a u s s , B. (1986), Athens after the Peloponnesian War: Class, Faction and Policy 403-386 BC (London). S t r o u d , R. S. (1968), Drakon’s Law on Homicide (Berkeley). ------ (1971), ‘T heozotides and the Athenian Orphans*, Hesperia, 40: 280-301. Supplementum epigraphicum graecum (1 9 2 3 - ) (sundry editors, Leiden); Guide no. 820. [SEG] S w a n e y , P. (1970), The Ptolemaic and Roman Idios Logos, American Studies in Papyrology 8 (Toronto). S y m e , R. (i9 6 0 ), "Bastards in the Roman Aristocracy*, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 104 (June), 323-7; repr. in R. Sym e, Roman Papers, ii, ed. E. Badian (Oxford, 1979), 510-17. S z a n t o , E. (1892), Das griechische Bürgerrecht (Freiburg). T a e g e r , F. (1929), ‘Zum Verfassungsdiagramm von Kyrene*, Hermes, 64: S o K O L O W S K i,

432“ 57.

R. J. A. (1989), ‘T h e Role of the H elots in the Class Struggle at Sparta*, Historia, 38: 22-40. T a n n e r , R. (1967), ‘U ntersuchungen zur Ehe- und erbrechtlichen Stellung der Frau in pharaonischen Aegypten*, Klio , 49: 5-37. T a r n , W. W. (1929), ‘Queen Ptolem ais and Apama*, CQ 18: 138-41. ------ ( 1933)* ‘Alexander the Great and the U nity o f M ankind’, PBA 19: i23-66= G riffith 1966: 243-86. ------ (1948), Alexander the Great (2 vols., Cambridge). ------ and G r i f f i t h , G. T . (1952), Hellenistic Civilisation (3rd edn., T a lb e rt,

References

405

London). R. (1936), ‘D ie G eschichte der Rezeption des griechis­ chen Privatrechts in Ägypten*, Atti dei iv congresso internazionale di papirologia Firenze 28 aprile-2 maggio 1935 [also known as Atti Firenze] (M ilan), 259-82. ------ (*938), ‘T h e Ancient Greek City Laws in Ptolemaic Egypt*, Actes du Vv congrès international de papyrologie J 937 (Brussels), 471-89. ------ (1952), ‘Il diritto provinciale romano nel libro Siro-Romano*, Journal of Juristic Papyrology, 103-19. T a u b e n s c h la g ,

----- (1955)» The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt in the Light of the Papyri 332 BC-640 AD (2nd edn., Warsaw). T c h e r i k o v e r , V. A. (1927), Die hellenistischen Städtegründungen von Alexander dem Großen bis auf die Römerzeit, Philologus Supplem ent­ band 19/1 (Leipzig). ------ and F ü r s , A. (eds.) (1957), Corpus papyrorum Judaicarum, i (Cambridge, M ass.). T e i c h m a n , J. (1978), The Meaning of Illegitimacy (Cambridge). ------ (1982), Illegitimacy: A Philosophical Examination (Oxford). T h a l h e i m , T ., and Hermann, K. F. (1884), Lehrbuch der griechischen Rechtsalterthümer (Freiburg). T h i e r f e l d e r , H. (i9 6 0 ), Die Geschwisterehe im hellenistische-römischen Ägypten: Fontes et commentationes, i (M ünster). T h o m p s o n , W. E. (1968), ‘An Interpretation of the “Demotionid** Decrees*, SO 42: 51-68. T i g e r s t e d t , E. N . (1956-74), The Legend of Sparta in Classical Antiquity (2 vols., Lund). Tituli Asiae minoris (1 9 0 1 - ) (sundry editors, Vindobonae); Guide no.

59. [TAM] R. A. (1972), Argos and the Argolid (London). T r e u b e r , O. (1887), Geschichte der Lykier (Stuttgart). T r e v e t t , J. C. (1992), Apollodorus Son of Pasion (Oxford). T r i t s c h , F. J. (1958), ‘T he W om en o f Pylos*, in J. Sundwall (hon.), Minoica (Berlin), 402-45. T u r n e r , E. G. (1981), ‘M enander Sarnia 135*, in E. Bresciani et al. (eds.), Scritti in onore di Orsolina Montevecchi (Bologna), 413-17. T y r r e l l , W. B. (1984), Amazons: A Study in Athenian Mythmaking (Baltimore). ------ and B r o w n , F. S. (1991), Athenian Myths and Institutions: Words in Action (N ew York). U s s h e r , R. G. (1973), Aristophanes Ecclesiazusae, ed. with introd. and commentary (Oxford). V a n B r e m e n , R. (1983), ‘W omen and Wealth*, in A. Cameron and A. Kuhrt (eds.), Images of Women in Antiquity (London), 223-42. T o m lin s o n ,

References

4o6 V a n E f f e n t e r r e , H . (1948),

La Grèce et le monde grec de Platon à Polybe

(Paris).

The Rites of Passage (London); trans, o f Les Rites de passage (Paris, 1909). V a t i n , C. (1 9 7 0 ), Recherches sur le mariage et la condition de la femme mar­ iée à Vépoque hellénistique (Paris). V a n G e n n e p , A. (i9 6 0 ),

V e l i s s a r o p o u l o S , J. (1981), AXeydvbptvot vàp.01j T Io X itik t) avrovoiita tcal

voyiKT) avroréXeia rrjs nToXcuaiKys AXcjdvbpeias (Athens). V e n t r i s , M ., and C h a d w i c k , J. (1973), Documents in Mycenean Greek (2nd edn., Cambridge).

Myth and Society in Ancient Greece (Hassocks). Trans, o f Mythe et société en Grèce ancienne (Paris, 1974). ------ (1991), Mortals and Immortals: Collected Essays (Princeton). V e r s n e l , H. L. (1973), ‘Philip II and Kynosarges', Mnemosyne, 26: V e r n a n t , J.-P. (1980),

273-9V e y n e , P. (1976),

Le Pain et le cirque: Sociologie historique d'un pluralisme

politique (Paris). V i d a l - N a c q u e t , P. (1981a), ‘T h e Black H unter and the O rigins o f the

Athenian Ephebeia’, in R. L. G ordon (ed.), M yth, Religion and Society (Cambridge); originally published in PC P S 14 (1968), 49-64; also in P. V idal-N acquet, The Black Hunter: Forms of Thought and Forms of Society in the Greek World (Baltim ore, 1986), 106-28; trans, o f ‘Le Chasseur noir*, Annales ESC 23 (1968), 947-64; also in Le Chasseur noir: Formes de pensée et formes de société dans le monde grec (Paris, 1981), 151-74------ (19816), ‘Slavery and the Rule o f W om en in Tradition, M yth and U to p ia ’, in R. L. G ord on (ed .), M yth, Religion and Society (Cambridge); trans, of 'Esclavage et gynécocratie dans la tradition, le m ythe et l’utopie', in C. N icolet (introd.), Recherches sur les structures sociales dans l'antiquité classique, Colloques nationaux du C N R S , ed. C N R S (Paris, 1970), 63-80. V l a s t o s , G. (1987), ‘Socratic Irony’, CQ 37: 79-96. V o l t e r r a , E. (1975), ‘M atrim onio (diritto rom ano)’, in F. Calasso (ed.), Enciclopedia del diritto xxv (M ilan), 726-807. W a d e - G e r y , H . T . (1931), ‘Studies in the Structure o f Attic Society: I. D em otionidai’, CQ 25: 129-43. W a l b a n k , F. W . ( 1 9 5 7 - 7 9 ) , A Historical Commentary on Polybius (3 vols., Oxford). ------ (1981), The Hellenistic World (G lasgow). W a l b a n k , M . B. (1981), ‘Artem is Bear-Leader’, CQ 31: 276-81. W a l d e , A. (1930-2), Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der Indogermanischen Sprachen (3 vols., Berlin). W a l k e r , S. (1983), ‘W om en and H ousing in Classical Greece: T h e

References

W

407

Archaeological Evidence*, in A. Cameron and A. Kuhrt (eds.), Im ages o f W om en in A n tiq u ity (L ondon), 81-91. a l t e r s , K. M. (1983), ‘Pericles’ Citizenship Law*, C la ss. A n t. 2: 314- 3 6 .

H ., M e r k e l b a c h , R., et al. (eds.) (1979-81), D ie In sch riften von Ephesos (7 vols., 8 parts, Bonn); G u id e nos. 199-206. W a t s o n , A. (1971), T h e L a w o f Succession in the L a te r R o m a n R epublic (Oxford). W a t t e r s o n , B. (1991), W om en in A n c ie n t E g y p t (Stroud). W e b s t e r , T . B. L. (1980), A n In tro d u ctio n to M e n a n d er ( M a n c h e s t e r ) . W e h r l i , C. (1962), ‘Les G ynéconom es’, M u s . H e lv . 19: 33-8. W e i l , H. (1883-6), L es P laidoyers politiques de D ém osthène (2nd edn., 2 vols., Paris). W e l l e s , C. B. (1934), R o y a l C orrespondence in the H ellenistic P eriod (London). ------ (1956), 4T h e Greek C ity’, in S tu d i in onore d i A . C a ld erin i e R . P aribeni (M ilan), i. 81-99. W h i t e h e a d , D . (1977), T h e Ideology o f the A th e n ia n M e tic , Cambridge Philological Society Supplem ent 4 (Cambridge). ------ (1986a), ‘W om en and Naturalisation in C4 Athens: T h e Case of Archippe*, C Q 36: 109-14. ------ (19866), T h e D em es o f A ttic a s o S ^ - c a . 250 B C : A P o litica l a n d S o cia l S t u d y (Princeton). W h i t e h o r n , J. E. G. (1975), ‘C.P. Jud. ii 193 and PSI xii 1225*, B A S P 12: 121-6. W i d e , S. (1893), L a ko n isch e K u lte (Leipzig). W i e d e m a n n , T . (1983), “ E À a ^ i o t o v iv ro f ç a p a e a i k Acoç: T hucydides, W om en and the Lim its of Rational A nalysis”, G R 30: 163-70. W i e g a n d , T ., R e h m , A., et al. (eds.) (1941-58), D id y m a (2 vols., 4 parts, Berlin); G uide no. 211. W i l a m o w i t z - M ö l l e n d o r f , U . v o n (1893), A risto teles un d A th e n (2 vols., Berlin). W i l c k e n , U . (1 9 0 2 -3 ), ‘D ie ägyptischen Beschneidungsurkunden*, A r c h ir f ü r P a p yru sfo rsch u n g , 2: 4-13. ------ (1925), ‘Punt-fahrten in der Ptolemäerzeit*, Z A S 60: 86-102. ------ and M i t t e i s , L. (1912), G r u n d z u g e u n d C h re sto m a th ie der P a p y ru sk u n d e (2 vols., 4 fascs., Leipzig). W i l h e l m , A. (1909), ‘Inschriften aus Erythrai und C hios’, J O A I 12: 118-50. ------ (1911-21), N e u e B eiträ g e z u r griechischen In sch riften ku n d e (6 vols., Vienna). W i l l , E. (1979-82), H isto ire politique du m onde hellénistique (2nd edn., 2 vols., Nancy). W a n k e l,

4o8

References

R. F. (1954), ‘The Neodamodeis’, CP 47: 27-32. ----- (1955), Aristocratic Society in Ancient Crete (London). ----- (i9S9)» ‘The Servile Interregnum at Argos’, Hermes, 87: 495-506. ----- (1962), Cretan Cults and Festivals (London). ----- (1965), Ancient Crete: A Social History (London). ----- (1967), The Law Code ofGortyn (Berlin). W i l l i a m s , F. E. (1969), Papuans of the Trans-Fly (2nd edn., Oxford). W i t t g e n s t e i n , L. (1953), Philosophical Investigations (Oxford). - - - - - - - (1958), The Blue and Brown Books (Oxford). W o l f f , H. J. (1939), Written and Unwritten Marriages in Hellenistic and Postclassical Roman Law (Oxford). ----- (1944), 'Marriage Law and Family Organisation in Ancient Athens: A Study of the Interrelation of Public and Private Law in the Greek City*, Traditio, 2: 43-95; German version in Beiträge zur Rechtsgeschichte Altgriechenlands und des hellenistisch-römischen Ägypten (Weimar, 1961). ----- (1952), ‘Die Grundlagen des griechischen Eherechts’, Tijdschrift v o o r R ech tsg esch ied en tS y 20: 1— 29, 157-81. ----- (1970), ‘The Plurality of Laws in Ptolemaic Egypt*, RIDA 3rd ser. 7: 191-223. ----- (1974), ‘Law in Ptolemaic Egypt’, in Opuscula dispersa (Amsterdam), 103-13; repr. from Essays in Honour of C. Bradford Welles (New Haven, 1966), 66-77. The latter pagination is used. ----- (1981), ‘The Political Background of the Plurality of Laws in Ptolemaic Egypt*, in R. S. Bagnall et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the X V I International Congress of Papyrology (Chicago), 313-18. W o o d , C. T. (1976), ‘Queens, Queans, and Kingship: An Inquiry into Theories of Royal Legitimacy in Late Medieval England and France* in W. C. Jordan, B. McNab and T. F. Ruiz (eds.), Order and Innovation in the Middle Ages: Essays in Honour of Joseph R. Strayer (Princeton), 385-400, 562-6. W Ö R R L E , M. (1978), ‘Epigraphische Urkunden zu Geschichte Lykiens ii: Ptolemaios ii und Telmessos’, Chiron, 8: 212-16. W y s e , W. (1904), The Speeches of Isaeus (Cambridge). Y o u t i e , H. C. (1975), ‘Apatores: Law versus Custom in Roman Egypt*, in Le Monde grec: Hommages à Claire Préaux (Brussels); also in H, C. Youtie, Scriptiunculae posteriores, i (Bonn, 1981). Z AGa g i , N. (1980), Tradition and Originality in Plautus, Hypomnemata 62 (Göttingen). Z e l l e r , E. (1919-23), Die Philosophie der Griechen in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung (3 vols., 6 parts, Leipzig). Z i m m e r m a n n , R. (1886), ‘De nothorum Athenis condicione’ (diss., Berlin). W ille tts ,

References

409

J. E. (1985), Thucydides and the Tradition of Funeral Speeches at Athens (Salem, Mass.). Z u n t z , G. ( 1963), ‘Once more: The So-Called “Edict of Philopator on the Dionysian Mysteries“ (BGU 1211)’, Hermes, 91: 228-39. Z w i e r l e i n , O. (1990), Zur Kritik und Exegese des Plautus, i (Mainz). Z iO L K O W S K i,

IN D E X

abortion: of bastards 106-7 by prostitutes and adulterous women 101.160.162 and wealth 206 see also birth control; contraception; exposure Abrotonon, see Habrotonon abuse 201-2 Acamania 56, 81 Acamanian league 293-4 Acestor 155 Achaea: Achaean league 295 Achaean policy 254-5 Achilles 2£, 185 Acrotatus 232 Adonia i o i adoption 17-18 at Athens 125, 172, 177.206 at Gortyn 263-5 non-autochthonous as adopted 168 adultery: abortion and contraception 101, 107 at Athens 136-42, 146-50, 210 and ban from temples and festivals 141—2, 165, 366 and CIBA foundation 7 in Egypt 330-1. 333, 342 at Gortyn 266, 268-70 and gynaikonom oi 369 metic 134 and Phaedra 198, 208 productive of citizen bastards? 157. 161 at Sparta 232, 243 and Stoics 16 at Syracuse 373 see also rape; seduction Aegina 256 Aegisthus 162 Aelian: on m othakes 218-22 on Theban exposure law 108

Aeschines (orator) 142, 150, 172 Aeschines of Eretria 27 Aeschylus 173 Aetolia, Aetolian league 291, 2 93-4 Agamemnon 24, 254-5 agam ion , see non-marriage Agariste 51 Agathyrsians 187 Agesilaus II: 137, 222, 252, 258-61 Agesipolis 217 Agetus 241, 256 Agiads, see kings, Spartan Agis II 16, 228, 258-60 Agis IV 215, 221 n .2 0 , 247. 249 a g ô g i 217-19. 221, 223, 227, 259 agôn tim ito s 140, 142 agoranomos 372, 374

Aigeidai 226 Aischrion 309 Aischros (Cos) 314 Aischros (name) 28 a ita s%a itis 244

Akhenaten 333 Alce i_i8, 134 Alcesimarchus 177 Alcestis, see Euripides Alcetas 281 Alcibiades 16, 160. 174, 200-1, 228, 252, 260-1 Alcmaeonids 46, 57 Alcmene 234, 257 see also Heracles alehouses t3 Alep 327 Alexander 160, 183-4. 202, 326, 346,

356 Alexandria (Egypt) 299, 304, 317, 326, 3*8- 9 . 337. 348-54. 357. 360, 364 Alexandrias (other) 326 aliens: ‘alienness in name* .98. alienness of mother to son 173 bastards as (Athens) 43, 164 and Citizenship Law 68-9

411

Index definition of i& enfranchisement of at Athens 72, 77 enfranchisement of generally 277 enfranchisement of at Miletus

304-10 at Gortyn 264 at Orchomenos 281 resident, see metics at Sparta 227-8, 247 and synoikein decree 8 0 -1 at Tenos 287 and wealth 206 and xenia (crime) 192, 280 see also metics; mitroxenoi\ *patroxenot alité rios 145-6 allotrios 205 Amazons 169, 182-6 Ameipsias 190 Amenhotep 111 333 am i tor 171 ampantos 263 see also adoption (at Gortyn) Ampelisca 131 amphidromia 88-91, 127, 134, 209 see also dekati amphimitores, amphimetric disputes 362 Alexander and 326 at Athens i88-qq, 211 definition of 19-21 in Egyptian chora 341 in Odyssey 23-4 and Pisistratus 46 at Sparta 253-5. 261 Amphissa 94, 291 amphithalis 367-8 Amphitryon 234, 257, see also Heracles Amyntas 202 Anactoria 323 Anaphe 94 Anaxagoras 172-3 Anaxandridas II 227. 239, 253-5 anchisteia 36, $8, 100, 134 Andania 142. 367-8, 370 Andocides 74-5. 104, LU» 1»6. 146. 162. 362 Andreas 8i Andromache, see Euripides Andros 306 Ankhesenpaaten 333 Antaeus 344

Antenor 23-4 Antidotus sq Anti gone ia 326 Antigonus 81 Antinoopolis 356 Antioch 296 Antiochus II .20 Antiope 184 Antiphanes 161, 176 Antiphon 146, 156, 191 Antiphos 24 Antisthenes: and autochthony 166 and Cynosarges 202

and Plutarch 61 as son of Antisthenes 92 writings of 203 apagelaoi 26 apatör 171. 335 Apaturia 86, 110. 116 see also phratries apetairoi 265, 268-70

Aphrodite 197 apokiryxis 33, 126

Apollo 107, 110. 170, 172-3. 3 2 4 Apollodorus: distinction between wives, concubines, and prostitutes 102 and Plataeans 7 _l his status as son of Pasion and Archippe 132-3 and synoikein decree 79 see also Xeaira Apollodotus 301-2 Apollonia 345-6. 358 Apollonis 372 aposkeuai 343 Apothetai 231 Apulia 130

Arcades (Crete) 290 Arcadia, Arcadians 8j, 284-5, 299 Arcadian league 281, 295 Archedemus 111 Archelaus 218 Archeptolemus 156 Archianassa Äi Archidamus II 227. 237 Archidamus V 227 Archippe 132-4 archonships 124 Arctinus of Miletus 18s Areopagus 193 Arginusae 60, 21» 2^

Index

412

Argos 27, 8 i , 186 Arideices 302 Aristides the Just 22 Aristocleitos 220 Aristocles 311 aristocracy, aristocratic culture 48-9,

173

and gynaikonom oi 366-2, 373 and marriages to alien women 66-8 Aristodama 294 Aristogiton 368 Ariston 234, 241, 256, 262 Aristonothos 26 Aristophanes: B ird s 32, 34- 7, 27 »91 C louds 107, 190 Ecclesiazusae 186-7 Frogs i n L y sistra ta 65 T hesm ophoriazusae 87, 109 W asps 169 Aristophon 77-8 Aristotle: and Anaxagoras 172 on democracy and legitimacy 174 on double civic ascendance 59,

277-9 and good birth 168 on Gortyn 263-4 on gynaikonom oi 365, 367-8, 370-1 on population 298 on Socrates 72 on Sparta 228, 230-1, 247, 249 see also A th in a iö n P o liteia Aristoxene 324 army service 201 Arrangio-Ruiz 358 arrh iph oroi 366 Arrian 184 Arrigaion 326 Arronos 281 Arsinoite nomc 335 Artemis: Orthia 224 Pergaea 323 at Xanthus 294 Asia 98, 326 Aspasia (concubine of Pericles) 61, 91 Aspasia (daughter of Mania) 96 Aspendos 298-9 a s t i f astos 69, 358 see also citizenship Astrabacus 234, 257, 262

Athena 181 Athenaeus i 6fi, 190, 225, 324, 357,

,

3 6 6 3 7 2 -3

A th in a iö n P o liteia 34, 42

on citizenship 120-2. 132 on Citizenship Law 59-60, 64, 68 on Cleisthenes 54 on metics 134 on Pisistratus 44-s Atheno 306 Athenocentrism 2, 281 Athens 31-212 a tim ia , see civic rights A tth is 59 atyn ch an ö , atych êm a 146 autochthony 66, 166-7, 209 Antisthenes on 203 and Cecrops 181-2 see also double civic ascendance; Citizenship Law; Euripides, Ion auto -ekdosis 338, 344 see also ekdosis Automalax 300 autonomy 275 Axos 291 Babylon, Babylonians 105, 108, 327 Bacchis 101 ‘bad marriage* (hakogam ion ) 228, 232 - 3 . 2 2 ^ 2

barbarians 321-7 Barthes 181 bastardization 125-6, 248 see also a p o k iry x is bastard’s portion (notheia ) 38-9 bastardy, passim: definition of 4-6 sociological importance of 1-2 see also notheia ; p a rth em o s ; skotios bastardy-prone subsocieties 19, 12-13 Battus 21 Bellerophon 182 Beroia 327 betrothal: as bom of h etaira 164 after Citizenship Law 62, 152-3 at Corinth 178 in Egyptian chora 330, 337, 339 at Gortyn 268 and metics 134 and phratries 43, 111-12 as significant act 37, 73, 84, 127, 209

Index at Sparta 224 and speech-act 38 B G U 1050-2 and 1098-1101: 349 BG Ü 1463: 344, 350, 352 biaia 139 see also rape biasmos, see rape bigamy: of Anaxandridas 253-5 at Athens 72-5. 104. 189-90, 192 see also polyandry; polygamy; polygyny birth control 106-110 see also abortion; contraception; exposure Black Sea 183. 325-6 blade 140 bloodlines 137, 209, 269-70 boagos 224 Boegehold 194 Boiotos, see Mantitheus Boisacq 17 Bommelaer 222-3 Boucolion 25 boule 122-3 Brasideioi 222

breast 183 bribery* 206, 223 Brulé 305 Brytidai 52, 115 Buchner 324

bull 244 burning of bastards 102 Byzantium 279-80, 287-8, 296-7 Caere 26 Calderini 331 Calliades (comic poet?) 78 Calliades (mêtroxenos) 81 Calliades (opponent of Callias) i_i 6 Cal lias (comic poet) 78 Callias (son of Hipponicus): and amphimetric disputes 191-2 his bastard as ‘accursed’ 146, 154-5 1bastard thing' of Q4 and bigamy 73-5, 104 claims heiress 124 and genos introduction 13, 52, 90, 116, 362 ‘incest* of 162 and melon 111 Callicrates 302 Callicratidas 218. 222

Callimachus 324 Calydon 177, 180 Campania 324 campfollowers 305, 310 Cannae 130 Carey 122 Caria 55, 323 Carthage, Carthaginians 130 Cartledge 259 castration 140, 334 catamites 244, 341 Cecropids 167 Cecrops 166, 181-2, 185 Cedreae 323 census 348 Ceryces j j , 52, 21» 116 Chaeronea 365, 370-1, 373 Charidemus 16, 282 Charisios 143» 145-6 Charmippos 314 Charopinos 306 childlessness: Euripides on 196-7, 207 indicative of hetaira 101 Polybius on 298 Chilon 225, 254-6 Chilonis 232 chora of Egypt 328-47 ethnics in 310 migration into 289 state organization in 212, 275 Chrimes 224 Christophilopoulos: on epigamv 291-2 on metronymics 94 Chrysilla 2511*183, 116, 146, 155 see also Callias; Ischomachus Chrysis 102-3, 107 Church 9, £3 C l BA foundation 7 Cibyra Äi Cichesias 206 Cimon 51. 63. 67-8. 98 Ciron oo-ioo citizenship: Ath. Pol. on 120-1 and Attic orators 122 and autochthony 168 and bastards 4 1 -2 . 115, 151-6 and Cecrops 182 and freedom 34, 121, 176 at Gortyn 265-71 in Odyssey 23

413

Index

414

citizenship (coni.) and phratries 85-6, 111-13 at Tegea 284-5 usurpation of 118 see also Citizenship Law; demes; phratries; two-tier citizenship Citizenship Law of Pericles: and amphimetric disputes 194 anticipated by Erythrae 280 and autochthony 166 and bastards of double civic ascendance i s 1-6. 20Q concessions against 70-2 and courting practice i_i crumbling of 75-7 and definition of nothoi 15 and democracy 173 evidence for 59-62 and gene and phratries 13, 53, 63 in Greek context 64, 317 implications of 62-4 and metics 134 purpose of 64-9 re-establishment of 77-9 and Themistocles 57-8 and women 158 see also citizenship; demes; double civic ascendance; mitroxenoi, Pericles; phratries civic rights, loss of 141-2, 156 clandestine marriage 14 classes (Gortyn) 265, 268-71 Cleainetos 206 Cleandri das 222-3 Cieidice 374 Cleigenes 293 Cleisthenes (Athenian reformer) 53-4,

.

1 2 7 1 5 2 -3

Cleisthenes (Athenian effeminate) 82 Cleisthenes of Sicyon 51 Cleitarete 96 Clement of Alexandria 202 Cleombrotus 253 Cleomenes 1 241, 252-8. 261-2 Cleomenes III 215, 219-21, 223, 247 Cleon 171 Cleonymus 232 cleruchies 70 Cloud-cuckoo-land 35, 91 see also Aristophanes, Birds Clytemnestra 90, 173, 191, 234 Cnossos 27 Coans, Cos Q3-4. 287-8, 299, 304,

310-16, 335, 339, 344 cohabitation (Egypt) 332, 338 Cohen 136. 139. 144, 148 Coldstream 28, 322, 324 colonists 322 Comitia centuriata 303 ‘common life* 342 ‘common sense* 9 Comparent 264 comparison 4-6 concubines: bastard girls as 163 and bigamy 73, 177 children bom of 39 and definition of notheia 15-17 distinguished from prostitutes and wives iQZ dowry for 85, 207 in Egyptian chora 332, 341 Homer on 22, 25 and marriage 40 n.27 at Miletus 305-6 as mothers of citizen bastards?

I57I2 Neaira as 80 Plangon as 193 and production of free children

33-4 and recognition of children 91 at Sparta 223 see also mothakes\ prostitutes confinement as adulterer 141 consensual sex 138 contraception: and bastards 106-7 by hetairai and adulterous women 101 see also abortion; birth control; exposure contracts of maintenance 343 of marriage 310. 328-61, 334,

348-55

Corinth 108, 177- 8 . 195-6 Cos, see Coans Cosmocles 302 Cotyrta 290 council, see boule courtship 10-12 Cowards 233, 236 Craterus 49-50, 68-9 Cratinus (comic poet): Nemesis 61

Index P u tin e 1 9 0

D e lo s

C r a tin u s (R h o d ia n c itiz e n )

257

D e l p h i n i u m , see M i l e t u s D e m a ra tu s

a g e -c la s se s a t 26 in A s p e n d o s

82, 289

D e lp h i

302

C r e ta n s , C re te :

344,

346 , 357-8

D em arm en u s D em eas

a n d e p ig a m y

137, 222, 225, 234, 238,

241, 2 5 6 -8 , 262

298

in E g y p t ( in c l u d i n g D r y t o n )

L eague

415

2 9 0 -1

225, 2 5 5 -6

dem es: a d m is s io n to

294

w o f/io s -n a m e s in

27

i n O d y s s e y 22 see also A r c a d e s ; A x o s ; C n o s s u s ; G o rty n ; H ie ra p y tn a

1 1 ,8 3 , 1 2 0 -3 , 1 2 7 -9 ,

209, 212 a t A le x a n d ria

350, 359

a n d b â t a r d s o f d o u b le c iv ic ascen d an ce

1 5 1 -6

C r e u s a , see E u r i p i d e s , Ion

a n d c itiz e n s h ip

c ro c o d ile

a n d m e tic s

334

C ro c o d ilo p o lis c ro w s

337, 346

o f m o t h e r ’s f a m i l y

a t A n d a n ia at C os

3 6 7 -8 , 370

a n d m e tro n y m ic s

95

186, 324

D e m e tria

C u rtiu s

353

D e m e tria s

C y n o sa rg e s

5 3 , 5 5 -8 » 6 4 , 8 4 , 1 9 9 -2 0 3 ,

2 0 9 , 2 1 1, 2 8 2 , 3 6 2

372

D e m e tr iu s P o lio rc e te s

103, 160

178, 2 9 9 -3 0 0 , 306,

3 1 0 , 324, 3 4 4 -6

306

23

d e m o c ra cy : a n d a d u lte ry

150

a n d a u to c h th o n y

203

344

103

D em ocoon

C y p s e l u s 21

C y z ic u s

D e m e tr iu s o f P h a le ro n D e m ip h o

291

C y re n e , C y re n e a n s C y ru s

296

D e m e tr iu s (f a th e r o f M e g a lo c le ia )

2 0 2 -3

C y p ru s

3 3 9 -4 0

D e m e t r i u s ( ‘C y r e n e a n ’ i n E g y p t )

142

C y n ic s

124

87 , 127

D e m e t e r 7 4 , 9 5 , 1 91

C um ae C ym e

113

a n d p u b lic o ff ic e d em esw o m en

314

71

357

a n d p h ra trie s

c u lts :

152

134

at N a u c ra tis

202

7 » 2 ° 3“ 5

1 0 2 -3 , io

169

b a s ta r d y p o lic y o f 7 7 , 1 7 3 -4 , 2 I ° .

373

277 D aem ones

345

see also A r i s t o t l e ; C i t i z e n s h i p L a w ; p a r r h ê s ia ; p o l i t i c s ; S i c i l y

dam ar 37 D a m a s c iu s

351

d e m o g ra p h y

308

D a m a trio s

302

D e m o p h ilu s

123

D a m o c le s D anae D aos

312

D e m o s th e n e s :

139 13 1 , 2 0 5

D a re s te D a v ie s

2 6 8 -7 0

220, 260

7 6 , 261 275

d ed a m n a m e n a 2 6 6 , 2 6 9 s e e a l s o dolos\ s e r f s ; s l a v e s d e fo rm ity

100 199

h is f a th e r 7 7

174

d e c a rc h ie s d e c lin e

o n an ch isteia

o n C y n o sa rg e s

315

d ay , ra p e by D e c e le a

d ê m o p o iê to i 1 3 2

259

d e b a te 8 8 - 9 1 , 9 6 - 7 , 1 1 2 , 1 2 7 , 1 9 3 ,

209 D e k e l e i e s , see D e m o t i o n i d d e c r e e

o n kou reion

118

o n le g itim a c y

83

a n d M e id ia s

109

h is m o th e r o n O re o s

172

282

see also A p o l l o d o r u s ; N e a i r a d e m o tic s : a t A le x a n d ria

304, 350

a t A th e n s

5 4 ,8 1

at R hodes

3 0 3 -4

Index

416 D e m o tio n id d e c re e

4 7 -8 , 76, 86, n o ,

s e e a l s o genos; k o u reio n ; m eion\

p h r a tr ie s D e rc y llid a s

d re ss

3 6 9 -7 1

D ry ita i

302

D ry to n th e C re ta n

233

D e sc o e u d re s D e tie n n e

1 3 8 -4 0 , 147, 149 ‘c o n s t i t u t i o n * o f 3 9 - 4 1 , 5 8

1 14, 1 1 7 -2 0 127

322

d u ty to p a r e n ts D ym e

101

297

d ia p s ip h is is 1 2 3 d ik a s t ir ia 3 2 8 - 9

e a rth q u a k e s

D in a rc h u s

E g y p t, E g y p tia n s

4 1 , 14 3 , 173

D in ia rc h u s

107, 141, 3 3 0 -1 , 3 3 4

D io g e n e s L a e r tiu s

7 2 -3 , 166, 203

D i o g e n e s ( M i l e s i a n n othos) 3 0 6 D io g e n e s (p h ilo s o p h e r)

159, 202

3 1 4 -1 5

D io n y s u s

1 2 6 ,1 7 0

3 5 9 .3 7 2 see also a u t o -ekdosis eisan gelia 1 5 0 E l e c t r a , see E u r i p i d e s

67 164

endogam y

234, 2 5 7 -8

2 2 7 , 321

see also i n c e s t e n g y i , see b e t r o t h a l enktesisy see l a n d o w n e r s h i p

2 0 7 -8 , 211 285, 297

d iv o rc e : o f a d u lte r o u s o r r a p e d w ife

141,

143, 148, 162

Enyo

324

e p h e b a te , e p h e b e s E phesus

in E g y p t 3 5 0 a t G o rty n

140

E n d iu s

258

D itte n b e rg e r

E le v e n E lp in ic e

59

D io p e ith e s

D odona

ekdosis 8 4 , 1 2 7 , 2 0 9 , 3 1 5 , 3 3 6 - 9 . 3 4 9 .

eleu th e ro s , see c i t i z e n s h i p a n d f r e e d o m

99

D io n y s iu s o f H a lic a r n a s s u s

D io s c u ri

267

8 2 , 122

289, 2 9 7 -8 , 306, 310

E p h ia lte s 4 9 e p h o rs

2 8 1 -2

239, 247, 2 5 2 -6 , 2 5 9 -6 0

d o k im a sia 1 2 3 - 4 dolos 2 6 6 , 2 6 8 - 9 see a lso s e r f s ; s l a v e s

e p id a m ia 3 0 1 , 3 0 3 - 4

D o n a tu s

E p id a u ru s

D o ric

E p ic le s

D o ry c lu s

2 5 3 -5 , 261

2 9 0 - 5 . 3 5 6 -7 E p ig o n u s 3 0 6

23, 25

d o u b le c iv ic a s c e n d a n c e : a c ro s s G re e k w o rld

2 7 6 -1 6

a n d b a s ta rd s a t A th e n s and N ew C om edy

1 5 1 -6 , 2 0 9

178

see also A r i s t o t l e ; C i t i z e n s h i p L a w ; d e m e s ; m ë tro x e n o i\ P e r i c l e s ;

E p ita d e u s E ra to n

216, 2 4 6 -9

291

E rd m a n n 85 , 124, 1 5 8 -9 , 196, 2 0 7

in E g y p t 3 3 6 , a t S p a rta

e p ik lir o s 2 5 0 see also h e i r e s s e s E p i r u s , see D o d o n a ep isp en sa i 2 6 8

E ra to s th e n e s

p h ra trie s d o w ry : a t A th e n s

177 178, 295

e p id ik a sia 3 8 see also h e i r e s s e s e p i g a m y ( e p ig a m ia ) 6 9 - 7 0 , 1 7 1 , 2 8 3 ,

142

172, 255

217

D o rie u s

291

E p id a m n u s

114

d o n k e y -rid e r D o ria n s

59,

E le io s 6 7

134

D io n y s ia

d is e a s e

3 2 8 -6 1

66

155

D io d o ru s S ic u lu s

D io n

260

a n d A th e n ia n g ra in d is trib u tio n

109

D io C h ry s o s to m

D io m e d o n

3, 343, 3 4 5 -6 , 357

37, 39

342-3. 349

225, 249

D ra c o : h o m i c i d e la w o f 3 2 - 4 , 3 6 , 4 9 ,

140

17

E re c h th e id s E re c h th e u s

167 166, 172

see also E r i c h t h o n i u s ; E u r i p i d e s E re tria

27

E r ic h th o n iu s

1 6 6 -7

Index E rin n a

95

E rio p is

E u x ith e u s 280

e x p e n d itu re

Esthladas (father-in-law of Dryton)

358

372

ex p o su re: a n d c o lo n iz a tio n

E s th la d a s (so n o f D ry to n ) E th io p ia n s

343

o f g irls

3 2 2 -3

65

at G o rty n

204

267

o f n oth oi 1 0 6 - 1 0

e th n ic s : in E g y p t

3 4 6 , 351

a t M ile tu s

a n d p ro s titu te s

310

o f p ro s titu te s

at S p a rta E yben

160

E ty m o lo g ic u m m agn u m

206

‘f a m i l y n a m e *

o f m o th a x 2 2 3 - 4

fa m in e

s e e a l s o nothos

fe a s ts

E u a im o n

206

fe s tiv a ls

7 5 ,8 3 ,8 7 , n o , 113, 118

E u d e m id a s II E u d o ru s

3 6 5 -7 0

see also a d u l t e r y ; m e t i c s

36, 7 7 -9

E u c te m o n

3 7 2 -3

f e d e r a l s t a t e s , see l e a g u e s

27, 70

Euclides

91

322

s e e a l s o g a m ilia \ p h ilo i

2 8 0 -1 , 295

E u b u lid e s

160

231, 259

n o

e ty m o lo g y :

E uboea

8 3 , 85, 87, 123, 152, 154

e x a m a r ta n ö 1 4 6

24

E ry th ra e

417

fig u re s , p r e s e r v a tio n o f filib u s te rin g

227

25

1 0 6 -7

123

fin e s

1 1 9 -2 0 , 2 3 2 -3 , 2 3 6 , 3 3 0 , 371

eugen eia 1 6 8

fo o d

357

E u m e lu s

fo u n d a tio n s :

78

E u p a trid s

43

E u p h ile tu s

o f A th e n s

140, 154

E u p h ra in e tu s E u p h ra in o s

o th e r

294

fo u n d lin g s

c h ild re n

D cm oi 6 0

fo u n ta in h o u s e s

Euripides:

F rase r

A lc e s tis 2 5 - 6 211

7 2 - 3 , 1 0 4 , 1 9 0 -1

E le c tra 9 0 , 1 4 2 E rech th eu s 1 7 0 H ecabe 1 4 4 H e le n 1 4 4 H e ra c le s 1 9 9 , 2 0 7 H ip p o ly tu s 9 4 , 1 9 4 , 1 9 8 , 2 0 7 - 8 Io n 1 6 , 7 0 , 9 3 , 1 0 7 - 8 , 1 5 5 —6 . 1 6 7 , 1 7 0 -2 , 194, 1 9 7 -8 , 2 0 6 -8

202

A m a z o n s in id e o lo g y o f fu n e ra l rite s G a m b re io n

40 m 28

182, 185 1 6 7 -7 0 , 179, 2 0 9

83, 99, 365, 369, 373 3 6 6 -7 , 3 6 9 , 371

gam e lia 8 5 - 7 , 1 2 7 , 2 0 9 , 2 8 6 , 3 7 2 a s e q u i v a l e n t t o k o u re io n t 8 7 ,

G a m e lio n

112

86

g a m ed 3 9 , 3 3 9 o f b ig a m y

E u r y p o n t i d s , see k i n g s , S p a r t a n

G aza

E u x e n o s ( f o u n d e r o f M a s s ilia ) 302

7 2 -4

o f c o n c u b in e s

55

E u x e n o s (R h o d e s)

F u n e ra l O ra tio n s

a n d m eion

244 25

266

II3-I4

M edea 191, 1 9 4 -7 P h oen issae 1 6 2

E u ry d ic e

a n d m a rria g e s w ith s e rfs

see also c i t i z e n s h i p a n d f r e e d o m f r e e d o m - o f - s p e e c h , s e e p a r r h ê s ia

204, 207

E u ry a lu s

108

fre e p e rs o n s :

A n d ro m a c h e 1 9 , 1 0 3 , 1 9 4 , 1 9 6 - 7 , h is b ig a m y

1 3 6 -7

300, 304, 354

free d m e n

a m p h im e tric d is p u te s

E u te rp e

1 0 8 -1 0

see also e x p o s u r e ; s u p p o s i t i t i o u s

306

E u p o lis :

E u ro ta s

1 8 1 -2

3 2 2 -7

324

326

G e lliu s

7 3 , 190

g e lö to p o io i 2 0 3

4 0 n . 2 7 , 105

Index

418 gender 34s

(H)abrotonon (mother of

genos , genë, g en n ëta i

Them istocles) 55 Hagnon of T arsus 244 Halasarna 310, 315 Halicarnassus 289, 310, 323 h a m a rta n ô 146 Hannibal 130 Hannick 281, 307 H arm odius 365, 367-8 harm osts 220 h a rm o ze in , see betrothal (Sparta) h a rp a g ë , h a rm o ze in 225 H arris 147 H arrison 78, 137 hearth 88, 90 Hecataeus 314 H ector 196 Hedea 309 Hegemachus of Leuconoe 81 Hegesipyle 67 n. 154 Hegesistratus 45-6, 58 Hegeso 94 Hegio 114 heiresses: Athenian 38, 114, 164, 205 metic 134 Spartan 249-50 see also Phile; succession H eitsch 191 Helen 24, 144-5» 234 see also Euripides; Gorgias Heliodorus 330 helots 217-18, 220-1, 223, 230, 239, 241 see also serfs; slaves H era 85, 199, 207 Heraclea 81 Heracles: and Amazons 182, 185 and Antisthenes 203 in Aristophanes 35 Choice of 190 Coan cult of 288, 314 at Cynosarges 55, 199-201 and Euxitheus 123 in Lucian 59 parentage of 234, 257 see also Euripides; H eraclids Heraclides 3 3 8 - 4 0 Heraclids 220, 222, 226-7, 252-4, 258-60 Heraclitus 301 Herm agoras 81

com pared to phratries 11 i - i 2, 115 institutional conflict in 13, 84 introduction 1 1 ,8 3 ,1 1 1 ,1 1 5 -1 7 , 127, 209, 362 Philochorus on 47-53 and Them istocles 55, 57 see also Brytidai; Ceryces; Dem otionid decree; Lycomids; phratries G eradas 243 gerousia 239, 253, 255 Giligam i 324 girdle 185 girls: as bastards (n o th a i ) 15, 82, 163-5, 209 exposure of 65 in phratries 91, 113-15 G lauce 194-5 see also Euripides, M e d e a g n is io s , gnësiotës:

definition and am biguity 17-18, 39-40, 79, 116-17, 263-5 term applied to m other 339-40 G nom on o f the Id io s Logos 348, 356 goats 286-7 see also victims G om m e and Sandbach 108 G onnoi 290 Gorgias (character, Georgos) 206 Gorgias (character, H eros) 205 Gorgias (philosopher) 144-5 G orgippa 325 G ortyn 263-71 g y n a iko n o m o i in 372 legitimation at 125 n othos- names in 27 G reater Syrtis 300 G ryllus 95 guardianship, see kyrie ia G uarducci 264 G yllipus 218, 222-3 gymnasia 219, 356 see also Cynosarges G ym nasium (C istella ria ) 105 Gym nopaidiai 233 g y n a iko kra to u m en o i 249 g yn a iko n o m o i 317, 352-3, 357, 360-1»

363-75 H abrotonon (character) 205

Index H e rm e s

4*9

Ia ly s ia

25

Ia so s

H e r m io n e (c ity ) 9 4 - 5 , 2 9 0 H e r m i o n e ( w i f e o f N e o p t o l e m u s ) , see E u r i p i d e s , A n d ro m a c h e

302 373

Ib y c u s

244

id e o lo g y :

H e r m o g e n e s ( M i l e s i a n nothos) 3 0 9

a n d b a s ta rd y (A th e n s )

H e r m o g e n e s (nothos o f H i p p o n i c u s )

o f p ro c re a tio n 262

93

H e rm o p o lis W e s t c o d e H e ro d a s

332

169

illite ra c y

9

333

Im b rio s

24

187

im p e ria lis m

o n C a ria a n d C y re n e o n E g y p tia n s o n S c y th ia n s o n S p a rta n s H e ro s tra tis

345

188, 215, 238, 241, 253

169

i m p u r i t y in d e s c e n t 4 4 in c e s t:

306

a t A th e n s

90

h e ta ir a i , see p r o s t i t u t e s h e ta ir e ia i 2 6 4 - 5 h iera k a i hosia 3 6 , 4 2 , 7 1 , 7 8 , 9 8 - 1 0 0 ,

67 n . 154, 74, 157, 162,

180

in Egypt 343-4 a t S p a rta In d ia

1 2 6 -7 ,1 5 4 ,3 1 5 H ie ra p y tn a

10

I lia d 2 1 , 2 3 - 6 , 4 8 , 1 6 6 see also H o m e r ; O d y sse y i l l e g i t i m a c y , see b a s t a r d y

4 5 -6 , 93

o n a u to c h th o n y

H e s tia

a n d s ta tis tic s

95

H e ro d o tu s

229

326

In d ic tm e n t P a p y ru s

290

H ie ro n y m u s o f R h o d e s

In d o -E u ro p e a n

72

h ie r o th y ta i 3 3 7 , 3 4 9 “ 5 4 . 3 5 7 . 3 6 1 , 3 6 3 .

331

17, 22

in e q u a lity o f p a re n ta g e

15

i n f a n t i c i d e , see e x p o s u r e

374

i n h e r i t a n c e , see s u c c e s s i o n

H ig n e tt 6 4 , 173 H ila rio n

65 n. 140

in s titu tio n a l c o n flic t

H ille r v o n G a e rtrin g e n H in d u -K u s h H ip p a rc h u s

326

in te rm a rria g e ,

4 5 -6 , 365, 3 6 7 -8

H ip p o ly te

106

Io n ia

61

323

Isa eu s:

184

H ip p o n ic u s

345

see also e p i g a m y I o n ( h e r o ) , see E u r i p i d e s Io n (o f C h io s )

H ip p o c ra te s , H ip p o c ra tic s

1 3 -1 4 , 8 4 , 3 62

in te r v iv o s g i f t s 3 9 , 2 4 7

301

H i p p i a s 45 - 6 . 3 6 5 H i p p o c l i d e s 51

H om er

1 6 6 -8 8

2 2 8 -3 8 , 243, 247,

o n a n ch isteia

9 3 , 116

o n C iro n

2 0 -6 , 33, 255

as E g y p tia n b a s ta rd

330

s e e a l s o I lia d , O d y s s e y

100

99

o n c o n c u b in e s o n L e m n ia n s

159, 207 71, 179

o n m a r r ia g e to p r o s titu te s

h o m ic id e : a t G o rty n

264

o n m eion

see also D r a c o ( h o m i c i d e l a w ) h o m o g a la k te s 4 7

o n p h r a tr y a n d c itiz e n s h ip

h o m o s e x u a lity

o n p ro c e s s o f le g itim a tio n

175, 231, 244

see also c a t a m i t e s honey h o rse

106, 109

H u m p h re y s h y b ris

1 ,9 3 ,1 1 7

137, 139, 142, 147

H y p e rb o lu s H y p e rid e s

o n p o v e rty

17 1 366

h y p o b o lim a io s , see s u p p o s i t i t i o u s c h ild re n

h yp o m eio n es 2 2 2

1 5 2 -3

206

o n T h e s m o p h o ria

83

87

see also E u c t e m o n ; P h i l e Isa g o ra s

14 1

1 61

1 11

156

Isc h o m ac h u s

7 5 n . 1 8 3 , 19 1

I s l a n d l e a g u e , see N e s i o t i c l e a g u e Is o c ra te s Is o d ic e

168, 220, 283, 310

67

isogon ia 1 6 9 iso p o lite ia 2 9 5 Iso s

2 3 -4

Index

420 Italia 98 itha(i)genês 18, 22, 62 n. 132 Jacoby 68 Jason, see Euripides, Medea Jaxartes 326 Jews 326 J ocas ta 162

language (and culture) 6 laocritai 328-9 Laomedon 25 Larissa 290, 298 Laronde 300 Larsen 281, 293, 299 Laslett 8-13, 211, 308, 359 ‘late marriage' (opsigamion) 232-3, 235-7

kadestas 268-9 kakogamion, see ‘bad marriage* kakourgoi, see wrongdoers kasens 224 Kassel and Austin 94 katharos 44 Kerdon 95 kinaidoi 373 kings: hellenistic 20,211,275 Spartan 227, 252-62 see also Agesilaus; Agis; Anaxandridas; Archidamus; Ariston; Cleomenes; Demaratus; Demetrius Poliorcetes; Leonidas; Leotychidas; Lysimachus; Philip V; Ptolemy; Seleucids; Seleucus Kleinothos 27 Kleitor 67 Komoidia 190 Konstan 180 kosmophylakes 363, 373-5 kosmos 366-7, 371, 373-5 koureion 500.73, 63, 117-18, 121, 127,

129, 153, 209 equivalent to gamêlia? 87, 113-14 and meion 112-13 see also phratries koureötis 86, 113 see also Apaturia krypteia 26 Kylaithis 95 Kyme 27 kyrieia 186-7, 250, 337-8, 342 Kymos 27 Lacedaimonios 67, 98 Laches 101 lameness 258 Lamia (city) 294 Lamia (courtesan) 160 Lamprocles 72, 190 land tenure system 246-9 landownership 40-1, 160, 293

Latte 111,128,302-3 law: at Gortyn 263 at Sparta 215 Leach 5 leagues 275, 293-5, 317 leap-frogging of names 93, 96, 255 n. 13, 301 Leda 61,234 legitimacy, see gnisios legitimation 124-5 Lemnos, Lemnians 71, 103, 177-9 Leonidas I 227, 253 Leonidas II 226 Leontini, Leontines 144 Leotychidas (rival of Agesilaus) 16, 137, 222, 228, 252, 258-62 Leotychidas II 225, 227, 256-7 Leptines 339“40 Lesbonicus 207 lêxiarchikon grammateion 122-3 Libya, Libyans 184, 299-300, 324, 344

licence 243, 245 Lindos 302 Linear B 22 liturgies 83, 87, 127 ‘living with*, see synoikein Livy 324 locality 10-12 Locri Epizephyrii 185 Locris 81 Loraux 166 lots 246-8 Lotze 2, 15, 219-20 Lucian: on adultery 140 Assembly of the gods 59 Lycians 298 Lycomids 55, 57 Lycurgus (Athenian orator) 167 Lycurgus (Spartan lawgiver) 219, 232, 234-5, 246, 249 Lydians 172

Index L y sa n d e r (e p h o r)

Medon 23

226

M e g a c le s (riv a l o f P is is tr a tu s a n d

L y s a n d e r ( th e g re a t): c h a m p io n o f A g e s ila u s

s u ito r o f A g a ris te

16, 2 2 8 ,

2 5 8 -6 0 h is d a u g h te r s fin e d

2 3 2 -3 , 237

M e g a lo p o lis

254, 281, 296

o n a d u lte ry

f o r g irls

169

an d o rp h a n s

1 7 -1 8 , 79

o n p h ra trie s

11 1

L y s im a c h u s

2 0 -1

L y s is (C o a n )

311

M e la n ip p e

Aspis 205 296

296

M a c C a r y a n d W ilc o c k

130

242, 246

M a c e d o n ia , M a c e d o n ia n s M c K e c h n ie M a g n e s ia M am zer

94, 344, 346

290

2 9 0 , 294, 310, 3 6 7 -9

M a lth a k e

105

C e c ry p h a lu s 3 7 2 D y sc o lu s 14 6 E p itre p o n te s 1 0 1 , 1 3 1 , 1 4 3 , 1 4 5 , 2 0 5 F a b u la In c e rta 8 4 G eo rg o s 1 4 6 , 2 0 6 H e ro s 1 0 8 , 2 0 5 H ie r e ia 1 0 8 P erice iro m en e 1 7 7 - 8 P lo k io n 2 0 5 S a rn ia 8 6 , 1 0 1 - 2 , 1 0 7 - 8 , 1 2 1 - 2 , 139, 146, 2 0 3 -5

5

S ic y o n ia n 1 0 5 , 1 2 2 - 3 , >39» >53» 1 7 8 ,

96

m a n p o w e r , see p o p u l a t i o n M a n tia s

184

M e n a n d e r (c o m ic p o e t):

207

M a c D o w e ll

9 1 , 1 1 3 —15

see also p h r a t r i e s

L y s is (P h a s e lite m a g is tra te )

M a c a rio s

109

m eion 1 1 0 - 1 6 , 1 2 7 , 1 2 9 , 1 5 3 , 2 0 9

33, 140, 1 4 6 -9

F u n e ra l O r a tio n

2 3 -4

2 7 , 183

M e id ia s

L y s ia s :

M a n ia

306

M eg a ra

218, 2 2 0 -2

206

see also N e w C o m e d y ; P l a u t u s ;

1 0 3 , 158, 1 9 2 -4

see also M a n t i t h e u s

T e re n c e M e n a n d e r ( M i l e s i a n g y n a ik o n o m o s )

M a n t i t h e u s a n d B o io to s : a m p h im e tr ic d is p u te s b e tw e e n

103,

367 M e n e la u s (h e ro )

1 9 2 -4 a n d b a s ta rd iz a tio n a n d d e b a te

M enexenus

8 9 - 9 0 , 9 7 , 193

m e rc e n a rie s M e rita te n

118

a n d n a m e 'B o i o t o s ’ 9 2 , 1 2 2

m ess d ues

a n d n a m e ‘M a n t i t h e u s ’ 9 7

M e s s a m b ria

a n d p h r a tr y in tr o d u c tio n m a n tle c h ild re n

282, 289, 305, 310, 326

333

M e rn e b p ta h

125

153

333

249 325

M e s s e n e , M e s s e n ia

m a rria g e :

M e ta g e n e s

b e tw e e n n o n - c itiz e n s

106, 1 2 9 -3 5

7 5 , 9 4 . *55

m etech ein 4 2

c o n tra c ts o f 3 1 0 ,3 2 8 -6 1

M e te r P la k ia n e

‘m o t i o n o f ’ 1 2

M e th e

M e th y llio n

s e e a l s o ek d o sis\ w e d d i n g

m e tic s :

3 2 4 -5 , 327

374

190

s o c io lo g ic a l s ig n ific a n c e o f 3 -5 M a s s ilia , M a s s ilio te s

27, 230, 290, 295,

299

14

81

a n d a rm y s e rv ic e

201

b a s ta rd s as 4 3 , 156

95

m a tro x en o s 1 9 s e e a l s o m ëtro x en o s M e d e a , see E u r i p i d e s

a n d fe s tiv a ls

M e d e s ic a s te

in h e l l e n i s t i c w o r l d

24

in C o s

218

72, 190

a n d kou reion

a n d le g itim a tio n

2 3 -4 , 144, 196

M e n e la u s (M a c e d o n ia n p rin c e )

1 2 5 -6

a n d h iera k a i hosia 4 2 , 9 8

M a ta k in e

4 6 , 51

M e g a lo c le ia M e g a p e n th e s

225

a s m o th a x

L yssa

421

3 i 3 “ *4

at G o rty n

100, 165

265 289

Index

422 metics (cont.) lack freedom of speech 171 marriage between 129,131-5 in New Comedy 178 ‘slave metics’ 54 n. 84 at Tegea 285 see also aliens; apetairoi metoikion 135,314 metronymics 94-6, 182, 311, 331 mitroxenoi: in Aetolian league 294 and Aristophon and Nicomenes 78 Aristotle on 277-9 at Byzantium 279, 296 and Cleisthenes 53-4 confused with 'nothoi' 44, 62 in Cos 312-13, 316 at Cynosarges 199 at Cyrene 300 definition of 18-19 discrimination against 209 at Dodona 281-2 and epigamy 291-2 at Gortyn 264 in Greek states generally 275-317,

362 in hellenistic Athens 81-2, 276, 289 Medea’s children as 195 at Miletus 307-10 at Oreos 282 and phratries 51-3 and Pisistratus 44-6 at Ptolemais 358 at Rhodes 19, 301-4 at Sparta 229 at Tegea 284-5 at Tenos 284-8 at Thasos 283 Themistocles as 56-7, 64 see also Antisthenes; Citizenship Law; double civic ascendance; Rhodes micro-localism, see locality mikichizimenoi 224 Miletos (founder of Miletus) 323 Miletus (state): Delphinium inscriptions at 7, 65, 94, 165, 289, 304-10 foundation of 323 nothos-names in 27, 92 and sympoliteia with Pidasa 292-3,

307

Miltiades 51 Minnion 92, 309 Minnis 309 Minoa 94 mixed marriage 290-3 see also epigamy mixellines 321, 325-6. 354 see also mixobarbaroi Mixiades 113 mixobarbaroi 195, 323 see also mixellines mobility 10-11 Modrzejewski 174, 342, 347, 350, 354, 358 moicheia, moichos 139 see also adultery, seduction Molossus, see Euripides, Andromache monogamy, monogyny 19. 33*. 34 *. 342, 359 Moschion: Periceiromene 108 Sarnia 86, 102-3, ! 39. 203-5 mothakes 18,218-24,239,259 mothön 219, 222 mourning 369 mousax 224 msddt 332 mule 203 muleteer 257 Müller 159 mullet 140 multi-stage procedures 127 ‘multitude of citizens' 59, 64, 66, 299,

330

Mutemhab 331

Mycenean age 22 Mylasa 289, 310 Myronides 60 Myrrhina (place) 81 Myrrhine (character) 205 Myrtaline 95 Myrto 72, 189-90 Mysians 155 my theme 184 ‘mythologies’ 180-8, 209 Mytilene 81 Myus 305 names, naming: disrespectful use of women’s 193 and legitimacy 91-8, 127 ‘not legitimate in name’ 67, 98 onomastics in Egypt 345

Index see also d e m o t i c s ; l e a p - f r o g g i n g ;

423

nosos 2 0 7 - 8

m e tro n y m ic s ; p a tro n y m ic s ;

N o s s is

to m b s to n e s

n o th agen ês 1 6 , 1 5 6 , 1 7 1 , 2 0 8 n o th a i , see g i r l s

‘n a t u r a l f a m ily *

14

n a tu ra liz a tio n d e c re e s N a u c ra tis

N o th a rc h o s

8 2 , 153

333

n a u to d ik a i 4 9 - 5 0 N e a ira (p e rs o n )

d e fin itio n o f 6 , 1 4 -1 7

157

a n d b la c k m a il

e ty m o lo g y o f w o rd

144

h e r c h i l d r e n in p h r a t r y as c o n c u b in e a s g irl

27

n o th eia ( ‘b a s t a r d ’s p o r t i o n * ) 3 8 - 9 , 2 6 4 n o th eia ( ‘b a s t a r d y ’), n oth os , p a ssim c h i l d r e n o f n oth oi 2 8 0

328, 348, 3 5 6 -7 , 372

N a u n a c h te

95

17

u s e d o f in c e s tu o u s c h ild re n ?

1 1 1 , 113

162

see also b a s t a r d y n oth eu ein 1 6

80

105

m a rria g e o f d a u g h te r

N o th ia s

124, 206

m a rria g e to S te p h a n u s

see also P h a n o ; S t e p h a n u s N e a ir a (s p e e c h a g a in s t)

27

N o th ip p o s

161

27

N o th o k a rte s

6 6 , 101,

> 3 2 , 1 4 0 - 2 , 1 5 3 . >5 7 , 1 6 4

N o th o n

2 7 -8

N u b ia n s

333

27

see also A p o l l o d o r u s N e a p o lis

O c ta v ia n

281, 283

N eedham

o c to p u s

2, 4

n e ig h b o u rs N e m e s is

O d y s s e u s , O dyssey 2 1 - 3 , 2 6 4

8 9 , 127

see also H o m e r ; I lia d

6 0 -1 ,7 8

N e o c le s

O e d ip u s

5 4 -6 , 94

n eo d a m ö d eis 2 2 2 N e o p to le m u s (h is to ric a l)

281

N e o p t o l e m u s ( m y t h i c a l ) , see E u r i p i d e s , A n d ro m a c h e N e s io tic le a g u e N e tte ia

a n d le g itim a c y O ile u s

1 7 4 -8 0 , 345

159

2 3 -4

O lb ia

h e ta ir a i w i t h c h i l d r e n i n id e o lo g ic a l f u n c tio n o f

3 2 5 -6

o lig a n th r ö p ia 2 7 9 see also p o p u l a t i o n

1 0 4 -6 172, 179,

o lig a rc h s , o lig a rc h y

194, 209 l e g i t i m a t i o n o f b a s t a r d s in

O lo ru s

125

7 7 - 8 , 173

51

oikos i n

100

O ly m p ia s

r a p e in

143, 1 4 5 -6

O ly n th ia n le a g u e , O ly n th u s

r a p e - b a s t a r d s in s la v e r y in

2 0 3 -5 110

see also M e n a n d e r ; P l a u t u s ; T e r e n c e 107, 139 228, 236, 239

N ic o m a c h u s (A th e n ia n p o litic ia n ) N ic o m a c h u s (c o m ic p o e t) N ic o m e n e s

372

76, 78, 203

n ig h t, ra p e b y

O p is

326

o p sig a m io n , see l a t e m a r r i a g e o p tê r ia 8 9

N i c a n d e r 81 N ic o la u s o f D a m a s c u s

344

o n o b a tis , see d o n k e y - r i d e r o n o m a s t i c s , see n a m e s on oph orbos , see m u l e t e e r

107

s u p p o s i t i t i o u s c h i l d r e n in

N ic e ra tu s

2 7 0 -1

312

O rc h o m e n o s O rc o s

2 8 0 -1 , 295

16, 2 8 2

O re s te s

173, 254

O re sth e s

254

orgeönes 4 7

nomos 2 0 7 - 8

O ro p u s

27

‘n o n - m a r r i a g e ’ (ag a m io n ) 2 3 2 - 3 ,

o rp h a n s

79

2 3 5 -7

42, 154

8 8 -1 0 6 , 127, 137,

148, 209, 212

7 1 , 85

a n d d e sc e n t g ro u p d o w r ie s in

162

o ik e tê s i o i oikeu s 2 6 6 , 2 6 8 - 9 s e e a l s o dolos\ s e r f s o ik o s : A ris to tle a n d X e n o p h o n o n

295

3 0 1 -2

N ew C om edy

17 89

o rth ö s 18

290, 293

Index Osborne 82 othneios 67 Oulios 67 Oxyrhynchus 335,337 paidonomoi 367, 375 paidopoieisthai : of bigamy 72-4 of legitimate children 80, 102,227 Palaestrio 131 pallakai, see concubines Pammachos 309 Pamphylians 298 Panticapaia 325 Paph lagon ians 171 papyrus 328 see also contracts parallel insemination 234, 257 parasitoi 200-1 parents (duty to) 37, 39 Paris 144 paroikoi 313 parrhêsia 171, 196, 198 Partheniai of Tarentum 21, 215 n. parthertios 18,21,25,27 Parthenon marbles 182 Pasicles 132-3 Pasion 132-3 passive citizenship 34, 37 Pataikios 95 Patmian scholion 47 Paton and Hicks 93, 312, 314 Patterson: on Athens 2 on Citizenship Law 68-9 on concubinage 159 on Cynosarges 201 her definition of notheia 15-17 on Homer 23, 25 on naming 27, 91 on Phile 96 patronymics: of Athenian mëtroxenoi 81 and Cecrops 182 in Cos 311, 314, 331 and Cleisthenes 54 in Homer 26 Milesian 309-10 for Pericles, son of Pericles 93 in Rhodes 303 see also metronymics; names patrouchos 250 see also heiresses

‘patroxenoi': Aristotle on 174,277-9 at Athens 44, 160 at Byzantium 279, 296 and Citizenship Law 69 definition of 19 Euphrainetus as 294 at Samos 301 at Sparta 229 at Thasos 281, 283, 292 Pausanias (Spartan king) 260 Pedaeus 23-4 P. Eleph i 316, 330, 335-6, 33^ - 44.

359 Peleus 207 Peloponnesian war 65, 69, 71-2, 75-7, 158. 248 Penanuqet 331 Penthesilea 184-5 People's Court 121 Peremans 347 Pergamum 374-5 Pericles: bribes Cleandridas 223 and phratries 49-51, 53 in Thucydides 86 see also Citizenship Law Pericles, bastard of Pericles 60-1, 72,

91- 3. 125

perioeci 217 Peripatetics 204 Perkalos 225, 256-7 permission of husband 243 Persephone 74, 95, 191 Persians 169-70, 196, 256, 346 Persis 94 persuasion 144-5 P. Fayum i. 22: 357 P. Freib. 26, 29, and 30: 336, 338 P. Gen. i. 21: 341 P. Giss. i. 2: 338, 341, 344 Phaedra 198, 207-8 Phanium 177 Phano 124, 164, 207 Phaselis 279, 296 Pheidippides 190 P. Hibeh 196: 353 Phigalia 290, 295 Philachaeus 284 Philadelphia 336 Phile: amphidromia and debate of 89-91, 96

Index ‘b a s t a r d i z a t i o n * o f

425

P h y la rc h u s

125

2 1 9 -2 2 , 372

as defrauded heiress 158-9, 164

P h y le

a n d d o u b le c iv ic a s c e n d a n c e

P id a s a

293, 307

P in d a r

27, 324

156,

1 6 3 -4

72, 76

m eion o f 1 1 3 - 1 5

P is id ia n s

m o th e r o f 85

Pisistratus 44-6, 58

n am e o f 96

P is th e ta e ru s

P h ilis ta P h ilo

P ith e c u s a e

322, 324

20, 298

P la n e s iu m

178

P la n g o n (c h a r a c te r )

281

P h ilo c h o ru s P h ilo c te te s

see also M a n t i t h e u s

118

P la ta e a n s 4 2 , 7 1 , 10 0 , 154

23

p h ilo i ( a t m a r r i a g e f e a s t ) 8 6 , 1 2 7 P h ilo n ( R h o d ia n c itiz e n ) P h ilo n id a s P h ilo te ris

P la to : o n H e ra c lid s

302

27

and nam es

358

Phocaeans

o n w o rth in e s s fo r re a rin g

C a p ti v i n o , 1 7 9 C a sin a 1 0 6 , 1 3 0 C iste lla r ia 9 6 , 1 0 5 , 1 7 6 - 9 C u rcu lio 1 7 8 E pidicu s 1 7 9 M e n a ech m i 1 7 7

104, 1 0 8 -9 1 3 2 -4

2 0 0 , 361

P h ra s to r

52, 1 1 5 -1 7 , 124, 2 0 6

p h r a te r ik o n g ra m m a te io n p h ra tria rc h

117

119

and M en an d er

p h ra trie s , p h ra try m e n : a t A le x a n d ria

350, 360

in A r i s t o p h a n e s

35

a n d b a s ta rd y a t A th e n s

11, 5 4 , 8 3 ,

1 2 7 -8 , 193, 2 0 9 , 2 1 2 ,3 1 5 a n d c itiz e n s h ip a n d D ra c o

1 1 3 ,1 5 2 -3

34

P lu ta rc h :

59

in s titu tio n a l c o n flic t w ith a n d m e tic s

175

M ile s 1 3 1 Poenulus 1 7 7 , 1 9 0 R o p e /R u d e n s 1 3 1 , 1 7 8 , 3 4 5 T rin u m m u s 2 0 7 T ru cu len tu s 1 0 4 , 1 0 8 see also M e n a n d e r ; N e w C o m e d y ; T e re n c e

expense o f 207 of gods

13, 3 62

on a d u lte ry

142, 1 4 8 -9

o n A lc ib ia d e s

134

m ê tro x e n o i i n 5 0 m 7 3 , 5 8 , 3 6 2 o f m o t h e r ’s f a m i l y

71

160

o n a tim ia

156

o n C im o n

67

o a th s o f 4 2 , 8 5 -6 , 1 5 2 -3

o n C itiz e n s h ip L a w

a n d P e ric le s

on C y n o sa rg e s

4 9 -5 0

a n d P e ric le s , b a s ta r d o f P e ric le s

60,

P h ilo c h o ru s o n

o n L e o n id a s

80

227

on L e o ty c h id a s

2 8 5 -7

see also A p a t u r i a ; c i t i z e n s h i p ; g a r n i lia \ genos\ kou reiort ; m eion

on L y san d er

2 5 9 -6 0

222

o n m o th a k es 2 1 9 , 2 5 0

on New Comedy 175

Phrygia (character) 131 P h r y g ia (p la c e ), P h r y g ia n s

1 0 3 -4

231, 239

o n g y n a ik o n o m o i 3 6 5 , 3 7 1

4 7 -5 3

a n d sy n o ik e in d e c r e e

5 9 -6 2 , 68

200

o n D e m e tr iu s P o lio rc e te s on ex p o su re

9 1 -2

at T en o s

90

P la u tu s :

326, 346

P h o e n ic iu m

112, 114

R ep u b lic 1 8 6 - 7

324

P h o e b u s , see A p o l l o

P h o rm io n

92

on p h ra trie s

281

P h o e n ic ia

226, 2 5 2 -3 , 260

Laws 1 1 2 M en exen u s 1 6 9

311

P h ilo n o th o s

1 0 3 ,1 5 8 ,

192-4

4 7 -5 3 , 84, 362, 372

P h ilo c te m o n

P h o tiu s

205

P la n g o n ( m o t h e r o f B o io to s )

229

P h in to

35

2 0 2 -3

P h ilip II P h ilip V

298

9 2 , 172

o n p e d e ra s ty as b a s t a r d ’ 2 0 -1

Index

426 Plutarch (cont.)

on Pericles, bastard of Pericles 72, 91-3 on rape 143 Sayings of Spartan women 230 on Spartan land tenure 246 on Spartan marital customs 232-3, 235, 239, 241, 243-4 on spurius 335 on Themistocles 55-6, 126 Plutarch (Apamean sculptor) 303 poiitos, see adoption; orphans polemarch 134-5 Polemarchus 134 Polemon 200 polis 275 politeuma 300, 328 politics 173-4 see also democracy; oligarchy pollution 143, 144-6» 152, 153 Pollux 86, 113-14, 371 polyandry: and definition of marriage 5 at Sparta 224, 238-45 Polyaratus 192 Polybius 239-40, 298, 354 polygamy 19, 20, 45, 104, 331, 333,

341

see also bigamy; polyandry; polygyny polygyny 238-9 Polymele 25 Pomeroy 305, 341, 354 pomp 84 population: decline of Spartan 248-9, 279 mixing of 289-90 recruitment of 296 porphyrogenesis 238, 252, 255 Porphyry 158, 189-90 Poseidippus 64-5 Poseidon 35, 181 Pouilloux 283 poverty, see wealth Powell 109-10 P. Par. 13: 336 Praxagora 186 Priam 23-4 Priest of Mother and Daughter 74 priesthoods 315 priests (Egyptian) 330-*. 359 primogeniture 252, 347 proagögeia, see procuring

Proclus in - 1 2

procreation, see ideology procuring 159 Prodicus 190, 203 promiscuity 183 property rights 165, 271, 343 see also dowry; heiresses; succession; wealth proskynisis 202 prostitutes, prostitution: and blackmail 144 children bom of 39, 96 distinguished from wives and concubines 102 excluded from oikos 100-6 and gynaikonomoi (Syracuse) 369-70, 373 as international commodity 160 as mothers of citizen bastards? 157 in New Comedy 176-7 rear girls for old age 105 and Scottish debate 9 at Sparta 245 and synoikein decree 80 see also concubines; Neaira; ' pseudohetaira' Protagoras 187 prötarchos 348 Protiades 324 Protogenes 325 'pseudo-he taira' 161, 176 Ptahhotep 342 P. Tebt. iii. 104: 336, 341 P. Tebt. iii. 815: 336, 339, 344 Ptolemais 328, 348, 350, 357-8 Ptolemy I (Soter) 20, 299, 324, 328-9,

346-7 Ptolemy II (Philadelphus) 304, 328,

346-7 public offices 124 public prosecution 139, 142, 149-50 purple, birth in, see porphyrogenesis Pyanespsion 86 Pyrrhus 96 radish 140 Rameses II: 333 Rameses III: 334 Ramose 331 rape: bastards resulting from 157,161

in classical Athens 142-50,210 and Draco’s homicide law 33, 136-9

Index of m an

427

s e c lu s io n

149

1 3 6 -7 , 2 4 4 , 3 3 4

seduction 33, 136— 42, 209, 244, 268— 9

at Sparta 244 see also a d u l t e r y ; s e d u c t i o n ra p h a n id ö sis 1 4 0

seed

R a p h ia

S e le n iu m

177

‘r e a r e d b o y s ’, s e e tro p h im o i

S e le u c e ia

327

re c ru itm e n t

S e le u c id s

see also a d u l t e r y ; r a p e

347, 354 201

326

S e le u c u s

re g is tra tio n : o f b a s ta rd y in C o s

2 3 0 -5 , 240, 262

326

s e m e n , see s e e d

1 0 -1 1

S c n m o n t h i s , see A p o l l o n i a

3 1 0 -1 2

s e rfs:

by dem es

63, 123, 209

by genos

117

at G o rty n

o fm e tic s

135

s e e a l s o dolos\ h e l o t s ; s l a v e s

b y p h ra trie s R ehm

6 3 , 1 12, 1 17, 1 5 3 ,2 0 9

305

re v e rs e d w o rld s R hene

185

12 326

S h e rw in -W h ite

rh eto res 4 1 , 1 7 1 - 2 R h o d e s (c ity )

310

s h n s 'n h 3 3 2 . 3 3 7 .3 4 3

19, 143, 2 8 9 , 2 9 9 -3 0 4

R h o d e s (s c h o la r)

S ic ily : A t h e n i a n d i s a s t e r in

121

rite de p a ssa g e 2 2 6

73, 7 5 -6

d e m o c ra c ie s o f 6 6 , 168, 1 7 4 , 2 8 4

see also P e l o p o n n e s i a n w a r ; S y r a c u s e

296, 368

R om e

282

S h a fra n sk a y a

23

R o b ert

S e rip h o s sex d riv e

2 6 4 -7 1

S ic y o n

1 75» 2 7 5 , 3 0 3

8 1 , 1 7 6 -9

R o s to v tz e ff 303

S ig e u m

R o u ssel

s in is te r p re g n a n c y o r b irth

52

R o y a l A n th ro p o lo g ic a l In s titu te R u sch cn b u sch

5

69

46

S ip h n o s

283

S ita m u n

333

253, 257

sk a p h ë p h o ria 1 6 5 s a c ra l re la tio n s h ip s w ith w o m e n fo lk s a c r e d a n d h o l y r i t e s , s e e h iera k a i

hosia

a n d c o n c u b in a g e a n d m a rria g e

2 6 5 -7 1 159 71, 76

106, 1 2 9 -3 1 , 2 6 6

a n d m o th a k es 2 2 0

155

S a la m in ia n o f th e E p ig o n e s a le o f c itiz e n s h ip

344

123, 2 7 9 -8 0 , 289,

S a m ia n s , S a m o s

rhëtores a s 1 7 1 - 2 v irg in

141

s e e a l s o dolos\ h e l o t s ; s e r f s

2 9 6 -9 , 317 7 1 -2 , 76, 289, 301,

310 22, n o

S m ic rin e s :

A sp is 2 0 5 E p itre p o n te s 1 0 1 , 1 0 4 - 5 S m y rn a

358

sn a ils

72

scapegoat

2 0 3 -5 , 211

g ra n te d c itiz e n s h ip

14 1 - 2

see also v i c t i m s

S a ra p ia s

27

c h a tte l, a t G o r ty n

a d u lte ro u s w o m e n b a rre d fro m

S a n s k rit

as p r o p e r n a m e a n d b a s ta rd y

85, 234

s a c rific e s :

S a ty ru s

27

s la v e r y , s la v e s :

sa c re d m a rria g e

Sakas

S k o te a s

skotios 1 7 , 2 1 , 2 5 - 6

8 7 -8

294, 367, 374

203

so c ia liz a tio n

142

8 -1 3

S o c ra te s

7 2 -3 , 104, 186, 1 8 9 -9 0

‘S c o t t i s h D e b a t e ’ 5 , 9

S o llo u m

300

s c ru tin ie s

S o lo n

S c h w e rth e im

374

128

s e e a l s o d ia p s ë p h is is , d o k im a sia S c y th ia n s S e a le y

in ,

172, 187 128, 159

32, 58

a n d a d u lte ry a n d ra p e

143, 1 4 8 -9

and bastards of double civic ascendance

151

Index

428

Solon (cont.) and enslavement of deflowered virgins 141 and gynaikonomoi 370-2 his laws on bastardy 34-44, 84, 209 Sommerstein 19 Sophocles 162, 204 Sophroniscus 72, 190 soph rosyne 374 Soranus 107 Sosicles 302 Sostrata 114 Sparta, Spartans, 215-62 and Amazons 183 as Athenian myth 187-8 family organization at 212 Xuthias 285 Spartoi 167 special bastards 14 specialization 127-8, 375 sperm, see seed spuriousness as theme 198 squid 89 statistics 8-9 Stephanus (Athenian citizen) his adultery blackmail 140-1,144 his bribery 206 and marriage to Neaira 80, i n ,

113* 161

and marriage of Phano 124, 164 Stephanus of Byzantium 368, 370 stepmothers 20, 24, 191, 197-8 see also amphimetric disputes sterility 207-8 see also childlessness Stesimbrotus 61 Stoics 16 Strabo 184, 299, 324-5 straightness as metaphor 18,199 Stratippocles 180 Stroud 79 structuralism 3-4 subsocieties, see bastardy-prone succession: E g y p t 3 4 7 .3 5 4

in general 7 Gortyn 271 metic 134-5 Spartan (common) 245-50 Spartan (royal) 238 and Solon 38-9 Suda 200 superfluity of women 65

Scottish debate 9 supposititious children 59, 108-10, 118, 202 see also exposure; fo u n d lin g s surveillance 83-150, 280 S ybaris 98 sycophants 60, 123, 150 sympoliteia 292, 307 synchöriseis 348-55 syngraphe homologias 336, 338, 349 syngraphi synoikisiou 336, 349 syngraphi trophitis 343 synoecism 275, 280, 295-6, 317 synoikein 79-81,83, 132, 141 syntrophoi 219 see also trophimoi Syra 109 Syracuse 177, 369-70, 372-3 Syrians 172, 326-7, 333, 346 Syrophoenicians 59 Syrus 131 Talthybiadai 226 Tarentum 185, 215 n. Tauric Chersonese 325 Taygetus 231, 244 tax 135,231 Tcherikover and Fuks 354 T egea 37, 254, 284-5

Teichman 1,4-5,250-1 teknopoiia, see ideology of procreation Teleclides 109 Teles 217-18, 221 Telesicrates 324 Telestis 179-80 Temnians, Temnos 316, 335, 339, 344 tenement-house 108 Tenos 284-8 Terence: Adelphoe 114 Andria 104 Heautontimoroumenos 108 Hecyra 101, 143 Phormio 71, 103, 177-9 relationship to Menander 175 see also Menander; New Comedy; Plautus Teucer 24 Thabyttion 325 Thagys 325 Thais 160 thalloiy thallophoroi 368 Thasis 346

Index Thasos:

369, 372 nof/ios-names at 27 ‘patroxenoi’ at 281, 283, 291 sale of citizenship at 297 Theano 24 Thebaid 347 Thebans, Thebes 108, 299 Themiscyra 183 Themistius 143 Themistocles: Aelian on 218 a p o k ê ry x is of 126 at Cynosarges 53-8, 84, 199, 209, g y n a ik o n o m o i at

362 daughters of 98 Decree of 41 patronymic of 94 Theocritus 95 Theodorus 306, 309 Theodote 160 Theogenes 124 Theognis 27 Theon 358 Theozotides 17-18, 79 Thera 185 Thermodon 183 Thermopylae 233, 253 Theron 105, 206 Theseus 182-5, 198 Thesmophoria 87, 366-7

429

and speech of Pericles 86 Tigris 327 Timaia 16, 258-60 Timo 311 Timocles 366, 372 timocracy 43, 300 Timonassa 45 tomb 83, 87, 99, 127 tombstones 230 Trachalio 131 tremiola 302 tribes: at Alexandria 350 at Aspendos 298 on Cos 310-11 at Naucratis 357 on Rhodes 302 at Rome 303 at Sparta 229 trig o n ia 311, 323 Troezen 290 Trojan war 184 tr o p h im o i 217 see also sy n tro p h o i trysts 245 two-tier citizenship 299-304, 310-11,

317 Tyndareus 234 Tyndaridai 234 see also Clytemnestra; Dioscuri; Helen

th e sm o th e ta i 14 1

Thespiae 367 Thessalians, Thessaly 94, 290, 298 Thestios 81 Thettalus (son of Cimon) 67 Thettalus (son of Pisistratus) 45-6 th ia so s , th ia s ô tê s 119-20,128 ‘thigh-showers’ 244 Thirty 79 see also oligarchy Thoeris 346 Thompson 76 Thrace, Thracians 51, 55, 63,

ugliness 158 unmarried men 232 urbanization 9-11 urine 334 Vatin 115, 275, 289, 326, 337-8, 340, 350 . 352- 3.364

Vice 190 victims 110,117-18,286-7,315 virginity 141, 183, 207, 268, 270, 367, 374

Virtue 190

67 n. 154» 183

Thrasyllus 283 Thucydides (son of Melesias) 68 Thucydides (son of Olorus): on Athenian citizenship 68 on Pisistratids 45, 367 on Sicilian democracies 66, 168,

>74. 284

on Spartans 215, 260

Walker 101 Walters 69 war, see mercenaries; Peloponnesian war Watterson 331 wealth: at Athens 120, 124, 205-7, 211 at Sparta 219-21, 232, 237, 245-51

430 wedding 84-5, 127 see also ekdosis Wehrli 364, 372 Westcar papyrus 334 wet-nurse 108, 206 Whitehead 131, 133 wife-sharing 229 Wilcken 330 Willetts 265 Wisdom literature 342 Wittgenstein 5 wives: distinguished from concubines and prostitutes 102 Wolff 2, 80, 336-8, 341, 347, 350-2. 354. 357 womanishness 370, 373 wool 91 wreaths 91 wrongdoers 140, 148 Wyse 125-6 Xanthippe 72, 158, 189-90 xenëlasiai 227 xenia, xenos, see aliens xenios kosmos 264

Index Xenocles 163-4 Xenon 306 Xenophon 148, 190 on Agesilaus and Leotychidas 258-61 on epigamy 293 on Heraclids 226 on Spartan law 215 on Spartan marital customs 234-5, 239-41, 247 on Spartan nothoi 217-19 Xerxes 238, 256 Xuthias 284-5 Xuthus, see Euripides, Ion Zeno 16 Zeugungshilfe 235 Zeus 35, 59, 61, 85, 199, 207, 234, 257 and Danae 139 Zeus Ktesios 99 Zeus Sosipolis 367 Ziebarth 315 Zoilos 314 Zosimus 368 Zuntz 310 Zwierlein 180