Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:15:33.461Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Women and Naturalisation in Fourth-Century Athens: The Case of Archippe*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

David Whitehead
David Whitehead
Affiliation:
University of Manchester
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

What we know of citizenship, marriage and political status in Athens in the fourth century suggests that they were matters of no little public concern governed by a body of law which left few, if any, significant loopholes or anomalies. The ‘descent group’ criterion for citizenship had triumphed over the possible alternatives. The fundament of the system was the Periklean law (or laws) of 451/0, re-enacted in 403/2, and prescribing double endogamy — that is, citizen birth through both parents — as the normal qualification for a citizen (astos). Whether this fifth-century legislation declared mixed marriages (astos with xene, xenos with aste) positively invalid or merely deterred them indirectly, through the disabilities falling upon the children, remains unclear. It is certain, however, that by the time [Demosthenes] 59 was delivered, in the 340s, both the parties to and the accessories in such marriages were breaking the law. ‘At that time an alien who joined the oikos of a citizen as husband or wife (the word synoikein implies a purported marriage, not mere concubinage) could be prosecuted by graphe and, if found guilty, was sold as a slave; the citizen man who thus received an alien woman into his oikos as his wife was fined 1000 drachmas. A man who, acting as her kyrios, gave an alien woman to a citizen for marriage could also be prosecuted by graphe, and if he was found guilty he was disfranchised and his property was confiscated’.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 36 , Issue 1 , May 1986 , pp. 109 - 114
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 To be precise: between the restoration of democracy in 403/2 and its suppression in 322/1. ‘Fourth-century Athens’ hereinafter will refer to this period.

2 See Davies, J. K., ‘Athenian citizenship: the descent group and the alternatives’, CJ 73 (1977–1978), 105–21Google Scholar.

3 For a recent discussion of both the legislation and (more briefly) its re-enactment see Patterson, Cynthia, Pericles' Citizenship Law of 451–50 B.C. (New York, 1981)Google Scholar. While it is now generally accepted that Perikles' law was not retroactive in the sense of disfranchising anyone registered before 451/0, it very probably did disfranchise (and disinherit) those born at any time after 469/8, whom the demes would reject when they came up for enrolment: thus Humphreys, S. C., ‘The Nothoi of Kynosarges’, JHS 94 (1974), 88–95, esp. 92–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar. By contrast it would seem that the 403/2 re-enactment was entirely non-retroactive, thus allowing metroxenoi born before that year to qualify as citizens until 385/4; cf. Osborne III–IV, 152, cf. 184.

4 Thus (e.g.): Hignett, C., A History of the Athenian Constitution to the End of the Fifth Century B.C. (Oxford, 1952), 343Google Scholar; MacDowell, D. M., The Law in Classical Athens (London, 1978), 67 and 87Google Scholar.

5 Thus (e.g.): Harrison, 26; Patterson, op. cit. (note 3, above) 29 n. 3, 95+n. 57, 99.

6 The termini are 349/8 ([Demosth.] 59.3–8; cf. in general Hansen, M. H., GRBS 17 [1976], 235–46) and 339/8Google Scholar (Philochorus, , FGrHist 328 F 56aGoogle Scholar).

7 MacDowell, op. cit. (note 4, above), summarising [Demosth.] 59.16 (⋯⋯ν δ⋯ ξένος ⋯στῇ συνοικῇ τ⋯χνῃ ᾒ μηχανῇ ᾑτινιο⋯ν, γραɸέσθω πρ⋯ς τοὺς θεσμοθέτας Ἀθηναίων ⋯ βουλόμενος οἶς ἔξεστιν. ⋯⋯ν δ⋯ ⋯λῷ, πεπρ⋯σθω κα⋯ αὐτòς κα⋯ ⋯ αὐσία αὐτο⋯, κα⋯ τ⋯ τρίτον μέρος ἔστω το⋯ έλόντος. ἔστω δ⋯ κα⋯ ⋯⋯ν ⋯ ξένη τῷ ⋯στῷ συνοικῇ κατ⋯ ταὐτ⋯, κα⋯ ⋯ συνοικ⋯ν τῇ ξ⋯νῃ ⋯λούσῃ ⋯ɸειλέτω χιλίας δραχμ⋯ς) and 52 (⋯⋯ν δέ τις ⋯κδῷ ξ⋯νην γυναῖκα ⋯νδρ⋯ Ἀθηναίῳ ὡς ⋯αυτῷ προσήκουσαν, ἄτιμος ἔστω, κα⋯ ⋯ οὐσία αὐτο⋯ δημοσία ἔστω, κα⋯ το⋯ ⋯λ⋯ντος τ⋯ τρίτον μέρος. γραɸέσθων δ⋯ πρ⋯ς τοὺς θσμοθέτας οἶς ἔξεστιν, καθ⋯περ τ⋯ς ξενίας).

8 See Osborne, M. J., ‘Attic citizenship decrees: a note’, ABSA 67 (1972), 128–58Google Scholar, at 140+n. 49 and 147–8+n. 75; cf. now Osborne II, 59 and (esp.) Osborne III–IV, 150–4.

9 PA 11672; but see rather, for full data (and chronological inferences which I follow here), Davies, 427–42 (with bibliography) and Isager, S. and Hansen, M. H., Aspects of Athenian Society in the Fourth Century B.C. (Odense, 1975), 176–91 and 225–6Google Scholar. What we know of the history of Pasion and his family is intimately interwoven with that of his bank, but here I ignore the latter as far as possible.

10 For ex-slaves in Athens as metics see Whitehead, D., The Ideology of the Athenian Metic, PCPhS suppl. vol. 4 (Cambridge, 1977), 16–17Google Scholar.

11 Perhaps before 386: see Davies, 430.

12 See Davies, 436–7. We may discount Apollodoros' suggestion, amid so much other spiteful innuendo, that it would have been improper for these sons to marry his own daughters (Demosth. 45.75).

13 On the nature and scope of the hybris law see most recently Gagarin, M., ‘The Athenian law against hybris’, in Arktouros: Hellenic studies presented to Bernard M. W. Knox on the occasion of his 65th birthday (Berlin and New York, 1979), 229–36Google Scholar. On the concept of hybris in general see MacDowell, D. M., ‘Hybris in Athens’, G&R 2nd ser. 23 (1976), 14–31Google Scholar; N. R. E. Fisher, ‘Hybris and dishonour’, ibid. 177–93, and 2nd ser. 26 (1979), 32–47.

14 See Diller, A., Race Mixture among the Greeks before Alexander (Urbana, 1937), 95–6Google Scholar.

15 Osborne III–IV, 150–4 (cf. ABSA 67 [1972], 147 n. 75Google Scholar). I have taken the liberty of expanding his discussion somewhat, and applying it to the specific case of Archippe, with points made in personal correspondence with me.

16 Since, as admitted at the outset, the demopoietoi were themselves a very small group in absolute terms, to consider their widows — indeed, the sub-category thereof which remarried — is to deal with an extremely small group indeed. I concede the point, but would observe that Archippe's status during Pasion's lifetime is also at issue.

17 Osborne III–IV, 150 (cf. ABSA 67 [1972], 147 n. 75Google Scholar), citing SEG XV 384 (Dodona, 370/69).

18 [Demosth.] 59.92 (⋯κ γυνακ⋯ς ⋯στ⋯ς κα⋯ ⋯γγυητής κατ⋯ τ⋯ν νόμον) cf. 104–6; see Osborne III–IV, 173–6.

19 Davies, 431 (rightly expressing, none the less, no disbelief in the authenticity of the will).

20 See de Ste. Croix, G. E. M., ‘Some observations on the property rights of Athenian women’, CR 20 (1970), 273–8Google Scholar; cf. more generally Schaps, D. M., Economic Rights of Women in Ancient Greece (Edinburgh, 1979)Google Scholar.

21 Thus Wolff, H. J., ‘Marriage law and family organization in ancient Athens’, Traditio 2 (1944), 43–95, at 53–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar (reprinted in German translation as Beiträge zur Rechtsgeschichte Altgriechenlands and des hellenistisch-römischen Ägypten [Weimar, 1961], 155–242, at 173–91)Google Scholar; cf. his standard treatment of the topic in RE XXIII.1 (1957), s.v. προίξ, cols. 133–70, and 147ff. For a more nuanced view see Harrison, 45–60, esp. 52–4 (cf. 113).

22 [Demosth] 46.23: οὐκο⋯ν, αὐτόν, εἴπμρ ⋯βούλετο ⋯ρθ⋯ς διαπράττεθαι, λαχεῖν ἔδει τ⋯ς ⋯πικλήρον, εἴτε κατ⋯ δόσιν αὐτῷ προσ⋯κεν εἴτε κατ⋯ γένος, εἰ μ⋯ν ὡς ὑπ⋯ρ ⋯στ⋯ς, πρ⋯ς τ⋯ν ἄρχοντα, εἰ δ⋯ ὡς ὑπ⋯ρ ξένης, πρ⋯ς τ⋯ν πολ⋯μαρχον.

23 Gould, J. P. A., ‘Law, custom and myth: aspects of the social position of women in classical Athens’, JHS 100 (1980), 38–59, at 46CrossRefGoogle Scholar.