Studies in Greek Genealogy

Citation preview

STUDIES IN GREEK GENEALOGY BY

MOLLY BROADBENT

LEIDEN E.]. BRILL 1968

Copyright 1968 by E. /. Brill, Laiden, Netherlands All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or translated in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm or any other means without wrillen permission from the publisher PRINTED IN TIU! NETHERLANDS

CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I. INTRODUCTION

II. FOUR SIMPLE GENEALOGIES I. Genealogy of Local Epidaurian Gentry II. The Priests of Poseidon at Halikarnassos III. Hellanikos on the Queens of Troy IV. The Kings of Corinth III. LAw-couRT SPEECHES: THE BousELIDAI

I. II. III. IV.

Materials of the Genealogy General Problems of the Materials The Informants Chronoloiical Analysis of the Principal Body of Information V. The Principal Problems of Relationships VI. Characteristics of the Genealogy and Genealogical Information

IV. CLASSICAL ATHENIAN FAMILY LAW

VI VII l

18 18 23 27

39 61 61 63 69

79 96 105

II3

I. The Family Unit ng II. The Interrelations of Families 150 III. Laws on the Internal Structure of the Family and Kindred 197

v.

AN ATTIC DESCENT GROUP AND THE LITERARY GENEALOGY OF ITS EPONYM A. The Attic Genos. B. The Literary Tradition

ANCIENT SOURCES SELECTIVE INDEX

LIST OF TABLES I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. X. XI. XII. XIII. XIV. XV.

The Epidaurian gentry facing page The Halikarnassian priests. The dynasty of Troy Ruhemann grid of Hellanikan Troy The kings of Corinth Theopompos' family economy The Bouselidai: fourth chronological approximation The lexicographic tradition of the Law on Heiresses facing page Stemma Kephalidarum: the kinsmen of Andokides facing page The Pherekydean Kephalos The Homeric genealogy of Odysseus Synoptic table of the fragments of Hellanikos' Atlantis facing page Kindred of Kephalos and Odysseus in early romance Kindred of Kephalos and Odysseus in late romance facing page The 'non-Hellenic' genealogical doctrine facing page

24 25

29 35 43 70 94 208 248 264 322 328 332 334 336

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My debts of gratitude are due to: the University of Glasgow and the Carnegie Trust for the Universities of Scotland, who have provided money for the work on this book: to the Library of Glasgow University, who have borne my plaguing them for years (and I am very stupid with library catalogu~) with more than courtesy; and to _Miss Maureen Rae, whose hands have been busy with many things in order to set mine free. These have been the indispensable; for the imponderable--and while I know the encouragement received I can only guess at the patience required-Mr. A. R. Burn, Mr. T. Price, and Dr. R. Beerman have been those upon whom propinquity has allowed the greatest demands; only time and distance have, in their essentially insignificant ways, abridged what I owe and have owed to Professor Arnold Gomme, Dr. Felix Jacoby, and many others who have confirmed or castigated at various stages. Indispensable again: Miss Jean Fyfe who typed from my handwriting, and Dr. van Proosdij of Messrs Brill, who printed Greek from it. And finally, to Mr. Davis Taylor, who by making publication possible, dedit his quoque finem.

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION One of the more enduring characteristics of Greek literature is its love of genealogising. This is found already in Homer, together with the curious magic of lists of proper names which are not genealogical; in late archaic epic the interest grows, so that complete poems were collections of genealogies; it is constant in the mythographers and historians of all ages and levels of competence, in tragedy, some comedy, in romance and sensationalist writing, in Hellenistic scholarship and commentary, in geography, ethnology and social science. If we count its literary beginning in Homer, we must recognise its end in his commentator Eustathius some two thousand years later: and we may reflect with some incredulity not only on the· thought and time spent on genealogy in creating the original works, but the immeasurable labour involved in the copying of these works (or their fragments) thrnughout the manuscript centuries. This genealogising is a literary pursuit, a work of ordered imagination. In other arts, criticism which concerns itself with the larger and smaller details of workmanship, styles and schools, helps to explain something of their pleasure, and infonns our appreciation: the same should be true of the genealogies. Moreover at certain periods genealogy created by the ordered imagination becomes the principle of unity for historiography, and thus combines and expresses the orders of both art and science: this creates a new tension and equilibrium within genealogy itself, and where the tension becomes too great to be sustained, sensationalist writing fractures the larger creations and regales the disorderly with tales of incest and other horrors. The relationship of Literature to Life in this department of genealogy has been much debated. The outstanding fact on which the debate rests is that the immeasurable mass of genealogy is concerned with the Heroic· Age: historical genealogies of more than three generations' depth in time are few, and none can be regarded as complete or indubitable in all details. The Athenian law-courts could be asked to decide a series of cases arising out of the single question of the identity of a wife's paternal grandmother: and there is no suggestion that this ignorance was at all exceptional.

2

INTRODUCTION

The passion for genealogising is then Literary: in Life the Greeks were by no means so concerned. So we must not compare the dispute about Phylomache's grandmother with the variation of statement about Agamemnon's father: in the former case, drawn from Life, we can properly entertain the supposition of ignorance or doubt reinforced by conflicting interests; in the latter we can suppose nothing of the kind. Homer 'knows' that Agamemnon's father was Atreus; Hesiod (F 98) asserts that he was Pleisthenes; the commentators add that Pleisthenes was Atreus' son, and predeceased his father, so that Agamemnon was known as son to Atreus. Here plainly there is no question of 'ignorance': there was some reason which compelled Hesiod to change the accepted genealogy, and change it in a certain way. The instances of variation in the Literature are innumerable: the task is to explain the reasons for them, and the natural way to attempt a beginning of explanation is to try to group and classify these reasons. A genealogical variation consists of two parts: an objection to the received tradition, and the innovation itself: and the compelling reason may lie in either part. For example, Hesiod may have said to himself that it was impossible {for a compelling reason) that Agamemnon's father was Atreus, but that we could meet this compelling reason and reconcile it with the Homeric statement by making Agamemnon's father son to Atreus-let us therefore call him Pleisthenes (More Strength), to intimate how much greater Agamemnon was than Atreus. Or Hesiod may have argued that (for a compelling reason) Agamemnon's father was Pleisthenes, but that we could meet Homer's assertion and reconcile it with the compelling reason by making Pleisthenes son to Atreus. Each genealogical variation has these two parts; but many have more than two alternative persons-we know, for example, of some five mothers for Penelope, four fathers for Kephalos, and so forth. In a small minority of examples we can say that the variation was propagandist, to the greater glory of some interest concerned in the possession of a heroic past. Most variations are not however susceptible of such an explanation, but are either arguably products of learned doctrine, or may be suspected of being so: others have no discernible reason at all, and are often written off to a passion for 'originality'. There is however a difficulty in this thesis, namely that the supposed originality works very erratically-that while some heroic persons have six mothers, others have none (surviving in our sources). In other words, some genealogies were of more interest than others to the ancient genealogists, and the question is why?

INTRODUCTION

3

It has been the custom to look outside Literature and Learning, to Life, for answers to these questions. Where propaganda is observably concerned, this is the correct methodology: some variations, preserved anonymously, can be dated and well understood in this manner, and in the wider field of general mythography, Nilsson has collected and displayed a number of examples in Cults, Myths, Oracles and Politics in Ancient Greece (Lund 1951), which considers, in the field of genealogy, the instructive examples of the Macedonians and Epeirotes. Following this example it is natural to ask what department of Life can have given rise to the mass of heroic genealogising and its innumerable variants. The answer has been sought in the department of kinship structure, as known to modern anthropology in both description and theory. The famous work is Bachofen's Mutterrecht, which treated Greek heroic genealogies as accurate or slightly derivative descriptions of real states of affairs correctly (or almost so) reniembered in literature. Bachofen's main contention was that matriliny (descent reckoned through women) and matriarchy (rule by women) were two aspects of a single institution which characterised all societies (including the Greek) at an early stage of development. In anthropology the contention was accepted only briefly, for in the first place no known matrilinear society shows matriarchy; in the second place the notion of stages of development common to all societies is very difficult to render precise and accessible to criticism, since societies (and their ecologies) vary so much; and in the third place the tacit assumptions of Bachofen's theory (for example, that kinship is fundamentally biological, and only derivatively social) are the assumptions of his own society and kinship system, not always shared with the societies to be studied. The anthropologists also note Bachofen's heavy reliance upon myth and heroic-genealogy: the classicist should add that the reliance is often placed upon the most sensationalist version, which is like reconstructing modem physics from the most shocking mstances of Science Fiction. There is not the slightest need to rehearse the century of controversy which followed, but it will be useful to consider some results of work in both fields which have transformed anthropology and classical studies since Bachofen's time. In anthropology there has been much welcome discrimination, and more factual investigation: descent is discriminated from kinship, authority in the domestic from authority in the political sphere; the biological and social are not necessarily correlated, and so forth. This means that 'kinship' now designates a social relationship without the assumption of biological correlation, just as it did (not

4

INTRODUCTION

many centuries ago) in our own culture, where a filius nuUius, although he 'had no father' was by no means supposed to be the result of parthenogenesis. Kinship is then a reckoning of closer or more remote socially recognised consanguinity with oneself or one's spouse: the social recognition almost always excludes some biological relations and includes some non-biological ones, and in many cases (probably most) reckons through both male and female links, including both the mother and the father, the daughter and the son. Anthropology seems to be satisfied that all societies do in fact reckon kinship, when kinship is thus defined, only some societies on the other hand reckon descent. In this sense, descent is the rule by which a unit of consanguineally related persons is formed and by which new members are recruited: and this rule may be unilinear or bilinear; if unilinear it is either patrilinear or matrilinear. Since we are now dealing with a rule of law in the society concerned, we have to distinguish various ways in (Which the law may be applied on the one hand from the cases where such law is absent on the other. In reckoning his kin, a man may be able to trace his descent in the direct male or direct female line or both, but unless this descent is legally recognised in his society, descent does not constitute a descent unit. A descent unit thus adds to the social recognition of kinship a principle systematically applied; a descent group further adds corporate action of the members-in self-government, ritual ownership, or similar matters. Now it seems to be certain that all Greeks reckoned kinship and that some Greeks at least reckoned descent, possessing descent groups named typically by nouns with the suffix-t8~~. In Athens, kinship reckoning was bilateral, descent reckoning patrilinear; kinship reckoning was the subject not only of law in the general sense but of specific statute which set jural limits on the reckoning for certain purposes. Descent reckoning on the other hand was a matter of religion and politics. In other words the Athenians apparently discovered for themselves, and applied, the discriminations discovered for other peoples by anthropologists, and more besides. On the classical side, the past century has seen a great increase of material due to the recuvery and.._~tudy of inscriptions and papyri: these include new information about both kinship reckoning and descent groups, as well as state law. A number of inscriptions are publications by descent groups, others contain kinship reckoning beyond the father or parents, and we can to some extent analyse different attitudes in these publications at different periods. In the study of literature and

INTRODUCTION

5

mythography, the collection and ordering of fragments have greatly increased our knowledge of how historiography developed, the interrelations of the various genres at different times, and the relations of historiography to other departments of literature-which poetic sources were accepted as authoritative, and so forth. It is no longer possible to take comedy, or Hellenistic and Roman sensationalism,1as containing the truer tradition-though their statements are often more 'primitive' than those of our other sources, this is not the sense of primitive' which is relevant to our enquiries. If therefore we wish to discover the relationship between kinship and descent in Greek life, and the genealogising in literature, and if we wish to use the results of anthropology, we have to apply the data of anthropology to the classical evidence in the conditions of the state of knowledge and procedure now attained by each of the two disciplines. For anthropological procedure, fieldwork is of course fundamental; for classical procedure, the texts: and while these look very different superficially, the question common to both is the nature, characteristics and reliability of the informant. In this area of procedure, the two disciplines converge most closely where the classical material provides ancient fieldwork reports. One of these is included in the material considered in this book, and here a more general examination is in place. Greek ethnography began as a department of history in the work of Hekataios of Miletos around the turn of the sixth and fifth centuries, and its early period may be conveniently studied in the ethnographic portions of Herodotus. We find a systematic differentiation between what Herodotus saw for himself, and what was told him; and within the latter kind of report distinctions are made between informants of different kinds. Herodotus is at his worst in his account of Egypt, where he seems to have misapprehended the nature of the language difficulty and been fundamentally misled by information received from Greeks domiciled in Egypt; on peoples by whose civilisations he was less impressed he is a much better reporter. This early period of ethnography also included descriptions of outstanding institutions in various parts and states of Greece. This is not very prominent in Herodotus, but develops greatly in the fourth century, and our fieldwork report comes from the earlier part of this development. It is a description and interpretation by Ephoros of the agela institution in Crete. (The agela is as it were intermediate between the age-regiment and the kinship group of warriors.) Ephoros was the first to write a history of Greece, and his voluminous work, though often and severely 1

6

INTRODUCTION

crititjsed by the ancients, remained dominant for the general reader and in the schools: very many of our leading ideas on the general course of Greek history still derive ultimately from his constructions. His report on the agela commits every sin (but one) known to modem anthropological pr~edure: it is selective, generalised, unstatistical, prejudiced, outraged, but not embroidered with speculative detail. It describes a ritual partly public and accessible to observation, and partly secret and accessible only to interpretation, and the interpretation provides the terms in which the observations are reported. Nevertheless, the systematic distinction practised by Herodotus between direct observation and reports by informants is so well-established that it is taken for granted by Ephoros, and it is a straightforward matter to disentangle his report of things seen from his interpretation, and to note that the things seen are inconsistent with the interpretation-and Ephoros himself emphasizes that the Cretan terminology for the participants in the rifoal is inconsistent with his interpretation. The report of things seen is both detailed and accurate, and can easily be read or restated in less interpretative language; from it we can gues5 with fair confidence the purposes, if not the events, of the invisible parts of the ritual. Moreover, the sequence of visible events in the ritual makes it possible to understand certain myths which have the same sequence of events; and these in tum make it possible for us to understand Ephoros' doctrine of interpretation as being the universally held view of the agela ritual by those Greeks who did not possess this institution, or who had abandoned its usage. Ephoros' fieldwork report, in other words, is not sinful in any simple sense: its faults are due in the main to the improper combination of two accuracies, one in the reporting of things done by the Cretans, one in the reporting of beliefs held by other Greeks: and the strength of the beliefs does not distort the report of things visibly done. Modern anthropology assumes-and has. every ground in modern experience for its assumption-that an interpretative description is bound to distort the report of things seen. The example of even so secondrate an authority as Ephoros shows that we cannot make this assumption for the Greek material: if we wish to allege distortion we must argue the allegation. That is to say, on the crucial anthropological question of the nature and authority of the ancient informant, it is the procedures and results of classical scholarship which must be dominant, setting aside the assumptions of anthropology and using them only to sharpen its own cautions. This conclusion gives us at least a toe-hold in our progress to the next

INTRODUCTION

7

problem. In applying the results and procedures of one discipline to the material of another, it is (to say the least) convenient if the first discipline can offer a general structure of definitions and logical models within which the material can be experimentally placed. 1 Bu:t modem anthropology is divided on precisely this question of whether general definitions anci logical models are proper to its present stage of knowledge; and the division is the more baffling to the non-anthropologist because. of the tacit metaphysics involved. 2 The American school searches for definitions and models, the British systematically avoids them; American anthropology speaks naturally (and to some extent systematically) of a group controlling its members; the British prefer to think of members maintaining their group; the Americans have in mind two separable realities, the group as such, which is the actively real, arid the members who are more or less passive; the British see the realities as inseparable, the group only existing in so far as it exists within the actions of its members, who are the active reality, with 'the group' as a passive result. Plainly, there can be no question of compromise or combination in these metaphysical matters: either the one or the other must be the assumption upon which definitions and logical models are erected. There are two objections to the separatist or pre-Abelardian metaphysic: one is-on the evidence of the existence of that metaphysic--controversial: namely that it is not true to the facts. This controversy we need not press; the other. objection is that the separatist view inhibits enquiry. If members maintain their group, we inunediately ask why and how, and enquiry proceeds; if the group controls its members these questions simply do not arise: at best we can ask whether the members show any signs of wriggling or escape, or at worst we may flee to abstract nouns of potentiality and tension: and potential propositions cannot, by their nature, be controlled by actual evidence. Now it is obvious that the Greeks not only maintained their various groupings very actively, but that they modified and revolutionised them quite frequently, whether in matters of kinship and descent, or in other departments of life, law, and literature. In applying anthropology to ancient Greek material therefore the material itself demands the nonseparatist metaphysic. This entails our deprivation of the definitions and logical models of the American school, and means that we have no 1 This is available for the discussion of the Athenian legal system: see chapter 3 (II) below. 3 The following rough generalisation is of course unjust, but true enough for the point to be made here.

8

INTRODUCTION

general framework within which the Greek material can be experimentally placed. This means that the Greek material. is sui generis, not at the moment by its own nature but because of the present state of anthropological. knowledge and theory. This is why l have called this book Studies in Greek Genealogy and not in Greek Kinship and Descent, hoping thereby to indicate that it is a presentation of material., suitable indeed for anthropological. treatment when anthropology can handle it, but at present prepared in the main, by classical procedures. I have tried to give as wide a selection as possible of the different kinds of Greek material., and there is no attempt to be exhaustive in any kind; there are al.so some omissions of kinds. I have not included theoretical. literature proper, such as the notoriously difficult statement by Dikaiarchos on the development of the Greek descent group; nor have I treated any of the specimens of the descent lines stretching from the Heroic Age to the historical. period: I hope to deal with these in other work. In Chapter II are collected genealogies of four types, all being simple examples in the sense that it is not seriously doubtful what the evidence is. The first is a genealogy reconstructed from 40 inscriptions at Epidauros, probably the most extensive genealogy of this epigraphic type. The second is a genealogy reconstructed from a single inscription at Hal.ikarnassos: this is a historiographic and not an archival. document, and the degree or amount of forgery or reconstruction in the inscription has to be considered. The third is a systematic fictitious genealogy constructed by Hellanikos in the fifth centur)r for the heroic kings of Troy, and here of course it is the structural. doctrine which has to be discussed. The fourth is of literary origin and is given with its inheritance law in the history of Corinth: we have to consider to what genre of historiography it belongs. In Chapter III an example of law-court material. is considered and the genealogy of the family concerned, the Bouselidai, as far as possible reconstructed. Here there are problems of what the evidence is, but this question is still a matter of particulars: general questions (of the mendacity of litigants and so forth) urged by Wyse in his standard commentary on Isaios are set aside and replaced by a study of the informants and their interests and intentions. General questions arise in Chapter IV, where there is an attempt to collect together the Athenian statutes on family law, and to consider the degree of completeness of the evidence in this field. This is a wider subject than kinship and descent, and gives something of their context; and the primary general questions are those of law and legal system,_ as

INTRODUCTION

9

the tenninology in which the kinship structure is stated, and by which it is limited. A particularly interesting question here is whether it is useful and illuminating to employ the anthropologi~al categories of kinship and descent as subdividing Athenian family law: in consequence this chapter draws on three disciplines. The final chapter explores the relationShip between a single Athenian descent group, the Kephalidai, and the genealogical treatment of Kephalos, their eponym, in literature. In other words, it is a case-study, as detailed and particular as the material permits, in the general problem of the relation between Literature and Life in the domain of genealogy. Three out of the four studies thus concentrate on Athenian material, because for Athens we have most information. But there is no attempt to consider the tribes, phratries and clans either of political or pre-political Athens, nor to compare Athenian institutions systematically with those of other Greek states. The reason is that. before anything which is both new and useful can be said on these matters, many more special studies of the nature of the evidence ate required. These requirements, in an ideal sense, may be summarised: (a) studies, by place and date, of historical genealogical material, including nomenclature conventions (use of patronymics etc.). At first, these should arrange the material in chronological order state by state (except that, where there is little material, closely-related states may be grouped together,· e.g .. the several states in Crete): the aim should be to elicit characteristics in different periods and places. Th.e second stage should aim at accurate generalisation of the observed phenomena; theory and historical reconstruction should be reserved for a third or later stage of work. (bj studies (again by place and date) of family law including inheritance law, and of kinship terminology. The same three stages should in general be observed, but the greater complexity of the material will require modifications of method in order to (a) elicit exactitude of the meaning of the evidence by comparison with laws of other states; (b) show the relationship, if any is discernible, between the historical genealogical material and the legal material. (c) similar studies of historical descent units. Here the stages of work should be more strictly observed, since it has hitherto been too customary to start from ancient theoretical statements without chronological differentiation, and proceed thence to the detailed facts ..This custom should be systematicaUy reversed.

'IO

INTRODUCTION

(d) studies of theoretical documents. These fall roughly into two classes: theories of development in particular states, and theories of wider scope, either for Greece in general, or of political societies in general, or of comparison of institutions (for example between Athens and Egypt in Hekataios of Abdera). Much of.this material consists of definitions of words in the lexicographers, and its handling requires (in addition to classical procedures) some appreciation of the considerations usedin attempting comparable definitions in modem anthropology. The aim should be to elicit a history of ancient anthropological theory in its various periods and genres, and this will be a long and controversial task. As a beginning; we badly need a complete and well-annotated edition of the fragments of the pioneer work of Aristophanes of Byzantium, On Kinship Terminowgy. (e) the study of genealogical fictions by period, genre, and doctrine. This of course is the most difficult department of the subject, the aim being to disentangle statements due to the literary genre, to anthropological theory, to propaganda, to historiographic theory, to the influence and pressure of descent groups in matters of cult etc., to isolate the residue not accounted for by these causes, and to account for it. A later stage will of course be to compare and generalise periods, genres, theories, influences, and finally the residues. All these fields of study, even the most difficult, are however contained within Greek history; the other department of that subject with which they are most closely connected is Greek historiography, and technically with Greek chronography. The extension of Greek history to include matters which, in the study of contemporary communities, lie in the· social sciences other than history, raises problems of method about which we should be as exact as possible. In the first place, the Greeks had their own social sciences in the full sense of the term: learned disciplines with acknowledged principles and bodies of method. Since a great deal of our evidential material comes to us after its learned treatment, one of our major tasks is to understand these principles and methods, so that we can distinguish what is owed to them, and what is owed to the facts so treated, in the evidence available. And, speaking roughly and generally, it must be confessed that the Greek social sciences are only just now becoming comprehensible with the rise of the modern social sciences and their instrumenta cognoscendi. Fortunately, the exactitude we require does not demand an examination

INTRODUCTION

II

of something which does not yet exist-the underlying philosophy of the modem social° sciences. We need only to consider briefly the principal example of the instrwnents, and the one basic notion which acts as the motor of principle: these are the Model Technique, and the notion of System. The Model Technique is in fact widely known in classical studies; but for our purposes has to be exactly discriminated from something else with which it was in ancient times, and is nowadays, often associated. Somewhere in his autobiography, Sir Winston Churchill tells how, on his first making the acquaintance of Latin grammar, his commonsense revolted against the concept of a vocative of mensa. And of course, unless we are dulled by habit, everyone's com.monsense revolts: and from failure to understand why we are taught that mensa has a vocative, we are left with an unexamined sediment of belief that the Romans upon occasion invoked tables, or treated tables anthropomorphically. But if we examine this sediment, or if we examine the Romans, we discover first that our conunonsense still revolts, and second, that the Romans were under no misapprehension about the nature of tables. The vocative of mensa is, in fact, a model entity and not a real one; the sediment of belief is due to a degeneration of a teaching tradition which utterly confuses two normally discriminated me~nings of the verb 'to be'. I do not know who first established mensa as the model noun of the first declension, but it is possible to guess why it was established: to impress upon the infant English mind that names of things had, in Latin, grammatical genders-in other words, mensa as a paradigm was, in its time, a weapon against another instance of anthropomorphism, the confusion of gender and sex. Whether or not this weapon is still required, the degenerative use of mensa to inculcate a false belief about the Roman view of tables is clearly to be deplored. The declension of mensa is then a Model: and like all models is only an approximation to reality: its purpose is to prepare the mind to receive and handle real evidence. Certainly, a Model is made out of knowledge which has already been acquired, but it does not look towards that past process of acquisition: quite the contrary, its formation is the act of preparing for future work: the purpose of teaching 0 mensa! is to prepare the child to recognise actual instances of the use of the vocative in first declension nouns. The purpose of Euclid's model definitions is to prepare the way for his geometrical methods: and that his definitions and axioms are incomplete for his purposes is a fault within his model, not an error in his relating of the model to reality. On the other hand, Parmenides'

12

INTRODUCTION

model of reality is incapable of internal development because, in its analysis of the real usages of the verb 'to be', it is false to the facts. In other words, the three examples of mensa, Euclid, and Parmenides are examples not only of Models, but of common errors in their form~tion and use. The example of mensa shows how a model, in a degenerative tradition, may become an instrument of error; the example of Euclid shows how a most imposing model entity may nevertheless be flawed at its root, by simple inadvertence; the example of Parmenides shows how a model may be incapable of future work because, looking too eagerly forward, it has neglected knowledge already available of the material out of which it is made. But all such errors can be easily remedied within the discipline concerned, so long as another is not also present: and this other is that, commonly but unfairly, justified by appeal to Plato. A Model not only prepares the mind to receive and handle evidence to be encountered in the future: it also liberates the mind from direct dependence on the single and several instances of evidence acquired in the past: it is more perfect and orderly than those instances. The error commonly ascribed to Plato is that the quality of freedom or absolUtion given by a good and well-made Model to the enquiring mind is translated, as it were, into a quality of absoluteness attributed to the Model itself, so that it, and each of its parts, are taken as more true than the knowledge out of which they are formed: 0 mensa becomes The Vocative of first declension nouns, and Truth }?ecomes truer than true statements. Now if we know that we are speaking of Model entities, these statements about The Vocative or Truth are means of making these Model entities clearer to our minds; if we do not know that we are speaking of Models, the statements immediately degenerate into a sort of vulgar intellectual idolatry: and it is this that is commonly and unfairly justified by appeal to Plato. One of the major questions therefore in dealing with material derived from the Greek social sciences is to discover how the GI'.eeks conceived of the Models which they certainly formed and used: did they in fact practise a vulgar intellectual idolatry (or did some of them do so), or were they aware as are modern mathematicians of the nature of a model; or were they, for the most part, uneasily and controversially somewhere between these extremes, as are-typically-the modern social sciences? This i.S, in large part, a question more exactly to be formulated in a historical sense: how did the Greek inodel technique, and awareness of its nature and usability, develop-in general, and in particular disciplines

INTRODUCTION

13

-from the sixth century onward? Plainly, this is a question which could not be asked until the modem social sciences had, in their turn, become aware of the nature and uses of Models in their own disciplines, and in Chapter II we shall in fad be conducting an experimental enquiry into this question. Beginning with a genealogy which is derived entirely from inscriptions and has not passed through the Greek social sciences, we find a number of male descent lines, quite as might be expected for its place and period (early Roman Epidauros): up to this point we might say that our hazy but generally accepted Model of the structure of the wealthier class in a Greek community works for this evidence. But we also find a direct female descent line recognised and marked by a nomenclature cycle: the evidence is quite certain, and the fact is astounding ~nothing in our hazy Model has prepared us for it. Our hazy Model is, that is to say, not perfonning the main function of a Model, and we must return to the ancient evidence (of all kinds), with the object of trying to form a better one. And we begin by -examining three more simple genealogies to discover something of the models used by the Greeks, so that we can get the measure, to some extent, of the influence of these ancient models on our own. These three genealogies are models of different kinds: that from Halikarnassos amounts to a forgery, since it is a reconstruction masquerading as a record; but the principle of the reconstruction is an inheritance law for which this forgery is valid evidence because it is based on it. The Trojan genealogy is a fiction, an invention made to illustrate a doctrine about heroic genealogical structure: it is the doctrine which is the Model here, and one derived from the same kind of evidence as our own hazy Model whose weaknesses were shown by the Epidaurian evidence. But Hellanikos' model, as instantiated in his Trojan genealogy, is strong where ours is weak: -using his, we do not find ourselves unprepared in face of the Epidaurian evidence, even though we remain far from a full comprehension of it. Moreover, when we examine the notation he uses in his instance, it becomes obvious _that he knew exactly what he was doing: his doctrine of this genealogical structure was as clear and simple as, and more flexible and realistic than, the corresponding modern anthropological model of 'cross cousin marriage' or 'two-divisional (two-section) structure'. The fourth simple genealogy, the Corinthian, is a model of quite a different kind, made by the present about the past within a historical continuum, not by observers or the learned, but by Corinthians who had to act _in the present under the shadow of their past, and who had therefore so to explain their past that the present was possible. On this basis, the learned proceed to comment and interpret,

INTRODUCTION

and it is their versions which we have to analyse, identifying and isolating the historiographic or chronographic doctrines of Apollodoros and Ephoros, nntil the nature of the legal model made by the Corinthians themselves becomes clear. 1 The learned Model is then an instrumentum cognoscendi, using knowledge acquired in the past to prepare for the acquiring of knowledge in the future: it is well_ made, apart from its positive qualities, if it avoids all the sins of learning-suppressio veri, suggestio falsi, preference of immediate or personal advantage, irrationality, and so forth. The legal Model as produced by the Corinthians on the other hand is an instrumentum vivendi, using actions performed in the past to prepare for and validate actions to be perfonned now or in the future: and it is these actions and the community that performs them which are importantto avoid their betrayal suppressio veri and the rest may be necessary: and it is not for the learned, everi in words, to exact payment of the bill which fate will certainly present to makers and users of this kind of model, for the learned have not their responsibilities. Our task is to make ourselves competent to distinguish between the Model which is an instrumentum cognoscendi, and the Model which is an instrumentum .vivendi, to be exact in describing each kind and in elucidating its Greek history, and precise in observing the differences between them, and their influences upon one another. By the measure to which we succeed in this relatively modest aim we may be building better than we know, for we shall be attacking in our own way a problem which is a sore trial to many of the modem social sciences: we need only cite the permanent confusion in economics between instrumenta cognoscendi and instrumenta vivendi. In this department of our study therefore we have the opportunity to make a contribution to that whole to which all the human and social sciences are tributaries. This whole {of which I have just spoken) is one of the many notions of System with which we operate-usually inarticulately-in both life and learning. Here the primary difficulty is to recognise what we are doing; once the recognition exists, the demand for discrimination and principles can be rationally hand.led. The most general distinction between Systems is that some are open, some are closed, and some are both. If we take the whole, of which I have just spoken, as the presently existing body of knowledge about the behaviour and aspirations of 1 The chronography of the Corinthian genealogy will be treated in a future work.

INTRODUCTION

15

individual and social humanity, then that System is closed in time to the pre5ent moment, and closed in the finitude of its coverage. But if we open the System in time to the future, to some not yet existing body of knowledge, we also open it in scope, to some coverage not yet known. The greatest misunderstandings about Systems arise when one conceived as open is read as closed, and conversely; and many errors of method arise out of lack of proper consideration about. whether some System should be, for the purposes concerned, open or closed. For example, the widely-used division of imaginative oral literatures into 'myth, legend, and folk-tale' is a closed system: a narrative which is not folk-tale must be legend or myth, and so forth. Another closed system is the anthropological doctrine of 'functionalism'; and so are all systems of strict correlation. The great advantage of a closed system is that a zero entry under @Y of its heads has implications for entries elsewhere: in such systems it is necessary, as well as legitimate, to argue from silence. The great .difficulty of such systems is that of making sure that they are appropriate to their subject-matter-that it is, in fact, as limited and rational as the ·~ystem itself. Conversely, the great advantage of an open system is usually its hospitality to reality; its disadvantages .are two: its internal incoherence, and the appearance of nil entries from which nothing can ·be argued. A third kind of System is exemplified, in the human and social sciences, by a system of law, which is limited or closed in scope, and open in time. ·This is the most elegant and complex of the three kinds of system, and :t>y far the most difficult to operate. It is a question whether the Greeks had achieved such a notion, and this question is raised in chapters three and four, where Athenian family law from Solon to the fourth century ~is discussed. The collection of ev.idence here is intended to be exhaustive, and I have tried also to be exhaustive in showing where the evidence =leads out to larger questions: the general conclusion is that by the fourth 'Century the Athenians were at grips with all the difficulties which necessarily arise at the beginning of such a system's formation. In a sense therefore the story of what the ancient world did towards the ,formation of such a system starts where chapter four ends, about 330 BC, and it is much to be hoped that there will emerge a field of special studies )in. classical and Hellenistic law which will develop this theme. Chapter five discusses another example of this kind of system, limited .in subject-matter and open in time: the literary tradition of a genealogy, ·:!15 an instance of the development and use of genealogical theory in ancient learning and art. Here the notion of system is a modern instru-

16

INTRODUCTION

mentum cognoscendi applied to the ancient evidence, and embraces many syb-systems closed both in scope and time. Such sub-systems are what Homer, or Pherekydes; or late romance, said about the heroic genealogy concerned; and while these sub-systems are indeed closed in scope and time, they are open in two other respects: gaps in our information, uncertainty about the rationality of the authors on this particular subject. The identification of entries as zero (with implications) or nil (with no legitimate inferences possible) becomes in these circumstances a very nice problem indeed, involving a proper judgement of the evidence from each sub-system, its relation to others, and to the system as a whole-obviously a wonderfully controversial field, but one in which quite large uncertainties can be rapidly narrowed by a few parallel studies, for accumulation of converging evidence is plainly most cogent in circumstances like these. Ideally, we should be so able to handle the mass of heroic genealogical material that we could assign to a certain period or author in a certain genre all the elements of literary origin, and be left with a non-literary residue which we could then inspect for pre-literary elements. Even if this ideal is unrealisable, it is still, at our present stage of understanding, the aim of handling this material. Any advance towards it will greatly increase our understanding of the an< ient social sciences, of the selfknowledge of ancient Greek and Hellenistic communities, and of the conditions under which social science is possible. In these most systematic chapters I have endeavoured to give· the ancient evidence in full, though there will certainly be unintended gaps: I should be grateful for supplements, so that imbalance in the treatment of the material may be remedied as soon as possible. Also, I hope that the collections of Fragments and Testimonia. in chapters four and five will save readers some time in library work. On the other hand, I am afraid that references to modern authorities are meagre and sparse. 1 This arises not from agreement or disagreement with their findings (where they are known to me) but for two principal and allied reasons. First, I am not concerned in the following chapters to give an exhaustive and many-sided treatment of the evidence considered, but to develop a particular mode of work which has only become possible in the past generation and which is only one of many convergent approaches: to note exactly how convergent would in fact be a study of modern scholar1 The exception is of course Jacoby: Die FYagmente de,- griechischen HistOt'ikeY; all fragments quoted are referenced by the number of the author then by the number of the fragment.

INTRODUCTION

17

ship instead of direct work on the ancient evidence. Such a study wonld be either partial or otherwise impertinent, and I have therefore avoided it as completely as possible. Secondly-unless one speaks from Olympian heights beyond my reach or desire-it is· easy for a conclusion (however well- or ill-based) to develop imperceptibly into a belief and thence into a dogma when supported by agreement; or alternatively for disagreement -which may be quite superficial and arise metely from the difference of road followed in the convergence-to result in narrow or pedantic argument, or tedious explanations of just how different the conclusions are ..Hellenic scholarship studies a whole culture, and over very many 'centuries: there is not only room, but necessity, for many different and .mutually critical and cooperative approaches, and different methods of 'work suited to different aspects of the same material. Many new departments of that scholarship have emerged in the past century, and there are no doubt many more to come, not only because new materials and '~ethods become ayailable, but because 'Greek is like lace: every man gets as much of it as he can' both in extent and depth.

CHAPTER TWO

FOUR SIMPLE GENEALOGIES The following genealogies illustrate the types of our evidence. They are in themselves simple in that the texts are established and need no discussion here; and also in that, first, the pedigrees are self-contained and do not lead us into the vast domains of half-knowledge; and second, while each raises problems of record and intention, the problems of fact are reasonably straightforward. Each genealogy is moreover highly instructive. From the historical· Epidaurian pedigree, we learn that there are genealogical phenomena, even as late as Hellenistic and Roman times, which are inexplicable on our present knowledge, and about which even speculation does not help much. From the Halikarnassian genealogy, which is a sort of forgery, we can reconstruct the inheritance law on which the genealogy· is based. From Hellanikos' Trojan genealogy, whiCh is a sort of fiction, we discover the existence of anthropological theory, the recognition of systems of marriage and kinship, by the earlier part of Hellanikos' working lifetime, together with attempts to create an abstract notation. From the pedigree of the Corinthian kings, which is. a legal and, within limits, a historical document, with satellite religious myths, we obtain glimpses of a history of Dark Age and archaic Greece whiCh does not fit into the rigid categories of the later fifth century and onwards. I. GENEALOGY OF LOCAL EPIDAURIAN GENTRY The genealogy given in Table I consists wholly of historical persons who lived at Epidauros and Corinth from the third century B.C. to the second century A.D. The genealogy is compiled from inscriptions: perhaps none of the persons concerned is mentioned in literature, though the last member of the genealogy (or a relative of his) may have been an acquaintance of Plutarch's, who dedicated one of his works to someone of his name. (I G IV 2 , Prolegomena p. XXXIII, entry under post a. n7). I have chosen this genealogy to represent its type because it is more extensive than many, and the relationships are more often directly stated than in most historical genealogies. The type is that of the historical genealogy, whether known from literature or inscriptions or both. In this case, the table is compiled ~rom

GENEALOGY OF LOCAL EPIDAURIAN GENTRY

19

,40 inscriptions, 35 of which are from the temple of Asklepios at Epidauros. The table follows, in all but a few details, that given in I G IV 2 p. XXV:

the most important divergence is that, where relationships are inferred from, and not stated in, the inscriptions, I have shown these by dotted :instead of continuous lines. The inferences are for the -most part highly probable, but they are inferences still, and are therefore to be discriminated from the relationships known from direct evidence. (All genealogical tables compiled from inscriptions, or from inscriptions and literature, should show this discrimination as exactly as possible.) I have shown marriages by the equals sign; and where these are inferred· the sign is in parentheses. Under each name in the table I have listed the inscriptions, by number in I G IV 2, in which the name appears. In many cases, the name is that of the father of the subject of the inscription,.·and this is indicated simply by the entry (patronymic) after the number of the inscription. Otherwise the entries refer_ to the actions of the persons concerned: their commendations of their relatives to Asklepios, or their reception of public honours :etc. The period covered by the genealogy is approximately from the time when Epidauros joined the Achaean League in 243 BC to the rise of the ;Statilii in Epidauros about the middle of the first century AD, when .the Cornelii of this genealogy emigrated to Corinth, where they can be .traced until the second century. The formation of the Achaean League was accompanied, for Epidauros, by a certain reorganisation and tidying ,up of its affairs with neighbouring communities, marked by the arbi.tration of territorial disputes (I G IV 2 71), and the appointment of Epidaurian proxenoi by Megara (I G VII 13) and Argos (see I G IV 2 224). The various intermarrying lineages of this genealogy seem to represent some of the Epidaurian families who were in charge of affairs as a result of these years of settlement and organisation, and who retained that position for some ten or more generations. The lineages known are: A. represented only by Nikaretos father of Chariko I, so we do not know whether he is related to any of the other lineages or, if independent, ·anything about his own. B. represented by Telephanes and the two Telemachoi, with the usual repetition of names in alternate generations. This lineage may have previously been of importance if T]elephanes is to be read in IV 2 ro.

20

FOUR SIMPLE GENEALOGIES

r. represented only by Sokrates father of Sokrateia. But this name recurs fairly frequently, which suggests an old and prominent lineage: in the fifth or fourth century, a Sokrates IV 2 I8I and r82; in the fourth third century, a hieronmemon Sokratidas IV 2 I55; in the second or first century, an athlete Sokrates son of Sokrates son of Apollonios IV 2 629; irt the first century BC Sokrates son of Ti.mokrates IV 2 346; in the first century AD Sokratidas husband of Pamphila the historian (Suidas). ti. represented by Sodamos I and the two Euklippoi. It is not clear whether, or how, this lineage was related to 0, where the name Sodamos once recurs. E. represented only by Hieronas father of Ladama. We do not know if he was related to Hierokleia of lineage Z. F. a distinguished lineage represented by seventeen male members, between whom five of the relationships are inferred. All are very probable, except perhaps that Archedamos I was the father of Euanthes I. But I have added this possibility because his son Nikatas was made hereditary proxenos of Megara, and Laphanta II of this lineage performed some notable service to Megara (IV 2 656). Euanthes llI's public services to his city were rewarded with the equivalent of a peerage in 72/r BC: the Greek cities had no gifts of land to bestow, but could free properties of all taxes and liturgies as a hereditary benefaction, and this was conferred on Euanthes. Five generations later, the lineage acquired Roman citizenship (under Claudius): the last recorded member is two generations later. Z. represented only by Eunomos I, father of Hierokleia. He may have been a close relative of the preceding lineage, or the name Eunomos may have come into that lineage through his daughter. H. an old and distinguished lineage of which we know little: they were hereditary proxenoi of Argos and intermarried with F and 0. 0. the records of this lineage begin late, after the Roman conquest, and the lineage acquires Roman citizenship early: Cornelius Nikatas was twice pt;'iest of Augustus Caesar, and added the name of Caesarea to the older festival of the Apolloneia-Asklepeia. His son was nominal magistrate at the age of four years, and the family later migrated to Corinth. I. represented only by Lysikleides father of Damareta: we do not know if it was closely related to any of the other lineages. IA. the husband of Laphanta III is not recorded: his would be the eleventh lineage if independent of the rest.

or

GENEALOGY OF LOCAL EPIDAURIAN GENTRY

2I

IB. represented only by Dameas, father of Claudia Laphanta. There. is no direct evidence as to whether he was son or son-in-law of Laphanta III: in the former case he would be a member of lineage IA, in the latter either independent of the others or: related to one of them. Plutarch (Q Gr r p. 29r f; IV 2 Prolegomena XIX) records that the people with full political rights at Epidauros numbered at one period r8o men: the remainder of the population was a peasantry called Dustyf eet. In 1907, the population of the approximately corresponding area was about 4,000 souls. If we suppose that the invisible and other imports due to the existence of the temple of Asklepios at this period meant a population of about 5,000 souls, with about 200 with full political rights (4 % of the total, or perhaps as much as ro% of the adult, 20% of the adult male population), then the lineages of this genealogy-assuming two adult males only at ~ny one time to each lineage-represent about a tenth of the body politic. The scantiness of our information could hardly be better illustrated. The genealogy in Table I therefore in no way corresponds to modem genealogies compiled from private family documents or parish registers, and still less to complete genealogies compiled in anthropological field work. The persons of the genealogy number 53, of whom 42 are males and I I are females: all the females and 3r of the males are recorded or inferred as having legitimate offspring, and the husband of one female is unrecorded, so that at least 2r wives are missing from the records. All the females have no recorded sisters; 27 males have no recorded brothers. The source material has of course passed through a double sieve: the circumstances determining the provision of ancient records 9n stone, and the circumstances determining the survival to and recovery of these records in.modern times. Nothing is known of the marriage and inheritance laws of Epidauros, but since a number of the women in this genealogy are dedicators, ~omen in Epidauros could apparently own properly, pay for statues, and generally conduct their own economic affairs. In this context, it is perhaps less surprising than would otherwise be the case that the unifying element in the genealogy is a direct female descent line from Chariko I, Qf which the members bear the names Chariko and Laphanta in alternate ·g~nerations. If Dameas is the son-in-law rather than the son of Laphanta _JII, this female .descent line is kno'Wn for eight generations, and the µtieages, with the principal exceptions of F and 0, are known as this female descent line crosses them. Since no political or property reason can be supposed to account for

22

FOUR SIMPLE GENEALOGIES

this direct female descent line, it is natural to search·· the little that is known of Epidaurian religion for an explanation. So far as I know, there is no parallel phenomenon ih other Greek states, but we know nothing or almost nothing of the women's cults properly speaking: the priestesses of whom we know something are officers of state cults of female divinities, which is another matter entirely. From such knowledge, we should expect that the priestesses of female divinities associated with Asklepios, such as Hygieia, Iaso, Panakeia and so forth would be the wives or sisters of the priests of Asklepios and members of the lineages, not constituting a female descent line of their own. The only Epidaurian religious phenomenon of which we know, and which is not excluded by this consideration:, is the cult of Damia and Au.xesia, ·already old in Herodotus' time, and still recognised in Epidauros (under the names of Mnia and Azosia) from r48-23r AD when dedications were made by priests of Asklepios; by 307 AD the (male) priesthood of Apollo Maleatas is joined with that of the 'Azosian goddesses' in a dedication to Au.x:esia (IV 3 434), a junction of Epidaurian and Ionian (literary) nomenclature which scarcely suggests that the cult was still really alive. The cult statues of Damia and Auxesia described by Herodotus show that childbirth was one of the main concerns of these goddesses; and their cult was recognised by the states of Epidauros and Aigina. The character of the cult however may have prevented state recognition extending so far as to remove it entirely from the domain of women's cults properly speaking. The matter is nevertheless, in the state of our knowledge, of course doubtful, and we can only tentatively suggest that the Chariko-Laphanta line is that of the hereditary priestesses of Mnia and Azosia. Not very long after the end of the records of this line with Claudia Laphanta (whose cousins were young athletes in 32 or 33 AD), dedications to these goddesses by the priest of Asklepios begin (in 148 AD), which may mean that the female descent line had become extinct, or that its right of inheritance was no longer recognised by the state, and its privileges either extinguished or transferred elsewhere. We have no means of knowing how old the cult might be: but that Herodotus was right in believing it of considerable antiquity is shown by the fact that the first month of the Epidaurian year was Azosios, while Asklepios did not give his name to a month. This. presumably means that the cult of Mnia and Azosfa was (speaking generally) as old as the polis, the organisation of Epidauros as a state with a body politic, about the eighth or seventh century. Under what circumstances a women's cult could then receive state recognition we do not know, especially

GENEALOGY OF LOCAL EPIDAURIAN GENTRY

23

since at that time (apparently, it would seem to follow) the cult of Asklepios was not so recoITTtised, and if it then existed must have been a private, presumably a gentilicial, cult. The lineages of the Epidaurian genealogy do not include any religious information in their records (the priesthood of Asklepios held by Kleaichmidas II is a political office). In a sense, this is inevitable: only philAchaean or philo-Roman lineages would be keeping their records on stone in these times, and such up to date politics are difficult and absorbing, leaving little opportunity (or even perhaps liking) for more traditional and spiritual matters. Yet these lineages were, so far as we know, native to Epidauros, not incomers or half-incomers like the Statilii, and while they were by no means averse to developing their festival and the cult of. Asklepios to assist the tourist trade, they may also at the same time have bee~ not displeased to allow some of their womenfolk to keep up the old customs. But all this is speculation: the important point is that as soon as we look at a genealogy even of the later historical period which is relatively extensive and directly evidenced, we meet genealogical phenomena for which there is no certain explanation: a direct female descent line in Dorian city in Hellenistic and Roman times is the last thing we should expect.

a

II. THE PRIESTS OF POSEIDON AT HALIKARNASSOS Table II shows a genealogy compiled from the inscription Dittehberger ·Sylloge3 1020. This stone was cut in the first century BC, when an earlier record was copied. It is a list of the priests of Poseidon at Halikarnassos, each entry consisting of the priest's name, his father's name, and a number of years. ·The first entry is that of Telamon son of Poseidon, 12 years: that is to say, the list begins at the time of the colonisation of Halikarnassos from Troizen. After the twenty-third entry in the ·left-hand column the stone is broken; the. right-hand column contains four entries from, apparently, later centuries. We have ·no literary tradition of any date for the foundatiOn of Halikarnassos, but even if we take the low Ephoran date for the culmination of the Return in !-070/69, the 395 years of the surviving twenty-three entries will only take us down to about 675/4 BC, well above the historical horizon: the ~ain problem of this genealogy is therefore whether, or in what sense, it is a forgery. The years attributed to the priests show that the priesthood was held for life; and the fact that the priests are taken to be members of a single

24

FOUR SIMPLE GENEALOGIES

genealogy shows that the priesthood was hereditary. The order of the names, together with their patronymics, shows that the heirs were, wher~ possible, within the generation: ~fter Telamon, his three sons succeed, then three grandsons; next a great-grandson, an unlmown, and another great-grandson; and then a. great-great-grandson. Dittenberger's table, on which Table II is based, follows out this principle. Table II differs from Dittenberger's table in an endeavour to determine the principle of inheritance more closely. In Athens, the inheritance of property was confined (in the first instance of collateral heirs) to agnates as far as the cousin's son, that is, of the fifth degree or less. The Halikamassian limit cannot have been so narrow, for the tenth priest Alkyoneus II (a great-grandson of Telamon) is succeeded by his second cousin's son Polykritos, an agnate.of the seventh degree. There is, however, no reason from the Halikarnassian list to suppose that the rights of inheritance extended beyond the seventh degree: there are apparently no more priests of the lineage of Alkyoneus II (and we have no reason to suppose he had no sons), while on ,the other hand the lineage of the sixteenth priest, Androsthenes, apparently continues to provide the historical priests. The first of these, Athenippos, has an ancestry of three generations, which presumably means that his great-grandfather was identifiable from the list, i.e. himself a priest, so that Athenippos succeeded either his father's. cousin, or his own second cousin. 'fable II is therefore compiled on the assumption that every priest was an agnate of the seventh degree or less to his predecessor, and the inferred relationships are: (9) Hipparchos son of Aithaleus was a great-grandson of Telamon. His predecessor and successqr are both great-grandsons, and so far the inference is certain. (r2) Phyleus is the son of Hipparchos, and therefore ex hypothesi cannot be more distant than 7 degrees from his predecessor Polykritos: the two fathers (Hipparchds and Nesiotes) therefore __cannot be more distant than 5 degrees: this means that Aithaleus, father of Hipparchos, must be brother (2 degrees) and not cousin (4 degrees) to Hyrieus father of N esiotes. (r4) Althephos and (r5) Poseidonios come between (r3) Andron and his son (r6) Androsthenes, and therefore either belong to Andron's generation and are younger in years than he, or belong to Androsthenes' generation and are older in years than he is. There is no means of deciding between these possibilities: Table II, exempli gratia, makes both men

Table I A.

r.

B.

I.

E.

!>..

F.

Sokrates {patronymic) I

Archedamos

I G VII '3 (patronymic)

241

Telewachos I 241

3.

.

Nikaretos ·(patronymic)

218

I 4.

=

Chaiiko I 218 (comm~nded

by hei daughter)

I

5.

6.

(patronymic}

I

=

Sokrateia

Archedanios {commended by his

221

son) (patronymic) I Euanthes II 221, 222 (dedicator) 649 (patrlnymic)

222

Euklippos I

214, 216, 217, 219

214, 216, 217 and

and 223 (patronymic) 218 (commended by his daughter)

2I9

I

I

(patronymic)

Sodamos I 214 (oorilm.ended by his wife 2:16,.217, 219 (joint dedicator) ?646 (honoured by tbe city)

Euklippos

I II

219 (coin.mended by his

parents)

7.

---1 Archelaos {patroµymic)

246

ChariJ II (commended by her parents)

I

Eunomos II 246 (commended by Damokles son of Damokles, cf. Laphanta I. 223)

I Euanthes III 66 (his •peerage') 6-19 (other honours) 216. 22-1, 656 (patronymic)

217

Hiei"onas

Eunoinos IV

658 (patro-

648 (patronymic)

I Laphanta II = 216 (commended by h· 224 (commends her· 1 656 (honoured by Mf

I

I

Ladania ( 658 (honoured for h~r prudence and

) Euanthes IV 647 (patronymic 648, ?657 (honours)

1-----·-·---------·· -··· _.

holiness) 9.

Polykrates 64 7 (honours) ?654 (president of A-A-C)

I Euaoruos V 6o2

Ttronymic

Tiberius Claudius Nikoteles 101 (patronymic) · 6o2 (dedj statues.of Qaudius and AgriI Sylls 802 (president of the A

IO.

ll.

I --------·--·----·--·

Eunomos III 649 (patronymic)

nymic) 8.

I

Nikatas I G VII i3 (hereditary proxenos of Megara)

I

Telepha.nes (patronymic) 241 (commended by his mother) Telemachos 1n 218

Laphanta I 214,' 218, 223 (dedicator) 216, 217, 219 (joint dedicator)

I

j""

Euauthes I 221 (patronymic)

(commends her Son)

241

I

Eunomos VI IOI (victor at the A-A-C)

I

--····i Tiberius Iulius Si

66o (patronymic 659 (husband of Claudia U

E.

z.

F.

I

'--~~~~~~,I

Euanthes I (patronymic)

Nikatas I G VII 13 (hereditary

j

Euanth~ II

I

her son}

I.

. ----·-·-1 Archelaos 246 (patronymic)

(dedicator) 649 {patronymic) 221, 222

I

I

Eunomos Ill

Eunomos II

~=====649 (patr,nymic) m.ded jarents)

-

246 (commended: by Damokles son of Damokles, d. Laphanta I, 223)

Euanthes III 66 {his 'peerage') 649 -(other honours) 2i6; 224, 656 (patro_nymic)

Hieronas 656 (patro-

10.eanl.os

-----i

Eunoin.os IV 648 (patronymic)

Ladama( 658 (honoured for her prudence and

)Euanthes IV 647. {patronymic 648, ?657 (honours)

22°0

21•

Damareta 2II (joint dedicator)

1

(commends her daughter)

I

170, 220, 251, 650

and 66I (patronymic) 2n (comic.ended by his parents)

IA? = Laphanta III ! 220 (by her mother) i 66r (honours) ·

itronymic)

IB ? Dameas _=

Tiberius Claudius Nikoteles IOI {patronymic) 602 (dedicates statues of_Claudius and Agrippina)

!

__,

citronymicJ

Demophanes II

Eunomos V 6o2

of the

Lysikleides

"' cr:ronymicJ

dedicat~

I

Sy~·~~:..(~:es~~;nt

Dam_ophanes I

Damon 2II (joint

Chariko III

Polykrates 647 (honours) ?654 (president of A-A-C)

I

l•tronymicJ

10.eaichmidas I 220 (patronymic) 22 4 (commended by his wife)

I

1-·-··-·-···-··--·-··-···

holiness)

.,4

Laphanta II 216 (comm.ended. by h. er mother's parents) 224 (commends her husband) 656 (honoured by Megara)

I

nymic) I

IG.eandros 224 (hereditary proxenos of Argos and thearodokos of Zeus Nemeios and Hera Argeia) cf~

Hierokleia 222 (commended by

Sf;m)

(patronymic)

I

Eunomos I 222 (patronymic)

proxenos of Megara)

Archedamos 221 .(commended by his 222

I.

Kleaichmidas cf. 224 (patronymic)

I G Vl·~-~:.~}atronymic) 221.

e.

H.

Archedamos

x ?

I

659 (patronymic)

A-A-C)

.

I

Sodamos II tor, 651 and 652 (patronymic 650 (honours)

I

IG.eaichmidas II 170 (hieromnemon) 25I (priest· of Asklepios}

Gnaeus domelius Nika.tas 653 (patronymic) 651 (honours) 652 (founderofApolloneiaAskl.epeia-Caesarea)

Arche~ochos IOI (president of A-A-C)

l·········-······-·-·····--··-···----·-········1

Eunomos VI 101 (victor at the A-A-C)

Tiberius Iulius Sianthes = . 66o (patronymic) 659 (husband of Claudia Laphanta)

I

Claudia Laphanta IV 659 (honours)

TiQerius Iulius Claudlanus 660 (honours)

Gnaeus ~rnelius Pulcher 653 (aged 4: at the A-A-C) IOI (vic~r at the A-A-C) Syll 3 802 {president of the Isthm.ia}

I

Tiberius Cornelius Pulcher I G IV1 1600

I

Gnaeus ComeliU.s .Fabia Pulcher I G IV1 795, x6oo, 16oI

Diodoros IOI (victor·_at th1 A-A-C)

A. (For text see Ditt SyU')

Poseidon

I I ----,

(I) Telamon: 12y

I.

I 2. (z) Antidios: 27Y

I

3. (S) Telamon: 22y

(4) Alkyoneus: 12y

·······--------·-·······-···· (6) Hyz{eus: Sy

I

(8) Nesiotes: 29y

4.

I

(3) Hyperes: gy

I

AithJeus

(7) Anthas: 19y

I

I

(IZ) Phyleus: 19y

I 6. (I3) Andron: 2sy

i

Phyleus

I

7. (I6) Androsthenes: 23y I

Hieron

l

Dioskourides

I

(I7) Hipparchos: 4y .

Theodoros

I

I

g. (zo) Euandros: 22y IO. (z3) •.... is: 3oy

(ZI) Demophilos: 7y

~ tzl en

Aristeas

I

(I4) Althephos: 14y

~

I

~

(IS) Poseidonios: 21y

I

(I8) Demetrios: 9Y

i:·-··--·-............... __..............T...........................................I

8. Andron

Kratinos

I

I

(I9) Philistos: IJY

(zz) Euk:rates: IJY

~ ~ ...... ......

"Ii 0 en tzl .....

t:!

0

z ~

~ ~

B. Androsthenes

I

Atheruppos

I

t. . . . . . . . -.. . . -.. . . . . . . . . . .

Athemppos

i

I) At enippos: soy

"Ii

l-----------..·----------------1---------------------i

S· (II) Polykritos: 2sy

(x

~

I

(IO) Alkyoneus: IJY

(9) Hipparchos: 7Y

~

en en· 0 en

Androsthenes

I

( x a) Poleites: SY

I I

(x 3) Euaion: 28y (X 4) Polites: 27Y (adopted son of Apollonides)

1-.)

(.ll

26

FOUR SIMPLE GENEALOGIES

first cousins of Andron instead of first cousins of his son or second cousins of either. (17) Hipparchos II, (r8) Demetrios, and his son (rg) Philistos come between (r6) Androsthenes anq his (inferred) grandson (20) Euandros: Euandros and Philistos therefore cannot, ex hypothesi, be more than 7 degrees. apart. Since in the previous indeterminable case the nearest possible relationship was given in the table, here (also exempli gratia) the furthest possible is given, so that Euandros is second cousin's son to Philistos; instead we could have made Dioskourides brother to Androsthenes, and Philistos and Euandros second cousins. (21) Demophilos and (22) Eukrates succeed (20) Euandros, but the name and patronymic of the twenty-third priest are lost, so that we have no lower limit. The table makes them first cousins of Euandros, as a guess. We have now to consider the authorship of this genealogy, and its relation to the genealogical source-material or family tradition. The obvious candidate for authorship is the fourth century genealogist Andron of Halikamassos, whose name suggests that he belonged to this family. His fragments (Jae ro) show that he often agreed with Hellanikos, and perhaps a.S often innovated; he also subscribed to Skamon's contention that writing was invented by, or ascribed to, Kekrops' sister-inlaw. This claim to the possibility, or possession, of documentary evidence for the greater part of Heroic and all post-Heroic history throws a somewhat sinister light upon our present inscription: if it was intended to be part of this documentary evidence, it is a forgery. If on the other hand it is intended as a reconstruction based on traditional materials, it is that and nothing worse. Unfortunately, the names are not very convincmg. We should expect a genuine genealogy to resemble, say, that of the ancestors of the Asklepiad Hippokrates, in that it would begin with 'mythic' or at least oldfashioned names, contain epichoric names (like Krisamis) .in its middle portion, and come to names of the normal historical type rather later. But this genealogy continues to use 'mythic' names down to the time of Alkyoneus II, and two generations afterwards already possesses names of the historical type: Dioskourides, Poseidonios, Demetrios; and there are no epichoric names. It would therefore seem doubtful whether the author of this list had much material other than his own inventions for these early generations. It will of course follow that, if he intended limitation of the right

THE PRIESTS OF POSEIDON AT HALI.KARNASSOS

27

of inheritance to agnates of the seventh degree; the author will have been using either the inheritance law of his own time, or the oldest remembered in Halikamassos, and attributing it to this early period, unless there were already established, in Universal History,a doctrine of early Dorian inheritance law. We shall discuss this question in treating the Corinthian genealogy. Ill. HELLANIKOS ON THE QUEENS OF TROY We have now to consider not a sort of forgery, but a sort of fiction, a mythic genealogy. And the same kind of question arises here as in the Halikarnassian case: did Andron invent an inheritance law; did Hellanikos invent a marriage system? I have chosen the Trojan genealogy to represent the type of mythic genealogy because it is the simplest for several reasons. No Greeks claimed descent from it, and therefore we need not suspect the operation of family interest in the variants. The agnatic pedigree is established by Homer: it is a patent fiction partly composed of eponyms, but for our purposes we can accept it as a datum. Oi'.J't'e: 8£ &7to µ1}'t'poc; 't'O y£voc; "Oµl)poc; far as we lmow, Theopompos .is either relying upon both kinship and descent in his own case, and kinship only in his nephew's; or he was relying on kinship only in both cases. Whichever of these is true, the immediate context and circumstance$ of his surviving speech probably mean that it is in his nephew's case that Theopompos is more strict about 'the intention of the legislator,' at least insofar as that could be extracted from the text alone in the fourth century. The Athenian ad hoe courts were, as we have seen, not part of a legal system in which precedent was recognised. It is nevertheless very probable on general grounds that groups or classes of Athenian families had their own customs of interpreting the law, which they would follow so long as they did not have their affairs settled in court. The ad hoe courts on the other hand presumably attempted constantly to proceed from the text of the law alone, understanding this attempt as the principal significance of the oath taken by its members. Consequently, Theopompos' approach would be welcome to the courts, as Isaios no doubt foresaw: but a recourse to the text alone at this level of confidence and logical structure may well have been an innovation. How much of the speech is Isaios and how much Theopompos is therefore a difficult question. We may only suspect that Theopompos supplied the thrust of interest and force of character sufficient to carry off the argument, while Isaios supplied the generalship and enjoyment in the engagement-and that in this combination Theopompos' intelligent appreciation of what his rhetor was doing was the catalyst which makes the speech a unity.

(b) Sositheos We have no such direct information about Sositheos as about Theopompos: we do not even lmow who his rhetor was, except that it was not Demosthenes. He claims to have been on good terms with intimates of Euboulides' homopatric brother Menestheus, and with his homopatric paternal uncle Euktemon who was also Sositheos' own maternal grandfather's brother; and he has a large number of his relatives as witnesses

THE INFORMANTS

75

for him. The fact that our infonnation on Sositheos is not comparable with that on Theopompos does therefore not wholly prevent us from seeing that Sositheos is probably also a member of a group of relatives often acting corporately, but perhaps more loosely organised than Theopompos' corporation, lacking the dragooning of that forceful personality. In his personal qualities and character, Sositheos' litigation shows him pertinacious; and the names of his three younger sons, his account of his own Bouselid descent, and his marrying of his daughter to his nepbew 'so that if they have their health their children may also be related to Hagnias,' show that he was well-affected to his mother's and wife's f3.mily, and perhaps to his wife's potential fortune. His speech falls into four parts: introduction (I-I6}; genealogical (I7-49); the doctrine of the oikos, with legal texts and other matter (50-80) ; and the peroration. The doctrine of the oikos not only occupies the second longest portion of the speech, but permeates the rest; and the main problem of the speech is to discover what this was, and why it was relevant. So long as we do not know this, the speech seems to deserve all the adverse criticism possible-'a: verbose, pretentious, and illproportioned performance'-but some ancient (and perhaps betterinformed) opinion was different: Dionysius of Halikarnassos used the speech to ·exemplify Demosthenes' art. What Sositheos means by an oikos is primarily a male descent line of three or four generations, and secondarily its near kin through daughters of the line. Thirdly, two primary oikoi joined by a fertile marriage are called the oikos (singular) of X and Y, apparently because the issue of the marriage have rights in both the primary oikoi. Primarily then oikos is a term of descent: it is, in fact, the jurally limited kindred of five degrees regarded from the point of view of descent instead of from that of kinship, and therefore taking a narrower view of collaterals. The question is why Sositheos and his rhetor decided to use this means of expounding their contentions. So far as we know, if Sositheos could prove by testimony that Phylomache was of the fifth degree of kinship to Hagnias through Hagnias' father, and that Theopompos was of the same degree through Hagnias' mother, he would (if the courts obeyed the law) have formerly gained the estate for Phylomache and at the present action for her adoptive brother Euboulides III. But on the first occasion the court awarded the estate to Theopompos, and on the second Sositheos avoids mentioning Hagnias' mother at all, and uses the oikos doctrine instead. Our knowledge must therefore be inadequate: or rather,

LAW-COURT SPEECHES: THE BOUSELIDAI

the simple opposition between fifth degree through Hagnias' father and fifth degree through Hagnias' mother cannot cover all the relevant facts considered by the courts and by Sositheos and his rhetor. We have only one more piece of information about Theopompos: that he was agnate (in the stP.cter sense, reckoned through male links only) to Hagnias; and we have already mentioned the possibility that when he speaks of himself as 'cousin's child on the father's side' to Hagnias, he means by 'father's side' that he was an agnate, though he counted degrees of kin through Hagnias' mother. In that case, Theopompos was strengthening and modifying his kinship claim by a claim based on descent. Sositheos' oikos doctrine would prevent such a conflation of titles, and we must suppose that this was his intention. The cases of the Estate of Hagnias therefore turn on a genuine legal problem, the relation between kinship and descent in collateral inheritance within the jurally limited kindred of five degrees. If descent had no place at all in the determination of the heir! but only kinship, the possible classes of heirs would number twenty-four, as follows: A

(r) homopatric brothers; their sons; sons' sons; sons' sons' sons. sons' sons' daus. sons' daus; sons' daus' sons. sons' daus' daus. their daus; daus' sons; daus' sons' sons. daus' sons' daus. daus' daus; daus' daus' sons. daus' daus' dau5. (2) homopatric sisters, similarly. (3) father's homopatric brothers; their sons; sons' sons. sons' daus. their daus; daus' sons. daus' daus. (4) father's homopatric sisters, similarly (5) father's father's homopatric brothers; their sons their daus. (6) father's father's homopatric sisters, similarly. B (r) homometric brothers; and descendants as in A (r) (2) homometric sisters: as in A (2)

THE INFORMANTS

77

(3) father's homometric brothers: as in A (3) (4) father's homometric sisters: as in .A (4) (S) father's father's homometric brothers": as in A (S) (6) father's father's homometric sisters: as in A (6)

c (1) mother's homopatric brothers: as in A (3) (2) mother's homopatric sisters: as in A (4)

(3) (4) (S) (6)

mother's father's homopatric brothers: as in A (S) mother's father's homopatric sisters: as .in A (6) mother's mother's homopatric brothers: as in A (S) mother'.s mother's homopatric sisters: as in A (6)

D (1) mother's· hoinometric brothers (as C r etc.)

(2) (3) (4) (S) (6)

mother's homometric sisters mother's father's homometric brothers mother's father's homometric sisters mother's mother's homometric brothers mother's mother's homometric sisters

Now it is possible-from general sociological rather than from specifically legal considerations-that some or all the members of categories B and D were not regarded as members of the jurally limited kindred. That is to say, descent may have intervened to exclude one half of the classes of relatives reckoned by kinship alone. But if we assume this, we are faced with two questions: (r) whether descent also intervened and to what extent, in class C: e.g. whether a mother's mother's homopatric sister's daughter was excluded; and (2) in view of the general tendency to endogamy within Athenian kindreds, whether in law a mother's brother who was also an agnate (in the stricter sense) was preferred to a mother's brother who was merely a kinsman. Theopompos and Sositheos differ on the conditions of giving an affinnative answer to question (2), and the courts probably agreed with Theopompos: if this is right, then descent intervened in kinship, but not so far as the strict application of Sositheos' doctrine would require. But it is very questionable whether this is the right way of describing the situation. It is probable that, in normal circumstances, the family decided,

LAW-COURT SPEECHES: THE BOUSELIDAI

through marriage to heiresses of line, adoptions, and affiliations, how to maintain the number of oikoi from generation to generation: and that the courts merely registered the family's decisions officially. The law of collateral succession, from this point of view, is a descriptive statement endowed with prescriptive force by inclusion in the code, and by the powers of protection given to the archon. Similarly in England, the Administration of Estates Act (r925) and the Intestates' Estates Act (r952) were 'based on a sample enquiry at Somerset House to discover what was actually done by testators': the descriptions thus found were given prescriptive force. Now conceivably laws of descriptive origin may either (r) give the descriptioh prescriptive force, or (2) do this and state also the principle governing the described activities. In the second case, the principle as well as the activities derived from it would become law, and be available as a ruie of validity for those activities. But in either case, it is a question whether the law, once enacted, retains any mark of its descriptive origin: if the activities described tend to change, and the change in practice amounts to a change of principle of validation, should the law also be changed to conform, or to prevent the sociological changes? And if laws of descriptive origin conflict, is the remedying to take account of their origin ? In the interpretation of the law of collateral succession given by Theopompos in his nephew's case, Theopompos in effect states that the 'intention of the legislator' was to make kinship the sole principle of validation. In his own case (so far as can be probably made out) both kinship and descent were propounded as principles, on certain conditions of coincidence. Sositheos limits the operation of kinship by making descent the governing principle: kin outside the oikos should not inherit. So far as we can see from the surviving damaged text of the law (discussed in the next chapter), it contained no statement of a principle of validity. So long as the courts were only asked to register family arrangements, the absence of a principle of validity would matter little, since they would assume that whatever principles were sociologically employed were, in the absence of contrary argument, in accordance with the law. But when disputes multiplied (if in fact they did) and-more important-when rhetors began to be employed, both litigants and the courts would endeavour to discover principles of validity, and their absence from the text of the law was, as we know from the ancient criticisms, keenly felt. In a legal system which had no place for precedent, this means of supplementing the text of the statute failed: the only remedy, consequently,

THE INFORMANTS

79

to end uncei::tainty was to change the law. But to change the law involved the decision, first of all, whether the descriptive origin should be taken into account and in what way: and the political situation in the fourth century was such that this question could not be decided. Consequently the uncertainty remained without remedy, and litigants put forward various theories of validity, none of which were excluded from the court's hearing. Whether in fact the courts had habits (as distinct from recognising precedents), we do not know. But we may properly suppose that rhetcirs who specialised on inheritance cases would have a natural curiosity about at least the logic of theories of validity and the principles suggested from time to time. Demosthenes apparently had a copy of Sositheos' speech among his papers, so that it came to be published in his corpus; and this natural curiosity may well have been the reason why he took the copy. As to the question of the administration of justice, it is an error to say that Theopompos gained Hagnias' estate illegally, 9r that he wrongly excluded his nephew, or that Sositheos' oikos doctrine is more religious than legal. The law (so far as we know) did not attain that degree of certainty which excluded any of these actions; therefore the courts could not refuse to hear and decide upon the various contentions. To say that this is more than the courts should have been expected to do, or more than 'popular tribunals' can be expected to do, is to argue from presuppositions which the Athenian legal system did not share-in effect to prosecute (for what crime?) the Athenian administration of justice. The relation between Sositheos and his rhetor is even more difficult to make out than that between Theopompos and Isaios. The doctrine of the oikos is a genuine legal idea, however descriptive its origin; the way in which it is presented relies-to put the matter kindly-more on marshalled and evoked presuppositions than on the logical structure of argument, while the speech is arbitrarily peppered.rather than artfully seasoned by appeals to pathos, outrage, and so forth. The impression is that Sositheos was nail and obstinate, and that his rhetor was too much of the same mind by nature to make the tricks of technique he had learned his servants. Consequently the genuine legal argument is more or les smothered by the manner of its presentation.

IV.

CHRONOLOGICALANALYSIS OF THEPRINCIPALBODY OF INFORMATION

Most of the genealogical information comes from Sositheos' speech and the depositions .in it. Some of the information is dubious and some disputed: the first need therefore is to set out that which is both detailed

·so

LAW-COURT SPEECHES: THE BOUSELIDAI

and internally self-consistent as a genealogy. For his own purposes, Sositheos also felt this need, for be says ~ r8): 'It was my first intention to prepare a table of all the kinsmen of Hagnias for the court to follow in detail; but it would not have been equally visible to all members of the court since those at the back could not have seen it. I must therefore endeavour to _give an account in words, which are audible by all. And I shall try to be as brief as possible in setting out the descent of Hagnias. Bouselos of Oion had five sons: Hagnias, Euboulides, Stratios, Habron, Kleokritos. All these sons of Bouselos grew up, and their father Bouselos divided his wealth fairly and justly between them all, as was proper. After this partition, each married lawfully, and they all had children and grandchildren: five houses thus sprang from the single house of Bouselos, and each son lived on his own resources and got himself descendants. Concerning three of these brothers, sons of Bouselos, I need weary neither the court nor myself: of those kinsmen who are in the same degree as Tbeopompos and st.and as he does to Hagnias (whose is the estate in question) none, either in the past or now, have moved against us to claim either Hagnias' estate or the heiress of line whom I married after due legal process: they believed they had· no right to any property of Hagnias. It would therefore be superfluous to give an account of these kinsmen, except when it is necessary to mention them.' This excerpt gives a very good idea of Sositheos' manner. He plainly had all the details of the kindred at the tip of his tongue, and was prepared to spread himself in communicating them; he had worked out the exact application of his oikos doctrine to the details, so much that he only saw the details as part of the doctrine. But his rhetor would not allow him to bore the court With either written or spoken material: instead he slips in some tricks: Phylomache was married to Sositheos after due legal process as heiress of line, but heiress to Euboulides, not Hagnias; other great-grandsons of Bouselos than Theopompos were not cousins of Hagnias' mother, so that their belief that they had no claim to Hagnias' estate is not evidence for Theopompos' status. And the last sentence is a typical ineptitude. (From the genealogist's point of view, of course it would have been much more informative if Sositheos had written his own speech: only then it might not have survived.) ID.stead of a 'boring superfluity' of detail, we have therefore obscurity and confusion through which we must make our way as best we can. We must have or create some kind of external criterion to test the selfconsistency of the main body of the genealogy, and I shall use a chronological model, on the following assumptions:

ANALYSIS OF THE PRINCIPAL BODY OF INFORMATION

8I

r. the average age for a male at marriage was 27 years, and at the birth of his eldest surviving son and heir 30 years. This gives a shorter generation than the usual convention (33 r/3 years), and uses definite events instead of a floruit, which is exceedingly vague. The generation-length is given by factual material (see for example the genealogy of Andokides in Chapter V) and by the consideration that fathers would not normally expect to live beyond their early sixties, and would wish to see their grandchildren. 2. variation about the average is of course to be expected, but children should be born to a father between the ages of 25 and 40 years unless some quite exceptional reason can be shown.

3. the average age of a female at marriage was IS years, and at the birth of the eldest surviving son I8 years. This generation-length is given by the fact that heiresses-of-line married at I4 years (see F 6 in Chapter IV below), and on the supposition that non-heiresses often married a little later, giving time for the dowry arrangements and so forth. 4. again of course variations are to be expected, but in the female case only to the lengthening of the generation. Children should not be born to a mother over 30 years of age unless some quite exceptional reason can be shown: she would normally have had too many (dead and living) children before.

First Approximatfon Hagnias II was executed by the Spartans some time in the years 398/7 to 396/5: the date of his death is therefore to be represented as 397 ±I. 2. He was then ambassador, but is named second .in the Papyrus, so was probably not the leader of the embassy. We have no idea whether he was included because he was eminent in an elderly way, or because he was a promising young man. But he must have been over 30, his political corning of age, and probably well under 60 to face the travelling: he may have been any age between 35 and 55. Let us say he was 45 ± rn: he was therefore born in 442 ± II. I.

3. He was named after his paternal grandfather, and fa therefore to be taken as Polemon's eldest son. (No other child of Polemon is known, but the plague of 429/8 may account for this.)

82

LAW-COURT SPEECHES: THE BOUSELIDAI

4. Polemon the father of Hagnias II ~ 23, 25) would on our assumptions be 30 when Hagnias was born. He was therefore born in 472 ± II, and married in 445 ± II. 5. Hagnias I the father of Polemon ~ i;9) may, as we shall see, have had other children, and we have no certain information on Polemon's position in the family. But if he was the eldest son, Hagnias I would be born 30 years before, in 502 ± II. 6. Sositheos and his witnesses assert that Polemon had a full sister, Phylomache I, the paternal grandmother of Sositheos' wife, Phylomache II. Theopompos at least asserted that Phylomache I was not homopatric sister to Polemon. It is not quite clear whether Theopompos denied that Phylomache II existed at all, or whether he merely asserted that she was only homometric sister to Polemon. Sositheos of course reiterates ad nauseam in his text that :ehylomache I was homopatric and homometric sister to Polemon, and adds the odd detail (:E 24) that it was her brother Polemon (and not her father Hagnias) who gave her in marriage to Philagros. This is hardly likely to be an invention, but it dots not prove that Phylomache I was homdpatric sister to Polemon, who may have acted for the kinsmen of a homometric sister as Theophiastos acted for his step-:daughter (in place of her brother) in Isaios IX 29. But while this detail leaves the paternity of Phylomache I undecided, it tells us that she was younger than Polemon by some years: if we place Polemon's birth in 472 ± II, we should therefore place Phylomache's at least five years later, in 467 ± II. Her marriage is then to be placed at earliest in 452 ± II. 7. Phylomache I was the first wife of Philagros according to the depositions in :E 44 and 45. She was the mother of his eldest son who was named for his paternal grandfather Euboulides I. We are therefore to calculate that Philagros was 27 when he married in (at earliest) 452 ± II, and that he was born.therefore in (at earliest) 479 ± II. 8. There is some reason (as we shall see) to suppose that Philagros was Euboulides I's eldest son: Euboulides would then be born 30 years before, at earliest in 509 ± II. But the name Euboulides in this unpolitical family may well refer to the Kleisthenic constitution and Bouselos' rise in the world: he is the last of the family to bear an epichoric (peasant?) name, and he created a large family burial-ground. But if Euboulides' name records Bouselos' membership of the Council, it is likely that he was born in or after 507: this accords with our calculations of 'at earliest' dates from Phylomache I.

.ANALYSIS OF THE PRINCIPAL BODY OF INFORMATION,

83

9. If Philagros married at earliest in 452 ±II, we should calculate the birth of Euboulides II in (at earliest) 449 ± II: he would then be 52 ± II years of age (at most) when Hagnias II was executed in 397 ± I. ro. Euboulides II's only (surviving) child, Phylomache II, seems to have been unmarried when her father died at an unknown date after 397 ± I, and was married to Sositheos after registration by the court as heiress of line (~ 20). It is therefore most improbable that she was 14 years of age before 397 ± I, i.e. that she was born before 4II ± I: Euboulides II was then (at most) 38 ± ro years. Again there is the eVidence that the 'at earliest' dates are too high-that is that Phylomache I was more than five years younger than Polemon. Second Approximation Consequently we should reduce the calculated date for Phylomache I by another five years, together with those derived from it: this would place the birth of Euboulides I in 504 ± II: that is, wi_thin the years 515 to 493. But if we are to connect Euboulides' name with his father's achievement of Councillorship, the years for his birth must be reduced to 507-493, or 500 ± 7. This gives us: I Euboulides I born 500 ± 7

I Hagnias I born 502 ± I

I

Philagros born 470

±

7

I

I Phylomache I born 458 ± 7

Euboulides II born 440 ± 7

I

II

I Polemon 472 ±II

born I

Hagoias II born 442

± n

Phylomache II born after 4n ± I, at which date her father was 29 ±8 years old.

This is a very comfortable fit so far as dates are concerned, but makes Phylomache I's paternity more doubtful. We may however proceed to consider t~e collaterals of Philagros: II. Philagros, according to the deposition in ~ 43, had a homopatric brother Euktemon; according to the deposition in ~ 46 (supported by the text l: 73) Kallistratos was a third brother, but whether by the mother of Philagros or the mother of Euktemon is not stated. Kallistratos

LAW-COURT SPEECHES: THE BOUSELIDAI

however married his uncle Habron's granddaughter, so is perhaps likely 'to have been the youngest of the three. With Pliilagros' birth in 470 ± 7, we may perhaps allow five years for his mother's death and father's second marriage up to the birth of Euktemon: this would place Euktemon 's birth in 465 ± 7, making him 68 ± 8 at the time of Hagnias II's death which (according to the depositions in I:. 43, 44, 45) Euktemon sruvived. Thi~ dating looks rather high. 12. With Euktemon's birth in 465 ± 7, we may perhaps place the birth of Kallistratos (supposing him the youngest of the three brothers) in 463 ± 7, and his marriage consequently in 436 ± 7. 13. His wife, Habron's grand-daughter, will then have been 15 years of age in 436 ± 7, and born in 451 ± 7. Her mother was Habron's daughter, and we know nothing of the position in their families of either of these women. It is therefore a mere guess to suppose that Habron was born 50 years before his grand;-daughter, in 501 ± 7, but it fits well with the birth of his brothers Hagnias I in 502 ± I I and Euboulides I in 500 ± 7. 14. Of Kallistratos' children only a daughter is reported, and again we know nothing of her position in the family. If she was one of the eldest children of her parents, she was born in the late 43o's and survived the plague; otherwise she was born after the plague. She had at least two sons, Sositheos and the deponent of I: 46: she and Euktemon were presumably the chief sources of Sositheos' family tradition about Phylomache I. If her mother was born in 451 ± 7, she cannot have been born before her mother was 16 years old in 435 ± 7: her eldest son would then be born 18 years iater ":14I7 ± 7. 15. We do not know whether Sositheos or his brother was the elder, but if Sositheos was born in 417 ± 7 he would be of the marrying age of 27 in 390 ± 7. His wife Phylomache II would be I4 at her marriage as heiress of line, that is, born in 404 ± 7. This fits with our previous calculation that she was born after'4u ± r. 16. Sositheos and Phylomache II had four sons and at least one daughter. At the time of Sositheos' speech, the eldest son (named for his paternal grandfather Sosias) was turned 18, and the daughter was newly married though not yet a mother: she was then 15 years of age. The second son (named for his maternal grandfather Euboulides) had been registered with Euboulides' phratry (I: 13 f.). If this was his first phratric registration, the child was three to four years old when it occurred, and perhaps five at the most at the time of the speec,h. Unless

ANALYSIS OF THE PRINCIPAL BODY OF INFORMATION

85

Sositheos had several more daughters whom he does not mention, it is perhaps more likely that the young Euboulides was at this time in his early teens, and that the pbratric registration was the second. Perhaps we can suppose that Sositheos; eldest son was born a year after the marriage, in 389 ± 7: he would then be 18 years old in 371 ± 7, and Sositheos' speech would be a little later than his birthday, but possibly in the same year. We now have, rather uncertainly: I Habron (2) = Euboulides I = (1) ? rrn 501 ± 7 born ,500 ± 7

I

daughter

I

Kallistratos

~born46j±7

daughter born 451 ± 7

I

Philagros born 470 ± 7

Euktemon ?born465±7

I

.Euboulides II born 440 ± 7

daughter ? born 435 ± 7

,.----I

son

Sositheos ? born 417 ± 7 ? married 390 ± 7

I

I

Phylomache II born 404 ± 7

Sosias born 389 ± 7 aged 18 in 371 ± 7.

There are far too many unknowns for this chronological model to have any positive value; it has the negative virtue of showing that the depositions which provide its details cannot be shown to be inconsistent on these points to the better evidenced material. Indeed, we should probably take them mqre strictly, and suppose that Kallistratos (who is not called homopatric brother to Philagros) was in fact his full brother and born perhaps 5 years earlier in 468 ± 7, while Euktemon, the half brother, was born a number of years later, say in 459 ± 7 (when his father was 41), so that he was at most 65 when Hagnias II died. The consequent changes, if Kallistratos were born in 468 ± 7, would be that Habron was born in ( ?) 506 ± 7, his granddaughter in 456 ± 7, Kallistratos' daughter not before 440 ± 7, and her elder son when she was 18 years old, not before422 ± 7. Sositheos could then comfortably be her second son, which is perhaps a little more likely, and a year or two older than the date we have given him. 17. We return now to Hagnias II's more immediate relatives. His mother married twice and had three sons (daughters are not mentioned),

86

LAW-COURT SPEECHES: THE BOUSELIDAI

of whom Hagnias was born in 442 ± I I and survived the plague. It is not easy to believe that any mother of three young sons had all her children survive the plague, and for this reason we might properly suppose that Hagnias' mother's marriage to Polemon was her first, and that to Glauketes her second, with Glaukos and Glaukon born after the plague. Then with Polemon born in 472 ± I I and married in 445 ± II, we should calculate that his wife was born in 46o ± II. She survived Hagnias' death (0 16--18, 30), when she would be 63 ± I I years old. If Polemon and her other children than Hagnias died in the plague, she will have married Glauketes about 428, and her elder son of the second marriage may have been born in 427, when she would be 33 ± II years of age-:the extreme variants are clearly the least likely. When Hagnias was preparing to depart on his embassy, 'he adopted a niece as his daughter; if anything should happen to her, he destined his property to Glaukon, his uterine brother: and he wrote these matters in his will' (0 8). Theopompos mentions Glaukon again in 0 30, but never names Glaukos; Sositheos however speaks of 'Glaukos of Oion and Glau.kon his borther' (E 4), and 'Glaukon, and Glaukos whom we worsted before' (E 7) as though Glaukos were the senior brother. If this is right, then Hagnias in making Giaukon 'his heir if the daughter died, is following the usual custom of favouring the second son for colliiteral inheritance, adoption, marriage to an heiress of line, and the like. Another normal practice for the father of an heiress of line making his will; was that he named in the will the prospective husband of the heiress. It is therefore likely that Hagnias did this, and that the prospec:tive husband was Glaukon, who was to succeed in his own right if the daughter died before the marriage and birth of an heir. It is a question therefore whether we should suppose Glaukon to have been not much more than twelve years older than his prospective bride (the usual difference in age when the bride was 15 and the groom. 27 years of age). The adoptive daughter was by birth a niece to Hagnias, and so far as we know his only siblings were the two uterine brothers. By this rather uncertain elimination we arrive at Glaukos as the father by birth: and for a child to have been given in adoption, there must have been at least one other child in the family to continue the line of birth. Thus (assuming average behaviour) Glaukos, married at 27 years of age, fathered a daughter when he was 28 and Glau.kon was 12 or a little more. This seems very improbable when Hagnias, Glaukos and Glaukon were

ANALYSIS OF THE PRINCIPAL BODY OF INFORMATION

87

all sons of the same mother. There seem to be two alternatives: that

Glaukos and Glaukon had an elder sister who was the mother of the girl Hagnias adopted: if this sister became a mother at the age of r6, Glaukon her younger brother may indeed have been little more than I2 years old at the time: and we should hear nothing of this half-sister to Hagnias in the speeches because her brothers were alive. Alternatively if we keep strictly to the rule entia non multiplicanda and refuse to suppose this half-sister, we might think of Glauketes leaVing Glaukos and Glaukon as orphans, and Glaukos consequently marrying very young, say (as an extreme supposition) at the age of r8 years. Then when he was r9 and a father, Glaukon was not mu·ch over r2 years old. We can now consider these alternatives in terms of absolute dates: (a) When Hagnias was making his will in 397 ± I, his niece was his half sister's eldest child and between 2 and r3 years old: she was born therefore between 4!0 ± I and 399 ± r. Her mother was then sixteen years old, and therefore born between 426 ± I and 4r5 ± I. The higher date would well suit a half sister born soon after the plague; Glaukos would then be born about 424 ± I and Glaukon about 422 ± I, and be twelve years older than his prospective bride. But if Hagnias' mother had a son born in 422 ± I, and Hagnias was born in 442 ± I I his actual year of birth would be near the lower limit of that date. (b) When Hagnias was making his will in 397 ± I, his nie,ce was Glaukos' elder child, and Glaukos had married at the age of r8 years. Then in 397 ± I, the niece was between 2 and r3 years of age, and Glaukos between 2I and 32: he was born therefore between 429 ± I and 4r8 ± I. Glaukon, if r2 years older than his niece was between r4 and 25 years of age, and bom between 423 ± I and 4rr ± I: again the higher limits are much the more probable, and slightly higher than in the case of the half-sister. Of the two theoretical alternatives therefore that to be preferred has Glaukos as the father of Hagnias' adoptive daughter. This involves dating the birth of Glaukos about 427 ± I and that of Glaukon about or rather before 422 ± r. We should hardly suppose Hagnias to be more than r5 years older than Glaukon: this gives us about or rather before 437 ± I for Hagnias' birth, so that he was a little over 40 years of age when he died. As all our dates depend on Hagnias, we now have:

00 00

Third Approximation:

t""

~

Bouselos

I Habron ? born 506 ± I daughter

I

daughter born 456 ±

I

1

I Euboulides .I born 500 ±

I

I Hagnias I born 498 ±

1

1

Sositheos born 420

I

±

Euboulides II born 440 ± l

I

1

0

I

I

Phylomache II born 407 ± l

Sosias born 390 ±I aged 18 in 372 ±

l

c:: ~

1

r·············-··-~ 1 Polemon Philagros = Phylomache I born 468 born 470 ± ( born 458 ±I

Kallistratos ~ born 418 ±I daughter born 438 ±

("')

(/I

= x

±II

Hagnias II born 438 ± 1

~

Glauketes

II-~I

Glaukos born 427 ±I

I

daughter born 408 ±I died before reaching the age of 14 in 394 ± l

Glaukon born 423 ± l

t>I

("')

~

.. (/I

6lt>I to 0

c::

(/I

t>I

....t"" t::l

i!;

ANALYSIS OF THE PRINCIPAL BODY OF INFORMATION

89

This preserves the relative ages already argued for Polemon and his (? half-) sister Phylomache I and the revised relative ages of Philagros and his (full) brother Kallistratos: the datings available for Kallistratos' wife and daughter and his grandson Sositheos, are now much more comfortable. We may consequently argue from this:

18. If Hagnias II was born in 438 ± 1 when his mother was aged 18 years, she was born in 456 ± 1. She survived Hagnias' death, and would be· 59 in 397 ± 1 ; her brother Stratios II also surVived Hagnias, and was preswnably of a similar age. Stratios' name shows him to have been grandson of Bouselos' son Stratios I, for whom two children are given by Sositheos: one is Charidemos (l: 22, 24) the father of Theopompos (1: 24) and his brother Stratokles (~ 42). The other is called Phanostratos by cod. A in Sositheos' text (~ 22) but Phanostrate by the other manuscripts there and by A in the deposition in ~ 42, where this child is called 'Phanostrate the daughter of Stratios': the editors variously cb,a.nge the text to 'Phanostrate the mother of Stratios (II)' and 'Phanostratos the father of Stratios (II).' The deponent is reporting a tradition received from his father, that Polemon's cousins included Philagros (the father of Euboulides), Phanostrate (the daughter of Stratios), Kallistratos (the father-in-law of 'Sositheos'-i.e. Sosias I), Euktemon (who had been basileus), and Charidemos (father of Theopompos and Stratokles): that is, Polemon's brother-in-law and his mother-in-law and their brothers in turn. In this context the proper style of Phanostrate is by her patronymic: her son doe5 not need to be mentioned, just as Euktemon's is not. Nevertheless, since Stratios II is never called son of Charidemos, and his name shows him as grandson of Stratios I, we are to infer that Phanostratos or Phanostrate was his parent. The editors for the most part prefer to take the authority of cod. A and the text, regarding the deposition and the other manuscripts as less authoritative. This makes Stratios II (and his sons) agnates in the strict sense to Hagnias: Stratios is agnate and maternal uncle (kinsman of the third degree), and his sons are agnates and kin of the fourth degree. If this is correct, it is incomprehensible that they did not claim, and receive, the estate of Hagnias against Theopompos, agnate and kinsman of the fifth degree. We must therefore suppose that they were not agnates, and that Phanostrate is the proper name of that parent of Stratios and his sister, who was child to Stratios I and sibling of Charidemos. If her daughter was born in 456 ± 1, we calculate that Phanostrate was born at latest 16 years earlier, in 472 ± 1.

LAW-COURT SPEECHES: THE BOUSELIDAI

19. Charidemos' family is remarkable for the absence of any son named for the paternal grandfather Stratios I. It is true that Charidemos is reported as making some sort of a separation from the rest of the family when he began a separate burial ground of his own, but it is perhaps not likely that he would neglect the normal customs of nomenclature for such a reason. Rather yve should think of the plague as killing his eldest children. This probably accords with Sositheos' statement (~ SS) that he and Theopompos were of an age: we cannot press this within ten years or so, but if Sositheos was born in 420 ± l, then Theopompos was born after the plague. We then have Charidemos' sister born at latest in 472 ± l and one of Charidemos' youngest children born after the plague of 429/8 : this suggests that Charidemos was younger-perhaps considerably younger-than Phanostrate, and it may be due to some reflection of this that Phanostrate is named first in L 22. 20. If Phanostrate was the eldest child of Stratios I and born in 472 ± l, Stratios himself is to be calculated as born in so2 ± l, which agrees well with his brothers in ?so6 ± l, 500 ± l and 498 ± r. 21. Hagnias II died in 397 ± l, and his adoptive heiress of line must have been registered by the court in that year. Any claims against her must have been entered within five years, i.e. before 392 ± l, and it is possible that Euboulides II entered a claim, for e 9 implies that Euboulides died before the heiress. The claim by Euboulides is mentioned in depositions quoted by Sositheos (k 43-45), but only once is his opponent named, and there the text is corrupt, reading t rrpocrxAa:toucroc t which may be mended to rrpo~ r)..a:uxwvcx: with Schoemann, or may be taken as hiding the name of the adoptive daughter. 22. If the daughter was born in 408 ± I and died before reaching the age of 14 in 394 ± l, her death may be supposed in 396 ± l, and there must have been probate of the will. Any further claims on the estate must have been entered before 391 ± I. Theopompos says (0 9): 'in the course of time after this [i.e. the succession of the adoptive daughter] Euboulides died, and Hagnias' adoptive daughter died, and Glaukon took the estate.' Perhaps we should suppose that Hagnias died in 397 ± l and his daughter in 396 ± l ; that Euboulides prepared to claim the estate from the daughter, then from Glaukon, but himself died without completing his claim: the actions about Hagnias' estate would then be interrupted by the registration of his daughter Phylomache as heiress of line, and her marriage to Sositheos: her attack upon Glaukon and

ANALYSIS OF THE PRINCIPAL BODY OF INFORMATION

91

winning of the estate, and Theopompos' successful attack upon her must then all have occurred before 391 ± l. Perhaps we should think in terms of a time-table like this: 397 ± l Hagnias dies: registration of his adoptive daughter as heires5 of line. 396 ± l Adoptive daughter dies while case against her by Euboulides i5 pending. 395 ± l Euboulides dies while case against Glaukon is pending: Glaukon takes the estate unopposed. 394 ± l Phylomache registered as Euboulides' heiress of line and married to Sositheos. 393 ± l Phylomache attacks Hagnias' will and is given the estate a.c: cousin's child to Hagnias. 392 ± l Theopompos and others file a claim to Hagnias' estate: death~ of Stratios II and Stratokles: Theopompos wins the estate 391 ± l Theopompos accused of 'mistreating an orphan' : his speech Theopompos or his witnesses accused of perjury: case barre( by Statute of Limitation? 23. If Phylomache was married as heiress of line in 394 ± l she w~ born at latest in 408 ± l when her father was 32 years of age; Sosithern was married when he was 26. Sosias was born at earliest in 393 ± l anc reached the age of 18 at earliest in 375 ± l: Sositheos' speech is ther at earliest in that year or 374 ± l. This must have been within five year~ of Theopompos' death, which was then at the very earliest in 378 ± l 24. At the time of Theopompos' speech, his brother Stratokl~' famil) consisted of four daughters married with dowries (8 37), one daughte1 adopted by her maternal un~le and apparently unmarried (8 41), and< young son. We may suppose the four married daughters were aged 15 17, 19, and 21 in 391 ± l, so that the eldest was born in 412 ± l Stratokles is then to be calculated as born in 442 ± l, and to hav{ survived the plague, dying at about 50 years of age. 25. Thus Stratokles was probably considerably older than his brothe1 Theopompos, who seems to have been born after the plague, 5ay ir 426 ± l : so that if Charidemos was 30 when his eldest son was born and this eldest son was named Stratios and died in the plague, we calculati that he was 32 when Stratokles was born and 48 when Theopompos wa.: born. Charidemos himself would then be born in 474 ± l, which i earlier than the latest possible date for his sister Phanostrate in 472 ± l The suggestion that Charidemos was considerably younger than hi

LAW-COURT SPEECHES: THE BOUSELIDAI

sister would then fail, and the placing given by Sositheos (:I: 22) to the sister before the brother will be due to some other cause (e.g. that she was grandmother to Hagnias). 26. If Charidemos was born in 474 ± l, his father Stratios I might be born about 504 ± l, which accords with his brothers' .births in ? 506 ± l, 500 ± l, and 498 ± l. We might then suppose that Stratios I married at the usual age if 27 years in 477 ± l, and that Phanostrate was his eldest child, born in 476 ± l: she would then be 20 years old when her daughter was born. 27. At the time of Theopompos' speech in 391 ± l he had two sons, the second of whom he had affiliated to his deceased brother-in-law Makartatos I. By the time of Sositheos' speech, the younger Makartatos had returned to Theopompos' line and inherited from him, leaving a son to continue the line of Makartatos I in Prospalta: this had already occurred when Sositheos affiliated his second son to Euboulides. Theopompos died at the very· earliest (see 23. above) in 378 ± l. The sequence of events to be calculated 1s then: 426 ± l Theopompos born after the plague when his father aged 48. 396 ± l Theopompos' elder son born j94 ± l Theopompos' son Makartatos II born. 376 ± l Makartatos II aged 18 It is (on this calculation, which assumes normal behaviour for Theopompos) not possible that Makartatos II's son was born before 375 ± l, and he had no second son to represent the line of Stratios at the time of Sositheos' speech (:I: 26) which was at earliest in the same year, and is not likely to have been long after. We may suppose that Theoponipos' elder son died after Makartatos II was affiliated to his maternal uncle, and that in consequence Makartatos married at the earliest possible age to obtain, through his infant son, release from the house of his uncle and capacity to return to that of Theopompos without relinquishing ownership of his uncle's property. Theopompos then died at earliest after his grandson's birth in 375 ± i;· and Sositheos thereupon af.filiated his second son to Euboulides and claimed Hagnias' estate in 374 ± l, before a second son was born to Makartatos. We may note on this calculation that there are 99 years from the birth of Charidemos in 474 ± t to the birth of his great-grandson in 375 ± l, giving an average generation of 33 years through younger sons, whose individual generation lengths vary widely-,-48, 32 and 19 years. The variations are attributed to the plague in the first case, and to the

ANALYSIS OF THE PRINCIPAL BODY OF INFORMATION

93

necessities of an economic corporation in the sec011d: these necessities probably affected younger sons far more frequently than eldest sons. The supposition of Makartatos II's early marriage may be compared with the supprocession to be on the day following, before sun-rise.

§ 3.

~cx8£~e:Lv ~t

-rouc; &v8pcxc; 7tp6a6e:v, lhcxv hcp&pwv-rcxL, -rOO; yuvcxi:xcxc; limcr6EV.

in the procession ·the men to precede, the women to follow.

§ 4. yuvcxi:xcx 8E: µlj &l;e:i:vcxL no woman to be permitted

(a) e:tcrtlvcxL e:U; -ra -rou &.7to6cxv6V'roc; to enter where the dead lies.

(b) µ7)8' ocxol.ou6e:i:v oc7to6cxv6v-rL lkcxv de; -ra oe:a7t6't'"fl, the owner in the case of slaves,

(b)

(i) 7te:pl. 0£ -rwv &Ae:u6epwv -roi:i; -roc X,p~µoc-r' gx.ouaLv · (ii) Uv oe µ~ ~ X.P~(lot'tOC -rcj> ho6ocv6v-rt, 'tOLW'Ytv, llL/x!t.~s:v SE: 't"Ot; ~()(crt.Mo:c; och1ov qi6vo11. & ;.r. TI( ..1-r1a-r.., ho( (30111..{s:ucrct.v't" Ilepl cruyy&vLxwv -roui; xoc-r' &myocµ(ocv mxp&Gl)y-

·6~xe:£ouc; ycl:p lx-rl0&'t'IXL

132

CLASSICAL ATHENIAN FAMILY LAW

µ£voui; ll;w6£V • o 8e M&v0tv8poi; kv(7to8U'rl). • 6e:pov, 0' µ.e:v ' E:qlLYJO' ' IXV ~., 11.1tO't"'l'l1 O'WVTIXL (-LYJ E:LVIXL l:J\E:U LV e:Lc; TO OLXIXO'tjpLOV, ot o& OYJ(-LOTIXL XIXTY)')'Opouc; ixtpoOVTIXL 7t€v-re: &vopocc; ~ IXUTCUV, xocv µ.&v µ.Yi oo~n OLXIXLWc; tyyp&:qie:a6ixL, 7tWAe:i: TOUTOV ~ 7tOALc;. lO:v OE vLx~an, -roi:c; OYJµ.6-rixi.c; l7tocvixyxe:c; E:yypcX.qie:w. JI_ • ~e:LT

..

.. )...,

'·

·'-

(

'

I

'

'

182

CLASSICAL ATHENIAN FAMILY LAW

When they. vote him not free, he may appeal to the court, and the demots choose five of their number as accusers: if the court decides he would not be rightly registered, the city sells him; if he wins his appeal, the deme must register him. 8oxLµct~e:L -roui; kyypot(flbJ-roti; ~ ~au:>..~, x&v -ri.t; 86~71 ve:w-n:poi; ox-rwxot(8e:x' l-r~v e:!votL, ?:l'jµLo'L -roui; 8l'jµ6-rott; -roui; kyypcX.ljiotv-roti;:

(d) µn·a 8e -roti:i-rot,

After this, the Council examines the newly registered, and if any is held to be less. than eighteen years of age, it punishes the demots who registered him.

The account is notably incomplete in several respects. To register a boy as a citizen a deme had to make enquiries about (1) his age, and (2) his status. Their answers to these questions led in two directions: age was finally settled, in case of doubt, by the Council; status by the courts. Following out this division of functions (again, between the state on the one hand, and the traditional courts of the body politic on the other) has led the Ath Pol into omissions. The first status question was that of free birth: if the applicant was found on enquiry to be a slave (born of a slave mother to a father who claimed him as a freeborn son), the father's rights as owner were held to have been abandoned, and the city sold the boy. The second question was whether he was legitimate, i.e. born of two validly married Athenians, born of two metics, or of a mixed marriage. In the first case, the entry would be made on the citizen register, in the second on the domiciliary register of the deme: according to the laws of 403/2, illegitimate children had no right to be entered on the citizen register, so (only if their mother was Athenian) if acknowledged by their fathers probably they might be entered, as an act of grace in each individual case: othe~e they would be metics. In this set of questions and procedures, the method of registering new citizens is finally made uniform and controlled by the state and the courts. This system presumably continued down to Imperial times, as long as the ephebic institutions, however modified, endured. To follow out the history of the relationship between the marriage and citizenship laws of Athens is therefore to follow out, in a, peculiarly sensitive field, the process of an emergence of a state from an older form of organisation, and to see some of its difficulties and worries in detail. The legal question was whether the state, acting through its legislature, or the body politic, acting through its courts, was supreme; and this was complicated by two further factors: the devolution of state responsibility to the demes, and the survival of the old organs of the undifferentiated body politic, the phratries and the religious law. The relations between these four factors was, finally, not made any simpler by the fact that all I

THE INTERRELATIONS OF FAMILIES

four were themselves in process of development, and are therefore historical variables. Thus· if we wish to detect any legal constancies, we must devise a historical periodisation. The atthidographers Androtion (in the fourth century) and Philochoros (in the third) assist us in delimiting the first period as beginning with Solon's laws and ending with Perikles: but we must divide this into two sub-periods, before Kleisthenes and after: the sixth century, and the first half of the fifth. Generally for this period the policy is to assist the increase of the citizen population both natural and artificial: before K.leisthenes the execution of this policy is in the hands of the body-politic which as a whole exercises legal authority over its parts, the phratries. After Kleisthenes there is a partnership between the body politic and its phratries on the one hand, and the state and its demes on the other: the partnership probably worked because of the large extent of devolution to the phratries and demes, so that conflicts appeared to be between individual units of these kinds only: and conflicts would obviously be best avoided by admission in cases of doubt to both institutions. Whether any analytical appreciation of this situation lies behind the allegations about Kleisthenes, or has contributed to the generalisation about amateur incompetence in administration for the period 462/r-45r/o it is difficult to tell, but most probably not. The Atthidographers probably took as their next period the years from Perikles' citizenship law in 45r/o to the general scrutiny of 346/5, perhaps without giving details of legal events in between, for our sources for the Periklean repeal ( ?), the laws of 403/2, and the subsequent enactments, are literary and forensic, not historical. During this period the phratries continued to operate, but probably developed and changed: Krateros .(342 F 4) reports an undated decree of the Assembly (of the fifth century?) which gives the phratries monthly access to the courts to proceed against persons of two alien parents who have become members of phratries; the by-law of the Dekeleeis phratry introduces compulsory, formal, and complicated procedures for the registration of new members in the early fourth century, in which it appears that the old' congregations' and 'homogalaktes' are by that time, and in that phratry, both known as thiasoi, cult-associations. The rapprochement between the cot1rtS and the phratries is as notable as is its encouragement by the state in Krateros' psephisma; and similar encouragement has to be presupposed for the Dekeleian by-law, for this assumes that the courts can hear certain cases, and provision for such hearings must have been made by the Assembly in instructions by decree to the courts, unless some older

CLASSICAL ATHENIAN FAMILY LAW

title of jurisdiction was modified to meet these cases. Here then we have, most probably, a threefold partnership in the fifth century between the state as formulator of jurisdiction, the courts as traditionally organs of the body-politic, and the phratries as its parts, in dealing with cases of two alien parents. Such a case would arise at earliest when a daughter of a mixed marriage, born in or after 451/0, married another metic and became a mother: if the citizen grandfather wished to introduce the child to his own phratry as his heir, the child would be son of two alien parents, and the decree would enable the phratry to obtain permission for erasing the registration. At earliest therefore the decree is probably dateable on the eve of the war and the plague, and probably shows the kind Of conflict likely to arise between a phratry and its members at that time. The contrast with the repeal ( ?) of the Perildean law a few years later is considerable. The question of whether there was a formal repeal, or a specific and p~rsonal exemption for Perikles, is not so much a question of law as a problem in the emergence of the supreme powers of the state in Athens: if the state in Assembly granted Perikles personally an exemption from the operation of the law then we have in this event the first appearance of the situation so dear to the fourth-century democrats: the sovereign because arbitrary state, overriding the body politic in its traditional forms and organisations. This may be the case, and certainly later tradition (more familiar on the whole with the fourth century than the fifth) would take it to be so: but it may be doubted whether thls is more likely than a repeal of the Periklean law, and re-enactment of the Solonian Law of the State-made, perhaps in modified form. But the ·problem of the· arbitrary state, at least in the fifth century, cannot for the historian or sociologist, be considered alone: if the arbitrary state acted on behalf of Perikles, he was no less asking for assistance to an arbitrary oikos, no less arbitrary than that of our supposed citizen grandfather. And the arbitrary oikos had strong roots in reality, for however binding the custom of marrying within the kin and associated matters, still the ultimate responsibility for breeding new citizens lay in a private (and to that extent arbitrary) act, easily to be extended to adoption of all three kinds: and this private act was fortified not only by nature and custom, but by the religious law. For the lawyer also therefore, as well as for the historian and sociologist, the foundation and validation of the rights, both of the arbitrary state in the fourth century and possibly earlier, and of the rights of the body politic in the fifth and sixth centuries, is to be found both historically-as a matter of fact-and continuously-

THE INTERRELATIONS OF FAMILIES

185.

as a matter of legal principle-in the religious law. The movement of Plato in theory and Lykourgos in practice towards the religious law as the explicit fount of law shows how the fourth-century analysis proceeded. Side by side with the religious law we should perhaps expect to find administrative needs as a factual source of law, and speaking very roughly of course particular administrative needs result in particular enactments. But administrative need in family law interpreted as need for universally equal and exact application does not even come into question until the general scrutiny of the demic registers in 346/5, in the last .generation of free Athens, (although the policy was enunciated in Solon's law on the phratries). The historical question is of course not why this need did not arise before, but why it was recognised then, that is, how administrative consciousness of this kind had arisen. And this is a question which must be passed to the general historians of fourth century Athens: we return to the laws which show how, in Athenian eyes, marriage was regarded as an interrelation of kindreds rather than of persons. Fragments 2r-28: protection of marriage and capacity to marry The purpose of an Athenian marriage was the production of heirs both for the paternal and maternal kindreds, within the population planning policy, if any, of the community as a whole. A son married primarily to provide his father with a grandson and guarantee of continuance of the family cult; a daughter from the point of view of her own kindred probably married primarily, at least in many cases, to provide girls who would marry back into her own family, and always to provide secondarily, a pool of males who could be adopted back into her family if the need arose. The special responsibility of an heiress of line was that she-as far as a woman could-was called upon to fulfil the functions of her non-existent brother as well as her own. The laws protecting marriage and capacity to marry therefore proceed from this conception of marriage.

F 21. protection of the heiress-of-line from conjugal neglect

Plutarch Solon -rov

20.

3: -rpL; h xoct xupLoc; ye;yovwc; xoc-roc -rov v6µov oc&roc; ·µ-lj 8uvoc-roc;

186

TI

CLASSICAL ATHENIAN FAMILY LAW

1tAl)O'tcX~&LV,

U7t0 'tWV trftO''tCX 'tOU &v8poc; om'.i&a0cxt. xcx1 -ro\Yro 8' op6wc; l:x.etv nv£c; cpcxat 7tpOc; -rouc; µ~ 8uvcxµ.£vouc; auv&i:vcx:L, XPlJµcX-rcuv 8' ~&xcx J..cxµ[3ocvov-rec; rntxJ..ljpouc; XCXL 'tcj> v6µcp XCX'tCX~tCX~oµkvouc; rljv cpUO'tV. opWV't&c; YcXp ~OUA&'tcxt '"iv rn(xAl)pOV auvouacxv lJ 7tpoljaov-rcxt 't'OV yocµov ~ µ.£'t' cx£0'XUVl)c; xcx6e~ouat, cptA01tAOU't(cxc; xcxl. ~~pecuc; 8(Xl)V 8t86V"t&c;. ei') 8'.\:xet xcxl. 't'O µ~ 7tiiow, OCAAOC 't'WV auyyevwv 'tOU ocv8poc; ~oUAE't'CXt 8LcxAEy&a0cxL :.riv rn(xJ..l)pov, o7tc.>c; olxei:ov fl xocl. µ.£-rexov -rou yevouc; 't'o 'ttx't'6µevov. 1

a strange and ridiculous law gave the heiress-of-line permission, if her lawful lord and master himself could not approach her, to consort with her husband"s next of kin. But some argue that this law was rightly made against those who, being impotent, married heiresses-of-line for money's sake, and outraged nature through the law: for seeing the heiress consort with the man she chose, either they will desist from such ·a marriage, or make it to their shame, being punished for their avarice and insolence. The law does well also in permitting the heiress to consort not with all, but with the man she chooses from her husband's kinsmen, so that the offspring will be related to him and share his descent.

These two laws refer to the heiress-of-line only, since other wive5 could appeal to their superiors, while the superior of the heiress-of-line was also her husband, appointed by the court. Plutarch has misunderstood om'.iea0cxt in the text of the law: in Solon's time it almost certainly meant lawful marriage.

F 23. protection of both kindreds from the refusal of the woman to bear chil,dren? [Galen] Et ~cuov -ro xcx't'd: ycf -r' «pxe:-rcxL xcxt v6µcp 7tcxue:-rcxt. v6µcp yiip Wa7tEp auv(a-rcx-rocL yk at the rest of his political activity.

The private results also were no doubt sometimes deplorable: some girls of marriageable age, from lack of kinsmen and friends, would never have a superior, and therefore never be able to marry. But in general we must suppose that normally the kinsfolk of the dead father, or, failing them .the superior and kinsfolk of the widowed mother, arranged matters among themselves and that the court merely ratified their decision. Judgement by the court would be needed when the kindreds could not agree, or when some third party intervened to save the child from Injury (F 5).

F 34. definition of a woman's legal incapacity (i) Isaios x IO: 0 v6µoi; 8r.app~81JV XCilAO£L 7tcxt81.

µ~ e~&LVOCL auµ~ ~OUA&Toct bm'.ie:a-6oct if her superior is not able to approach her, she is to be married to her choice among his next of kin.

204

CLASSICAL ATHENIAN FAMILY LAW

(iii) from the Adoption Law, F 39 below:

o v6µoi; 8Lcxpp~8't)v Aiye:L £~e:ivcxL 8Lcx6£a6cxL gnwi; iiv £6£A.n ·ni; TcX. cx&.ou, M:v µ'7j ncxi8oci; )'Vl)a(oui; xcxT µev 1tCX't'pL cxu-riji;, d ncxia&i; &ppe:vi;i; µ'7j tyEvO'Y't'O,

oux &v l~ljv &ve:u 't'c:tU't'"1)t; ~)Lif6e:a6cxt · xe:A.e:oe:L yocp ov6µot; •cruv 't'c:tOTcxLi;' xopLov e:!vcxL 8ouvcxL, M.v Tep f)ooA.'t)'t'c:tL, Toc ~cxuTou.

and her father, if he had no sons, could not bequeath without her, for the law empowers him to bequeath 'with them,' to whom he wishes, his own property.

(iv) from the Intestacy Law, F 41 below: § l : OO"'t'Li; &v µlj 8Lcx6£µevoi; ocno6ocvn, £cX.v µ£v 1tc:ti8cxt; Xc:t't' """ ta..... ii ml 1'ClVT\ TCXV~ XCXT"'-tA cxi:>Tjj c£St7.'!'ou •

HESYCHIOS rntxA7JpO> l:vol!iatot;, yuvt) 8t01tot.vcr. (Od 7· 347) el> ~v xcxT1)vT1)acxv 1'oAlol xA1)poL (Od 14. 211)

2

SUIDAS E 2384 ltt[xA1JPO• ( J) lhClV 1tCl!, bp XCll f'lJTPO> &lltA'jlWV t t o~acx !'.p7Jµot;, xcd 1'1XU-.rJ Wx.11 6nox&tµbJ1) oba(cx, -rct&nJv xo:AoUow ln[xA7)pov. (2) 61101 .. , llc xCll Tl]v i\ll1J 'Y"YClj!7Jf'/;v7Jv, gTClV TI ml Tjj o~alq: ~A'll l /l~ fonv ii ml > 1'ClVTl XClTcUiA£ XCll ·f'1JTp6>, .iStA y&11ov, c!>> f"'T' ou "o).u ll1JA0>6-fiatTCll, cUM xcxl ii 1'Clpil; Ti!> 1'ClTpl o~acx, !>.,,.~of'~ Sl xcx6-fix«v CXuTjj 1'iiaCXV TlJv 1'CXTp66tv oUa(t:tv·

(3) xtloua• yd:p XCl\ -rlJv oUaEcxv xAilpov

(4) xtlo!TClL Sc m(l XCl\ ii µ1)8bt0> y 1'cxACX•o!; X"\ ii XCXTi); 13fov Oua!a, 60tv xcxl ii 7'pov XP'IJ~­ f'O>V lx S1cxT6p0>v aOTO>V t t x"l ~1JT6p0>v 7'0AAWV (Bachma.nn.A,,.cl p. 230) mtxA1)po,-

ii. btl "tii. oOat Sc ii t"I µlptL •nvl TOG >aTc npo!xct fxcov, &lltAV

m!7tpo•xo; s~ ii l7'1 11lp, ii Sl cl.xp'ljl'ClTO> 117tpmxo>

l!:"'f(l)V

855 d 1'poa> s~ elaov Cl! lnl. "C'c;)v &µ~t0~'1)1'06VTV

HARPOKRATION s.v. 1 TOv llpxovTCl" et 8c f'~ "POCJ)(WaCllTO, citt).~> ii /l[X1J

(9) .. lttlll•xo> Sc ii &.f i\ A\I &:n.t 6 l:6>.0>vo> v6110> "/;vtt TOv . 1'A~alov TOU · ylNou> µv~, fm:;t'tlX ai µcdSo~c lltxCl TCXOT1) S186vClL, 1'pb; TO A1J mLXCXLV fl£Tf8o~c Tou-ro c!>> f as the Soloman law assesses him, towards her being taken in marriage. Btit in the modernised code this is changed as being little, and becomes ten minae'. In this account we may distinguish (1) a criticism of Solon's language, since he called a woman £7tt>cxvlj 7twv 'T£ is filled from the definition of the btl7tpoLxoc;, so that we have ti8&Aq>wv 't'£ < xcxt ti8&Aq>L8wv iippevwv>. The use of 8't'cxv with the participle ouacx is perhaps impossible, and may be due to an incomplete change from a legal to a. lexical statement: Solon's legal style would give something like lhcxv 7tcxL8t opq>cxv1j 7tcx't'poc; xcxt 7tL8wv &.ppevwv

&p~µ.~

...Oxn U7tOX£Lµ.£Vl) oua(cx, 'Tcn' eo6£wc; µ.e Aa:~wv (j)xe-ro lxwv 7tpoc; O:U't'O\I xa:t 7tcX\l't'O: 't'OC O:U't'OU OLOLXEL\I 7ta:p£owxev, we; a:u-roc; (Uv oOoev iXv l.-rt 7tpii~cx.L 't'OVrW\I OUVl)6dc;, £µ.ou o& 7tcXV't'ot 0fou 't'E fooµ.£vou 7tor.e'tv, xoct &m:to~ 0a:pyfil.tcx. ~11, 1/jya:y£ µ.e €7tt -rooc; ~wµ.ooc; de; -rouc; yewl)Ta:c; 't'£ xa:t cppcX't'EpiXc;. fo't'L o' otU't'Otc; v6µ.oc; 0 O:UT6c;, Mv T£ 't'LVO: cpoaeL yeyov6-ra: dacXY7J 't'Lc; Uv 't'£ 7t0Ll)'t'6v, E7tL't'L6tva:L 7tLO''t'LV XOC't'OC 't'WV tepwv ii µ~v £~ ocarijc; daaye~\I xa:t yeyov6't'a: op6wc; xa:t 't'O\I U1tcXPXO\l't'O: cpuaeL xa:t 't'OV 7t0Ll)'t'6v. 7totl}O'CX.\l't'Oc; O~ 't'OU daayovToc; 't'otU't'IX µl)OE\I ~'t"t'O\I 0Lot~l)cp(~ea6ott xott 't'Ouc; &IJ..ouc;, x&v 06~71. -r6't'' de; 't"O XOL\IOV ypa:µ.µa:TEto\I EyypcXCf>lJV, 7tp6't'epov oe µ-fi ... 27. 7tptv yap £µ.& ~xm £x ·die; Ilu6taooc;, ~Af:ye 7tpoc; -niuc; OlJfl.6Totc; 'A7toAA6owpoc; l:l't't 7t£7tOLl)µ£voc; e(lJ µ.e uov xcx.t E:yyeypa:cpciic; de; Touc; auyyeve'tc; xott cppa-repa:c;, XIXL 7totpa:oeOWXOL TI]v ouala:v, XO:L OLEX£Aeue6' 07twc;, /J.v 't'L mx6ri 7tponpov,

CLASSICAL ATHENIAN FAMILY LAW

220

!yypcI.ljioua( µe tL; -ro AYJ~l4flXLXOV yp«µµ.a-rdov 0pc1.auA:Aov 'A1toA:Ao~6>pou xoct µ~

Wt; mwi;

1tOL~O'OUO'L

Apollodoros came to my mother, his sister whom he held in the greatest affection, with the idea of taking me as son. He asked, and gained permission. He was convinced this should be done quickly, so he returDed home immediately, ta.ld.ng me with him in his company, and turned over to me everything of his to manage it, both because he could no longer do anything himself, and because I should be doing it in future. And when Thargelia came round, he led me before the altars among the kindred and phrateres. They have one law applicable to recruits both by birth and adoption, to administer an oath by the sacred things that the recruit being introduced has.a citizen mother and is lawfully bom, both when he is applying for membership by birth, and when by adoption. When the introducer has done this, and nothing less, they proceed when proper to the ballot. After this, arid not before, I was entered on the general register ... For before I returned from the Pythais, Apollodoros told the members of his deme that he had made me his son and registered me with his kinsmen and phrateres, and handed over his property to me, and instructed them, if anything showd happen to him before I returned, to register me on the register of the deme as Thrasyllos son of Apollodoros and in no other style.

The account begins 'Yit.h the private formalities, but pays little attention to those of the 'making out': Thrasyllos c;Ioes not mention his father, or his mother's superior, though both (if distinct) would naturally be consulted, and the father would presumably have to give consent even if only nominally (since Thrasyllos was of age). The 'making in', on the private side, is covered by the comprehensive statement that 'everything' was delegated: 'everything' will include, but does not emphasize, the ancestor cult of Apollodoros' house. The account of the private side of the adoption is very realistic: Apollodoros' sister was clearly the person who actually counted, and neither Thrasyllos·nor his rhetor Isaios seem in this case to consider that, in giving the realistic accoun,t, they are laying themselves open to an argument of invalidity of the adoption as being 'under the influence of a woman'. Similarly in the account of the private 'making in', no mention is given of the introduction to the cults of the house so much emphasized in other speeches for their effect. The report of the admission to the phratry is, on the other hand, emphasized in its formalities, and apparently this was one of the strict phratries, like that of the Dekeleeis in IG II2 r237 (though the inscription does not mention recruitment by adoption: it may be implied in the recognition of the existence of very small thiasoi). The form of the admission to the deme was unusual: that it was irregular, and void, is the question at issue in this case: if it was, then Thrasyllos was not Apollodoros' adoptive sorr, and the property would go to a cousin. The story is probably reliable for the regular sequence of op~rations

LAWS ON THE INTERNAL STRUCTURE OF THE FAMILY

22I

necessary to an adoption: the 'making out' from the family of birth; the private 'making in'; introduction to and acceptance by the phratry, and registration with the deme. We do not know what happened in the phratry and deme of birth: it is quite possible, if they were inefficient, that the name of the member 'made out' was not even removed from the registers-and we should not suppose such inefficiency confined to the amateur administrators of Athens: precisely the same difficulty of keeping up with the paper work of official organisations with a. voluntary ethos is found in the present central registry of panel patients in the N a.tional Health Service, on which the expenditure of public money in capitation fees depends. (The r76 demes about 350 BC in Athens registered between them perhaps roo,ooo citizens, or about 500 each: officials changed annually, so that very few especially in the town demes will have known all their people, and fewer still have been up to date with their registers: errors would accumulate without great and special efforts at correction). We have very few fragments and reports on the texts of the civil law on adoption inter vivos: one of the signs of the assimilation of the various forms of adoption is the use of the text of the law on testamentary adoption for cases of adoption inter vivos. But the references which can be more or less certainly ascribed to the law on adoption inter vivos ·are: (i) Isaios VI 63: xcxt or.cxpp1jlh1v l:v T(j> v6µcp y&ypcx1t't'CXL, t xot-r 8uo 6uyoc-r£p(l)v £x -riji; -rou AE(l)xp&-roui; &8£Acplji;, -rljv µ.ev npEa~uttpocv £µ.ot 8(8(.o)O"L xoct nnocp&x.ov-roc µviii; npoi:xoc, 't'l)v 8£ V£(.o)'t"Epocv -rcj) A&(l)KpcX-rEL ••• 8Loccpopfu:; y£voµlv11i; -r Ilo:>..uEux-r 7tf>Ot; 'TOV A£(.o)Xpoc'Tl) ••• &cp£A6µ.£Vot; IIoM&ux.-rot; -dJv 6uyoc-r&poc 8(8(.o)O"L :Enou8(~ -rou-rw(.

(iv) Dern. 41. 3; oi'i-rot; 0 IloAOEUX'TOt;,

o

This Polyeuktos, since he had no sons, adopted Leokrates, his wife's brother, and as he had.two daughters, gave me the elder with a dowry of 40 minae· and the younger to Leokiates·... As they had quarelled, Polyeuktos took his daughter from Leokiates and gave her to Spoudias instead.

Of these, (i) plainly deals with adoption inter vivas, and gives the adoptive father no right to repudiate the adoption on the subsequent birth of children: this report is.probably fairly near to the text of the law. But (ii) is much more dubious, and we should not take from it more than that Isaias believed in its verisimilitude: that the court would accept, as part of the duty of an. elder adoptive son to a much younger born daughter, that he should give her in marriage with a relatively generous dowry. In ·(iii) we seem to have an actual quotation froill the law, though not with special reference to adoption inter vivas; but I place it here because (iv), although quoting no law, gives a clear example of an action inter vivas, and an action which seems to be a repudiation of the adoption by an adoptive father. It may be an accident of soµrce that all four fragments relate to the conditions of renunciation of adoption by the son, or its repudiation by the father; if not, then possibly Salon's law o~ adoption inter' vivas was in fact concerned mainly with such matters, leaving.the establiShed forms of adoption in the aikas and the phratry untouched.' So far as we know; this would be quite possible. The &7tox-ljpu~Lt; In the eleventh book of Plato's Utopia, the Laws (928 d, e), it is remarked that differences arise between fathers and sons, greater than is proper; and in these circumst~nces fathers are of the opinion that the law shouid offer them a means of 'speaking off' the son through announcement by the herald or town-crier that the son is no longer legally such; while sons in turn think they should be able to accuse their fathers of mental incapacity due to illness or senility, and so obtain redress ~om the

LAWS ON THE INTERNAL STRUCTURE OF THE FAMILY

223

courts. 'In another city differently constituted' says Plato, 'a son "heralded off" is not necessarily a stateless person, but in the city to which our laws are to apply the unfathered necessarily emigrates, for it is impossible to add one more to the five thousand and forty houses: for this reason, such a verdict cannot be delivered by the father alone, but the son must be "declared off" by the whole descent-group', And so the. aggrieved father must call together all his son's kin as far as p xtxplJ'tCXL oauyypcxcpe:uc; · &J.J..' oMev 0e:o7t6µmp cr-.cx.6µ:1rrov e:tc; ~pµYJvdcx.c; xplcrLv. To 'herald off' grandson 1 or son. But the term 'the heralded off' is not found in ancient usage. Theopompos the historian uses it, but gives no means of judging its significance.

It is likely that Theopompos i.S'the source for the later tale that Themistokles was 'heralded off', and that the word was used by him in that context. But, as. Pollux remarks, its import is not clear: Themistokles was the son of N eokles of the L ykomidai by an alien mother who is obscurely treated in our sources and who may well be a fiction: Themistokles' eldest son was named after his grandfather in the approved manner. Probably therefore all that Theopompos meant was to add a further sinister detail to the scandal of Themistokles' birth, and to imply that 1

'grandson' seems quite incredible, and I suspect the passage is muddled.

ulwv6~ is not an Attic word: and sons and grandsons are concerned with the expul-

sion of a kinsman in Homer's story of Tlepolemos. Perhaps the original text said that Homer did not call Tlepolemos ocxoxi]pux-i-o~.

224

CLASSICAL ATHENIAN FAMILY LAWS

his father not only refused to acknowledge him, but publicly repudiated claims that were being made on his paternity. The question of whether the disowning of a son by his father can be justified in principle is mentioned by Aristotle (Nie. Eth. VIII I4.4), but apparently as a matter of theory only: he uses the Herodotean word chtebtixa6cxL 'speak off', and mentions no herald, but is definitely thinking of the disoWning of a grown son, and a son by birth: not of a baby, nor of an adoptive son; Alexandrian learning on the subject is speciously definite: Lexeis Rhetorikai in Bekker, A necdota Vol. I p. 2I5 : cX7tox-fipux'Toc; • o ~7tt ocµo:ptjµcxcm ~x7tfowv -rijc; 7tCX'rpcf>cxc; otxLa:c; • tx7tO('Y)'toc; 8£ crcxa6cxL. o1hwc; 'Epcx'Toa6£VY)c; (Jac 24I F -) .

o£'tip(f 8o6dc; £LCr7tOLlJ-

Heralded off: one who is expelled from his father's house(hold) for his crimes; 'made out' is one who is given to another for 'making in'. So Eratosthenes.

But there is nothing here which is not in Plato, and no legal or forensic source is cited. The same appears to be true, on inspection, of the statement attributed to Dionysius of Halikamassos (II 26) that fathers could disinherit their sons in the law codes of Solon, Pittakos and Charondas. Dionysius is discussing the patria potestas in Greece, and says that the founders of Greek constitutions granted sons freedom from paternal power at an early age, which they learned from the three lawgivers mentioned; also the Greeks permitted no harsh punishment of disobedient sons, only disinheritance. The three lawgivers are quoted for their statement of age at majority; the disinheritance statement is separate, and given no authority. Later lexicographic sources merely follow the Lexeis; romance is prolific in stories of sons 'heralded off'. The evidence shows therefore that in the fourth century the philosophers and Theopompos were interested in 'heralding off', but that the practice is not fixed to Athens, and has no legal or forensic support. What we do have for Athens is the single (surviving) instance of the repudation of an adoptive son; and the regulation of a simllar practice in the Gortynian law-code. If then there was anything real and Athenian be.hind Plato's statement, it might refer to the public repudiation of an adoptive son, when the announcement by town-crier would be reasonable enough. Just as the adopted son shared equally with his later born brothers, so he required no legal process to enter on his inheritance:

[Dern.] 44 .. Ig: Aewxpch-l)c; ••. dcr7toL£f: cx&rov utov ..c;i 'ApxLV, 'yuvotLX1 ~L66µevoc;' 7t6pv71. and as Solon says 'out of his mind'--as none of mankind has been out. of his

(iii) [Dern]. 48. 56: xot1 o7t£p 1:6).wv

mind before-'under the influence of a female', a harlot.

(iv) Isaios II I3 : xor;( µoL 't'OV v6µov otU't'OV ocvocyvw6L, oc; xeA&u&L 't'a tcxl.)'t'OU ~&i:votL

8Lot6ea6otL o7twc; oc'J £6£).71, tav µ-}i 7toti:8e if there are hornopatric .siblings, < these to be owners of the money >;

CLASSICAL ATHENIAN FAMILY LAW

(ii) xoct Mv 1toci:8e:~ &~ &.8e:A.qi&v yvYicrtoL, '"iv -rou 1toc-rpo oc?nwv xoc-rc% -rocu-roc A.ocyx_&ve:tv • and if there are no siblings or siblings' children, < cousins born of the father's siblings and children> of theirs to inherit in the same way;

(iv) xpocni:v 8& TOUwv oto6µev..eyoumv 'Aµ..&(36cxc; Tljv v'ijaov o!x'ijaotL npw>tov 1) vuv &:n' £xdvou KEcpcx).).7Jvlcx xcx>..EiTcxL · µ&TOLKe:iv 8£ cxuTOV Ti:..EuacxVTEc; h; .:1E>..qiouc; ~Touv Tov 6Eov xci6oSov de; 'A6-fivcxc; • 6 81:. atpL-fip'IJ 61:.ouacxv. (iv) ytvoµ£vott; St CXUTOLt; XCX"tcl TOV nOLxl>..ov xcx>..ouµEVOV opoc; Sp&xwv toptuc;, (iii) y£vo~ t(Jna-rptowv, 6:ic; o' 'EA:>.civtxoc; xal cbto 'Epµoi:i. (iv) [xa6l)>m yO:p de; auTov To K'l)puxc.>v y£voc;J (v) 810 xal 7tpOEXEtpla67) ltOTt µtTO: r:i..auxc.>voc; aUV vaualv ttxocn Ktpxupalotc; 1'0116l)ac.>v 81arptpoµevo1c; itpbc; Kop1v6louc; (433 /2). (vi) µtTO: 8£ T µl)VOv btl xplatL 'f6Tt (416/4) xo:l. Avooxl811c; 1)v 6 ~i)Tc.>p, av 'E)..)..civtxoc; 6 auyypo:rptuc; de; Touc; 'Oouaa£c.>c; cinoy6vouc; &vijya:ytv. ; (c) = Suid. s. v. 'Avooxlo11c; · 'A611vo:foc;, ~i)Tc.>p -rwv 7tpc.>nu6v-rc.>v 8£xo: t!c;, ulbc; A£wy6pou, &it6yovoc; Tl)A&µcixou Toti '08uaa£c.>c; xal No:umxcio:c;, IJ:ic; rpl)atv 'E)..)..civ1xoc;. T 4: Hellani.kos 4 F 169 = 323a F 22 (in the Priestesses, c 420) .. KtrpciAou Toti '1111ov£c; ... T 5: Aristotle Ith. Pol. F 504 Rose: .. Tov K£rpo::>..ov ... T£Xt'Lv 'Apxda1ov. T 6: Schol (L V) Iliad 2. 173: fon 8£ AcxtpTOu Toii 'Apxttalou Toii Kt:>..ewc; Toti Ktrpci:>..ou Toti 'Epµoi:i. T 7: Hyg. Fab 16o (Mercurii filius) Cephalus ex Creusa·Erechthei filia.

AN ATTIC DESCENT GROUP

It appears then that pseudo-Plutarch and the corresponding passages are drawing ultimately on Hellanikos' Atthis or other late work of the chronographer, and that Andokides belonged, according to that work, to the genos of the Kephalidai: the phrase in T 3 (iv) will be an intrusive and ignorant gloss. But this is .only the beginning of the confusion in the biography. The orator, on his own account, was born within the years 445-40; he was of the deme Kydathenaieis: he was much too young therefore to be concerned in the Corcyrean expedition of 433/2; he was not of Thorai, and he was not born in 468/7. But the activity of an Andokides in 433/2 is con:fu:med by Thucydides (T 8), though an Andok:ides was not then a strategos (T 9); the connection of Kephalos with Thorai in Pherekydes (T ro) may reflect the same fact as lies behind the Thorai of pseudo-Plutarch. The simplest hypothesis seems to be that pseudo-Plutarch has conflated two biographies, one of an Andokides son of Leogoras of Thorai, born in 468/7 and sent to Corcyra in 433/2 in an unstated capacity (~PX.E), the other the orator, son of Leogoras of Kydathenai, born some twenty-five years later. Pseudo-Plutarch's 8to (T 3a(v) ) is not explained by his own text but by Suidas (T 3c): Andokides was descended from Nausikaa of Phaiakia, which was commonly identified with Corcyra. This element in the genealogy must have been accepted generally in Athens in 433/2, but the connection of Kephalos with Kephallenia, and his affiliation to Hermes, are not recorded before Hellanikos' later work, after 420 BC. A Kephalid cult of Hermes Patroios seems to be evidenced by pseudoLysias (T 13), but the relation of this cult to the so-called Herm of T 8: Thuk. I 51: -.ore; Sc KEXupcdoLc; ..l)6clc; Av8oxl8ou 8Lci 'L"O 7tAl)alov 7ta:poLxijaa:L -.ov •Av8oxl8ljv. T _12: .Andokides I 62: 6 'Epµijc; ov opii-.c 7t&v-.£c;, 6 7to:pci rljv 7ta:Tpa:v o!xla:v -.~v 'ijµEttpo:v, 6v -ii Al"'("l)lc; av£&1pa:v, OU 7tEpLtx67tl) µ6voc; -.(;)v 'Epµwv 'L"WV •A6i}Vl).ooµEYOv oux 'Av3oxl8ou, ID' AlY'll8oc; qiu>.-ijc; dvcu civci&tjµa; •.. iilau 0 aoupLc; tlOTOCJ)'.£81..tywv. T 15: Sophokles F 533 Pearson ... iv TTI Ilp6xp181 ..•

AN ATrIC DESCENT GROUP

which was not the Aigeid; (3) that the spur which made the Hermokopids proceed fro.m free-thinking to sacrilege, and against Hermes in particular, was the introduction of Hermes as the divine ancestor of Andokides the orator; (4) that this introduction was not due to the orator, who was of course much too young, but to the Andokides with whom he is confused by pseudo-Plutarch, and that the introduction took the outward form of the dedication of the 'Herm of Andokides,' the Hermes Patroios which was desecrated by Archippos. This combination seems to be psychologically plausible, and strains our usual assumptions rather than the evidence as such, but it remains a possibility only, and perhaps an unlikely one. The question of the relation between the Kephalid Hermes Patroios and the cults of the shrine reported by Pausanias is perhaps less difficult: Pausanias reports public cults, and the foundation legend which mentions the ancestor-snake and the heroes. As we have seen, these probably also received cult, though this is not mentioned, so there was probably a private part of the shrine not visited nor mentioned by Pausanias. A yE-loc; cult of Hermes Patroios would belong to this private part of the hieron, and consequently we must venture upon no argument from Pausanias' silence.

(iv) Family organisation in the Kephalid yevoc; From Andokides' own writings and some inscriptions we can make out a fairly full genealogy of his family for some generations. The orator himself married a cousin who died childless (T 16); he was the son of Leogoras (T 3, 17) and of a sister of his wife's father (T 16). His grandfather (T 18) was an Andokides who was strategos in 446/5 (T 3, 19), prominent enough to be mentioned on an ostracism sherd in 444/3 (T 20), and strategos again in 441/0 (T 21): his father was another Leogoras (T 20). Apparently the grandfather of Andokides the General was also T 16:. Andok. I n7: 'ETtD.uxoc; ~v 6 Tc1a.XV8pou 6ei:6c; µou, ci8t:Aqioc; Tijc; µ11-rpoc; Tijc; lµljc; · cid6a:vc 8£ ~ l:1xc).(~ &mnc; cipp~wv Tta:(8wv, 6uya:-r£pa:c; 8£ 8Uo xa:-ra:A1Ttwv, a:t £y(yvov-ro de; TE 1:µ£ xa:l A£a:ypov ... (120) xa:l ~c; µcv l:yw l:Ttc81xa:a&µ11v. ii Tta:i:c; -ru;rn Xpl'jaa:µ~ xa:µouaa: ciTt£60:V£V ij 8£ t..£pa: foTLV fTL. T 17: JG IP u38.21 'Av8oxC811c; Ac1wy6po Ku80:6l'jva:1cuc;. T 18: Andok. 111.6: 'Av8oxt811c; 6 TtcXTtTtoc; iiµi-rcpoc;. T 19: JG 13 1085.7, memorial for a hero of the Megarian campaign 446/5 mentions Andokides. T 20: JG 12 9n.3 L>.oµµ£L81jc; 'Aqipo8l'fl) 990 i:'ipT' civcr.ptljictµWq, xctl µLv ?;ct~OLc; ht Vl)O!i; VlJOx6>.ov vux_Lov xoL~act'fo, 8ctlµovct 8rov 991 v6x_Lov · µux_Lov voluit Aristarchus, oiov h Tip µux_ij> Tcjl ciau'f'!l !xLa'fct1:0uvTct tjj KuxpL8L.

AN ATTIC DESCENT GROUP

Other consorts of Eos are mentioned in the Odyssey: Orion (5.121) and the Melampodid Kleitos (15.250). Apparently there was a school of thought which identified Kleitos and Kephalos in some way (T 29), and for Euripides (T 30) Kephalos seems to replace Tithonos as the permanent consort of Eos. Indeed, we. should suppose that all these c~nsorts of Eos shared some quality of nature or identity, though Orion is the only one whose recognition is obvious. The Hesiodic account of Phaethon, as guardian to Aphrodite's dwellingplace, suggests that the myth came to the poet from some particular locality. There is evidence that some of the ancients shared this view and suggested various places. Phaethon himself appears, for example, as father to the eponyni of Eretria in Euboia (T 31, 32), and we should note that the personal name of Kephalos seems to have been popular there: IG XII 9 indexes nine instances while at Athens only three are known to Kirchner, one of whom (PA 8277) is a friend of Andokides and may well have been a Kephalid. There seems to be no record of Aphrodite or Phaethon in cult at Eretria, but there must have been a cult of the founder, which is also not recorded. . Hesiod's story of Kephalos is explicitly referred to by Pausanias (T 33) in connection with the Stoa Basileios in the Kerarrieik.os, and his reference is certainly at second hand, since he gives the wrong poem for his source, and replaces Eos by Hemera, who comes from Hellanikos (T 34), not Hesiod. It is clear therefore that Pausanias obtained his account locally, whether written or otherwise; and the same local narrative is probably manifest again in the statements that Kephalos was father (or son) of the eponym Kerameus (T 35) : perhaps Pausanias' informant was basing himself on a IlEpt S~µwv rather than one of the IlEpt yf.vcµv, and this 0

T 29: l: Eur. Hipp. 455 . . O'tL l>t KcqilXAov Yi 'Hille; ~pmi:at ,,l>LO: x«lloc;" xcxl "0µ7Jpoc; dp7Jxcv (Od 15.249, on Kleitos). T 30: Eurip. Hipp. 454 ff . . . . focxaL I>' @c; civiJp7tcxa£v 7tOtt "Ii xlXAALq>EITTt; filqilXAov ~ 6eouc; "Ec; fpw'tOt; dvtx'. cill' oµwc; EV oupcxvij> a"ttpyoum I>', otµ«t., C:uµqiopEuyouaLv bt7tol>wv 6touc;, T 31: l: (D) Il. 2.537: Etpt'tplcxv· dplJ'tCXL l>t cino 'Ept'tpLtwc; "tou ~cxt8onoc;. T 32: Steph. Byz. s.v.'Ept'tplcx ·. . o XEpcXµCfl Tijc; a"to&c; ciy&:Aµcx-rcx l>7tTijc; y'ijc; ••. q>tpouacx 'Hµcpcx K£qicx:Aov, ov xcillLawv y£v6µcv6v q>cxmv Ono 'Hµ£pcxc; £pcxa6da7jc; &:p1tcxa6ijvcxL xcxl ol 7tcxL'l>cx y£vta6cxL ~cx£6ov-rcx < > xcxl qiu:Acxxcx lnol7ja£ -rou vcxou. -rcxu-rcx &lloL n xcxl 'Halol>oc; dpljX&V iv i1ttaL -ro"Lc; 'Ee; -rO:t; yuvcxL'xcxc;. T 34: Hellanikos 4 F 140 (from the Tf'oika): TL6wvou -rou Acxoµ£8ov-roc;, IlpLciµou 8t cil>t:Aqiou, -ljpcia67j fi 'Hµcpcx, cc; oiS7t£p i1tol7Jacv ulov M£µvovcx. . T 35: l: Aristoph. Ekkl. 253: '1jv l>t b K£flcxµ£wc; 7t1X"tpoc; (itcx'"ip Suid.) b K~qicx:Aoc;.

THE LITERARY TRADITION

253

work in turn may have drawn on an Atthidographer who took Hemera from his predecessor Hellanikos. Assuming that Pausanias is exhaustive in his description of the terra-cottas on the Stoa, the subjects were Theseus the king of Athens par excellence, and Kephalos: we might suppose that the donor of the terra-cottas was a Kephalid who held office as basileus. If the excavators are right in identifying the Stoa Basileios with the Stoa of Zeus Eleutherios, the first building on the site was of the sixth century or earlier, and the second was completed about 409/8 BC. Fragments of the terracottas seen by Pausanias and belonging to the second building have been found, including parts of the Kephalos and Hemera group. 1 How we are to take the representation of the Kephalid eponym on an Athenian public building so soon after the Hermokopid scandal is perhaps not very clear: the alternatives seem to be that the representation was a copy of something similar in the older building, or that some Kephalid was basileus and donor of the terracottas shortly before 409/8. As we shall see, the Athenian material shows a certain reserve about the story of Kephalos and Eos (though this is confined to the literature and does not affect, for example, the vasepaintings); but perhaps we should incline to the view that the fifthcentury terracottas continued a tradition earlier established, presumably by some seventh- or sixth-century Kephalid basileus. It is possible that there was a more real connection between the Hesiodic passage and the Kephalid hieron on the Aigaleos pass, for there was a vcx6c; of Aphrodite a mile to the west, which may have been part of the same cult-complex. But we should naturally assume that, Hesiod was not drawing on Attic cult for his myth, but rather that Attic cult had been shaped under Hesiodic influence or, at most, that the Attic cult and Hesiodic myth both came from a conunon source. A possibly relevant cult of Aphrodite Melainis is reported from Thespiai (T 36) : the epithet of the goddess (T 37) might connect the vulgate reading of vux~ov in Hesiod's text with Aristarchos' µux~ov. There is no mention of Phaethon or Kephalos at Thespiai so far as I know, but the name of a Prokris occurs there (T 38), which might suggest some unrecorded connection. 1 I. T. Hill, Ancient City of Athens, pp. 41 ff: Hesperia VI T 36: Paus. IX 27.5, at Thespiai: fo·tt 8£ xcxl htpw6' 'Acppo8CTl)c; M£Aiuvl8oc; l£p6v ... T 37: Paus. VIII 6.5: tn(XA7Ja'v 8£ -Ii 6£~ TCXUTl)V xcxT' ll.J..Ao µh i!axev ou8tv, 6T' 11£ civ6pC.:mwv µ'fi TcX mxvrcx cxl µ~£Le; &lanep TOLc; XT1]v£a' µ£6' ljµtpcxv TcX xAdw 8t daw EV vuxTC. T 38: [Apd.]Bibl. II 7.8: 1)acxv 8& mxi8cuµc:tpktv yc:tµe:i: K1wpc:tuA.cxxoc;, KicpotA.oc; 6c; ycxiu:'L Ilp6xptv -ri)v 'EpEx6iwc;, cx06tc; 8~ 'ii 'H~ cxuTov cip'l!ci~ct.. T 46: l: Eur. Tr. 9 : ... 4>~xou 8~ Toii 1¥etµcilhjc; xotl 'Aaupo8Letc; -ri)v Al)Loviwc; lyMTO IlcxvoxEUc; xetl" Kpfooc; 6 Kpfoetv XTlaetc;, Toii 8t lletvwxiwc; 'ExEfoc; •.• T 47: Hekataios I F II5: Eustath. Il. 2.520: Kplaaet 8~ 7t£8lov xetl x6A.Lc; iv Aoxpo'Lc; ~ iv AEA.cpo'Lc; clxo Kplaaou TLvOc; TUpilwou ~. we; 'EXCtTeti6c; cpl)GL, 1tetL8oc; cll~xou. l: (A) Il. 2.520: Kpiacx rc£8Cov iv Aoxpl8L ijv c:ic; ol nA.Elovic; cpetmv l:v AEA.cpo'Lc;, 6voµcxa6~v clxb Kplaou Toii TUpilvvou xetl 'AaT1tpo8Cetc; 't'ijc; Al)Loviwc;. AcxuA.lc; 8~ x6A.Lc; 4>wxl8oc; clxo AetuA.Liwc; 6voµeta6£foot Toii TUpctvvou XCtl Xpl)GTWV'ljc; ... T 48: Hesiod F 94.34 ff.: ix clluAcixl)c; (as in Homer) 8' iµvwVTO clvipgc; !~ox' !pLGTOL, ul6c; T' 'lcplxA.oto Ilo8cipxl)c; clluA.cxxl8cxo i]Uc; T' 'AxTOpl8l)c; u=p~vwp IlpwTEalAetoc;

au·

THE LITERARY TRADITION

257

century vase painting (T 49); Phylakos is taken by Homer as the father of Iphiklos and grandfather of Protesilaos and Podarkes. The combined witness of Hekataios and the Bologna painting show that the Deion and Phokos genealogies were known in the fifth century, and the name of Ainetos on the vase-painting presumably means that in this version he came with his brother Kephalos to Attika. It seems probable that this combined genealogy of Deion and Phokos is due to Asios of Samos, whom Palisanias quotes for the Phokos branch (T 50). Pausanias' silence on Asterodia and her family (with whom he is not concerned) does not preclude the supposition that Asitis treated of Deion and his children: Diomede daughter of Xouthos was presumably for him, as for others, the sister of Ion~who was the ancestor of Prokles son of Pityreus of Epidauros, the founder of Ionian Samos. Deion the son of Aiolos and Diomede the sister of Ion are therefore a systematic statement about the ethnology of Phokis; in the next generation Asterodia remains and marries the incomer and Aiakid, Phokos, while her brothers apparently go abroad. The prominence of the eponym Krisos in the Phokos genealogy· is evidence that Asios composed this ethnology before the fall of Krisa to the Amphiktionic alliance of Thessaly and Athens with Sikyon and Argos. This genealogy is quite at variance with the Homeric account of Phokis (T 51) : the only link between the two is the name which appears as Strophios in Asios and as Epistrophos in Homer. Asios' ethnology then, we must suppose, deliberately gave a different account from the Homeric; and in some ways it is a very odd account indeed. As represented by Pausanias throughout his book on Phokis, Asios' ethnology is connected with a specific doctrine on Phokian history: the Phokian name began with Phokos son of Omytos the· Sisyphid of Coriil~h, in whose time the name meant Parnassos and Tithorea; it was extended to the whole of Phokis by Phokos the Aiakid from Aigina. There can hardly be any doubt that this doctrine is a reflection of the history of Phokis-that is, Delphi-before the first Sacred War, and it is reasonable to infer that T 49: Bologna PU 273: Corpus Bologna Vol. .I Plate 19; RFZ p. 739 no. 1 (Codrus painter): A]tvcToc; in civiliah dress speaking to Kodros in full armour. T 50: Asios F 5 Ki = Paus. 2.29.4 ~WX 8£ ~Aaioc; l> Tc117n] TtOll)aoet; y£vfo6otL cpl)al IIotVOlL'Cot xotl Kpiaov· xotl IIotVOlL't(J) Tbv llL'lL'OV WV 8oupELOV, we; "Oµl)poc.>xtoo\I TO"t£ ~cxat'Atuo\ITL. The v.l. cI>u:>.cxxl:c.>" is perhaps more probable? T 6o: Nostoi F 4 Ki (Paus. X 29.3, describing the murals of Polygnotos): . . 'AptciS"7J . . . 6p~ Sc l:c; rlj" &.Sc:>.cp~" ll>cxlBpcx" . . uTto Be rlj" cI>cxlBpcx" fo-rl" &,.,,cxx_cx:ALµt""IJ X'Aptc; l:Ttl Tijc; 0ulcxc; y6\lcxat\I ... 7tcxp&. Be rlj" 0.ulcx" Ilp6xptc; -re £aT7]> Tij> 6.7](0\IOc; xcxl Y£'1ta6cxL acplaw "IcpLXAO\I 7tcxi'Scx. or&: B' l:c; Ilp6xp111 xcxl ot 7tiivnc; ~Souatv .. T 61: Odyssey 11.321 cI>cxlBp7J" n Ilp6xpt\I "t£ tSo\I xcx:>.1)" "t' 'AptciS""IJ" 326 Mcxi'pciv n K:>..uµt'V"l]v T£ tSov awycp-fi" or' 'EptcpUA"l]\I T 62: Pherekydes 3 F 33 = l: (MV) Hom. Od. 11.287 (Melampous diagnoses the cause of Iphiklos' impotence and instructs him as to its cure) ... Ttotijacxc; St 6 "Iqmu.oc; -rou"to rlj" yo'lij" ci11cxpp6>W1Jm, xcxl taxct Ilo8cipx7J" Ttcxi8cx. T 63: Pherekydes 3 F 120 = l: (MV) Hom. Od. 19.432: cl>t'Aoo\llt; -1j 6.7Jlo\loc; 6uyciT7]p olxouacx -ro\I Ilcxp11cxaao11 i'1 cxu"tijl Ttcxpuix&ti xcxl 'Arr;o).).c.>11L · dxc y&:p -ro xci).).oc; l:pciaµto\I irtl -roaou-ro\I lf>an xcxl -rouc; 8coUc; ~T)AO"tUTtOU\l"tcxc; xcx-r&: -ro cxu"to 6£A7jacxt µlayca6cxt. chcx µt\I TOU •Art6AA6l\IOc; y(11£"tctt cI>tAiiµµoov, &.vi)p aoqaatjc;, ot; xcxl 7tp(;)"toc; tS6xcL xopouc; aua"t1jacxa6cxt Ttcxp6C\lc.>11, bt St -rou 'Epµou Au-r6:>.uxoc;, Oc; olxiiiv -rov Ilcxpvcxoao" Tt°Aci'a-rcx xAtTtTc.>\I l67]acxupt~ev. d)(' yc1p "tCXUT"IJll rljv or~" Ttcxp&. "tou rr;cx-rp6c;, lI> a-re -rouc; &."6pwTtouc; lln x'.Ai:TtTOL n :>..cx.,,6iivct\I, xcxl "ta 8p£µµcx-rcx Tiji; Ac:l«c; IDotou\I dc; o 6£'Aot uooainc. &>an Tt'Atl1:>.ciµµovoc; Tto:'L; and the scholiast remarks -rbv E>ciµupLv )..l:y&L cl>1:>..1ljoc; T 68: Soph.F 242 Pearson= :E Soph.0.C. 378: TtOAAo:xou"tb "Apyoc; xo'LA6v cp'lj'. "0µ'7)poc; (Od. 4 1). 'ol ll' t~ov xolA'!j\I Ao:x£8o:lµovo:' ip1x6ovlou· Roscher 6.1 col. 446 collates Et. Mag. 371.49 'Ep1x66111oc; • o 'Epµljc; ...

AN ATTIC DESCENT GROUP

Moreover, we must consider the implications of the fact' that the description of Autolykos as alvLv was authoritative: apparently it led to the genealogy that he was grandfather· of Sinon, the secret agent in. the Little Iliad (T 69), and the naming of an Autolykos, son of Deimachos of Trikka, as a founder of Sinope (T 70). This status of authority, and the learned commentary on the lines (T 68), suggests they are Hesiodic, and for sense they fit excellently between Hesiod F III and F u2: Hesiod F !: Soph.

III

Hesiod F

II2

~

't'EX&V A6...6/...ux6v 't'E: LMµ.µ.ov6Lµtvou "AxTopoc; a combination of the Homeric tradition that Protesilaos and Podarkes were brothers with the Hesiodic (T 48) view that Protesilaos was son of Aktor.

~

Table X The Pherekydean Kephalos Erechtheus

r

Kekrops (II)

Deioo = Diomede Ion

I Pandion (II) I Aigeus

I (= Theseus

I Prokris

I

Demophoo

Hyllos

I F84 Oxyotes

I Kleodaios

I

Phylakos = Klymene F Io4 I I Aison Iphiklos Alkimede long F ro4 childless I Iason = Medeia F 33

(Medeia) Herakles

I F ISI

Apheidas

I = Kephalos F 34

I I Temeoos:

~

I

~.....

Philonis F

i20

I Autolfkos I-

Antikleia

(')

I Philammoo F 36 Laertes

I

Odysseus Podarkes

Aristomachos the Return

Euneus

t::1 t.V (ltUrljV f't'L vuµq>l)V OU(J(ltV. l!ncL't'Ot x0t't'0txoaµi)a0tt; K(ltl &.Umnti>n't'i:uacv ~ Ilp6xpLt; IS't'L µlay1tT0tL yuv0tLxl tdpq: npoaKIXA£a0tµ£Vl) ouv 't'bv olxt't'l)V l!A£ycv cl a\ivoL81tv. b 8! 61:pcinl) Tbv Ktq>(ltAOV t8dv ln( nvoc; !Spout; xopuqi~v x0tl ).tycLV auxvwc; • '@ v1:qi£A0t, 7t(ltp0tycvqii,' K(ltl TOii't'o µ.6vov auv&c.8tv(ltL. "Ii 8c Ilp6xptt; &.xoOoot11t xe:pl •AAtppo6(ou 8Cx7)11' µc"!'&: 8£ Tijv Kt:cpcU.ou TOU 117)tO\ltoL . o:l 'Epi:x6~~ 6uyo:T£pt~ Kp&ouao: xo:l X6011Lo: 8ta Ilp6XpLll -rlJv ~8&Aq>YJll µ-l) i'.moµcLvo:a«L l;ijv bcdVI)~ CJq>«yto:a6cLcni~ u.,;i:p 'A6'1)11o:Lw11.

THE LITERARY TRADITION

271

derived his notion from a Il&pt 87]µ.cuv which drew ultimately on an Atthidographer. The name of Prokris' lover Pteleon in the Bibliotheke (T 8r) may reflect the deme of Pteleasioi, or it may have come into the Attic story from the late versions of Prokris daughter of Iphiklos (T rr3) for Iphiklos' Homeric kingdom includes the town of Pteleon. Ovid (T 82) places Prokris' death on Hymettos, probably merely because that name was well-known. Hyginus (T 83) gives Kephalos an unlocalised regnum, and in an extraordinarily muddled list (T 84) gives Kephalos son of Deion as a king of Athens: nothing can be made of these allusions (but see T r46 below). Antoninus Liberalis (T 85) and the Bibliotheke (T 86) make Kephalos king of Thorikos, and Toeppfer in his Attische Genealogie took this account as the basis for the inference that the Attic Kephalos was originally eponym of the deme Kephale, and that the Kephalidai came thence to Athens. This doctrine was supported, according to Toeppfer, by the painting of Ainetos .and Kodros (T 49), by the place name .i>u'Ao:xlo: in Attika to provide an origin for Phylakos; by the appearance (T 87) of Deioneus as the father of Dia mother of Peirithoos, eponym of the deme IlEpL6ol8o:L, and by the false reading of Dia (T 88) as mother of Pittheus, eponym of the deme TIL6Ei: (i.e. £nwvuµwv Twv 8~µwv) t.71·tovoc; lyyovoc;. T 91: Konon 26 F l: VU 0iiµuptc; · 'Ii ~· 8niydTc.tL c!>c; cl>t)..&µµwv ncx!~ LAwvl8oc; fi yiywvrt1 i~ 'Ewcrqi6pou Xetl K>-co~o!a~ h eopLXi;> Tijr; . A 0t"'rLX~t; . . .

AN ATIIC DESCENT GROUP

The direct ancient evidence for Kephalos in Thorikos is thus limited to Antoninus and the Bibliotheke, with Konon as an indirect support. The reference in the Bibliotheke comes from the account of the Teleboan War, which is highly detailed and clearly is taken from a specialist source. We are told .(T 92) that the first account of this war was written by Homer's Demodokos: that is, by a Hellenistic forger. The value of the Thorikos tradition· is therefore nil: 'Demodokos' probably used the name as a better known alternative for Pherekydes' Thorai, and was followed by the romancers Konon and Antoninus: and the name of Thorikos belongs to the general, and not to the specifically Attic writers. The Attic tradition of Kephalos sees him predominantly as the husband and killer of Prokris: this appears in literature in the latest archaic epic (Nostoi, and N ekyia), and as there treated Kephalos is two generations before the Trojan War, which agrees with Asios' doctrines. Pherekydes, treating the Deionid traditions in the light of the Theseis, makes Kephalos a generation earlier, gives him a sister Philonis as ancestress of Odysseus, and places Kephalos and Prokris in Thorai, where the (senior) family of the Kephalidai was domiciled in his time. He also eliminates Eos from the story, and has not yet heard of the Areopagus trial, which first appears in Hellanikos' Priestesses about 420 BC: it was probably dramatised by Sophokles in the Prokris, though Pherekydes' version may be represented in London E 477, This hitherto necessary connection of the Attic Kephalos and Prokris was later broken, and replaced by a return to the story of Kephalos and Eos: this was probably used by Phanodemos, making Kelenderis and Paphos derivative from Athens: in this he probably had a precursor in Phileas, who was working however in the pre-Theseis tradition. Philochoros gave Kephalos an Attic daughter in the eponym Oie, but other details of bis treatment are lost, and we have no more information on the specifically Attic tradition until Pausanias' reports on Kephalos and Hemera on the Stoa Basileios, and on the Kephalid bieron on the Aigaleos. From the time of Pherekydes, when the literature becomes sufficiently copious for judgement, it is likely that the influence of the Kephalidai on the literary development was constant, for the specifically Attic tradition. Pherekydes' account agrees with the Kephalid claim in 433/2 T 92: l: Hom. Od. 3.267 d'1)µ68oxoi; .... 8i; ~v rcpC,-rot; 8L' ~rcwv yp&, xa:l 'l"GttYnJV µ~ lm~vuµov ~dvou ye:v£a6a:1 Td