Sibling Relationships in Classical Athens: Brother-Sister Ties

http://jfh.sagepub.com/Journal of Family History

http://jfh.sagepub.com/content/13/1/377The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/036319908801300123

1988 13: 377Journal of Family HistoryCheryl Anne Cox

Sibling Relationships in Classical Athens: Brother-Sister Ties

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Journal of Family HistoryAdditional services and information for

http://jfh.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jfh.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://jfh.sagepub.com/content/13/1/377.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Jan 1, 1988Version of Record >>

at Abant Izzet Baysal University on May 9, 2014jfh.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Abant Izzet Baysal University on May 9, 2014jfh.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jfh.sagepub.com/

http://jfh.sagepub.com/content/13/1/377

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://jfh.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://jfh.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://jfh.sagepub.com/content/13/1/377.refs.html

http://jfh.sagepub.com/content/13/1/377.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml



SIBLING RELATIONSHIPSIN CLASSICAL ATHENS:BROTHER-SISTER TIES

Cheryl Anne Cox

Cheryl Anne Cox is Assistant Professor of Classics atMemphis State University. Her major area of research isthe study of marital patterns among the elite families ofarchaic and classical Athens.

ABSTRACT: This article examines the private orations of classical Athens for evidence of therelations between brothers, brothers and sisters, and brothers-in-law. Although affection couldexist between male siblings, Athenian inheritance laws, requiring equal division of the paternalestate among male heirs, stimulated conflict between brothers. Females, however, could notinherit if they had brothers, neither were their dowries equal to their brothers’ share of thepatrimony. The interest of the natal family in giving a substantial dowry and in contracting asecure and prestigious marriage for the daughter often led to ties between brothers and sisters andcooperation between brothers-in-law. When cross-siblings or their descendants contended for thesame estate, however, conflicts did arise, at times aggravated by the institution of adoption.

During recent years there has been a pro-liferation of historical studies on medievaland early modern European households,families, and inheritance practices. Thesestudies suggest that in some countries suchas France, Germany, and England, someregions-usually their upper classes-pre-ferred to bequeath the bulk of the estate toone son, most often the eldest; whereas inother regions of the same country, or in otherclasses, the estate was divided among sev-eral, if not all, children (Flandrin 1976, pp.

75-79; LeRoy Ladurie 1976; Wheaton 1980,p. 119; Berkner 1976; Faith 1966, p. 81;Cooper 1976, pp. 215-221; Vann 1979, p.347; Houlbrooke 1984, p. 41). Even withinthese areas and groups, local customs variedor changed over time: strict impartibility orpartibility was not always practiced (Berkner1976, p. 72; Wheaton 1980, p. 123). ForSouthern Europe, partibility was the norm,and certainly also for classical Athens, as weshall see. In some regions of SouthernEurope, however (e.g., Portugal and Spain),impartibility was resorted to in order to avoid

at Abant Izzet Baysal University on May 9, 2014jfh.sagepub.comDownloaded from


378

severe fragmentation of property. In Italy,among the elite, partible inheritance formales was preferred, but sons often livedtogether and shared the patrimony. Partibil-ity was abandoned by the Italian elite afterthe mid-sixteenth century in favor of impar-tibility, which in turn was abandoned duringthe nineteenth century (Kertzer and Brettel1987, pp. 196-101).The role of the daughter has been dis-

cussed in these studies. In areas of partibility,the woman, after receiving her dowry of cash,movables, or land (depending on local cus-tom or the woman’s class), could either beexcluded from any further inheritance of the

paternal estate, or could inherit along withher brothers, at times receiving an equal share(LeRoy Ladurie 1976, p. 53; Kertzer andBrettel 1987, pp. 97-100). In both partibleand impartible systems, the woman’s dowryafter marriage could be bound inextricably tothe conjugal fund, as the woman would

slowly break all ties with her kin group oforigin. The husband had little say over thedowry, particularly if it took the form of land,and the wife was only a temporary memberof her husband’s house, taking the dowry withher to her original house on termination ofher marriage (MacFarlane 1986, pp. 274,287; Sabean 1976, pp. 107-111; Wheaton1980, p. 124). As for sibling relationships, inthe areas where unigeniture was the norm,relations between the inheriting son and hisnoninheriting brothers would naturally betense (Sabean 1976, pp. 100-101; Stone1977, p. 115; Collomp 1984, pp. 166-168;Kertzer and Brettell 1987, pp. 100-101); inpartible systems tensions could arise as wellamong inheriting siblings (Smith 1984, pp.191-192). In regions where males and fe-males inherited equally, brothers-in-law be-came the focal point: they could cooperate inagricultural or building activities or in feudswith third parties who threatened their prop-erty. Yet relations could also be competitive,with conflict between brothers and theirmarried sisters (Sabean 1984, pp. 172-184).

Although this discussion cannot do justiceto the complexities of regional inheritancepractices, it does suggest that a long-neededcomplement to current works on the familyand inheritance is an investigation of theclassical world. I propose here to show howsuccession practices in classical Athens,which emphasized partible inheritance forbrothers but not for sisters, affected siblingrelations. My research has been influencedgreatly by anthropological studies of present-day Greek agrarian societies. The two

worlds, modem rural Greece and ancientAthens, have many differences; most ob-viously, the ancient sources deal with theslave-owning elite, whereas the anthropolog-ical studies for the most part deal with the

average peasant or shepherd who attempts tohave all children-sons and daughters-inherit equally. Local customs in present-dayGreece vary as to how or when the propertyis divided: sons can inherit at the father’sdeath (Friedl 1962, pp. 59-60; Sant Cassia1982, p. 645) or at the father’s retirement(Campbell 1974, pp. 187-189), or each soninherits at his own marriage or at the mar-riage of the eldest child (Loizos 1975, p. 506;Herzfeld 1980a, p. 96). In all these societies,daughters are dowered at or before marriage,but in some communities daughters have nofurther claim to inherit (Friedl 1962, pp.48ff; Campbell 1974, pp. 188-189; Herzfeld1980a, p. 96). In other communities they caninherit along with their brothers at theirfather’s death (Herzfeld 1980a, pp. 95-96;Sant Cassia 1982, p. 645). Further, equal dis-tribution may at times be an ideal: some sonsreceive an education in lieu of an inheritanceso that a division of the property into unprof-itably small lots can be avoided (Friedl 1962,p. 49). In one society the youngest son mayget a larger share of the flock in compensa-tion for tending his parents’ flock (Campbell1974, p. 188), whereas in another, sons maybe left virtually propertyless because of thepriority given to daughters’ dowries (SantCassia 1982, p. 650).



379

Of particular relevance to us are thosecommunities where the daughter is doweredideally before the death of the householdhead and the division of the property of hernatal household (Friedl 1962, pp. 59-60;Cambpell 1974, pp. 188-189; Herzfeld1980a, p. 96). The dowry, always a source ofmale honor (Friedl 1962, p. 69), stimulatesconcern for the woman’s welfare and rein-forces strong ties between brothers and sis-ters. In many communities this concern

results in the tendency for sisters to marryearlier than their brothers (Campbell 1974,p. 82; Loizos 1975, p. 512; Herzfeld 1980b,p. 230; Sant Cassia 1982, pp. 644, 650).Especially interesting to this study are thosepresent-day communities that allow a femaleto inherit her share of the paternal propertyonly through the dowry. This form of inherit-ance prevents conflicts between brothers-in-law because the husband has absolutely noclaim to the property of his wife’s natalhousehold. In other societies, however, wherea married woman shares in the patrimonyalong with her brothers, there is a tendencytoward conflict between the brother and thesister’s husband (Herzfeld 1980a, pp. 95-97).In most societies, whether the female inheritsonly through the dowry or not, relationsbetween brothers are often competitive andtense (Friedl 1962, p. 63; Peristiany 1966,pp. 180-181; Campbell 1974, pp. 173-178;Herzfeld 1980a, pp. 91-92, 95-97; 1980b, p.230). We will now examine to what extentthe present-day situation resembles theancient.

FAMILIAL RELATIONSIN THE CLASSICAL WORLD

Existing scholarship on classical Athens hasnot dealt extensively with sibling relation-ships. The recent study by Humphreys(1986) on kinship solidarity in the Atheniancourts lists examples of kinsmen who bindtogether in their legal disputes with third par-ties, and briefly suggests that women had

their say in the private sphere, but there islittle investigation of how and why frictioncould develop among family members. Tra-ditionally, studies on the family have focusedonly on laws of succession and propertyrights, on the legal ideal of male dominanceover women and on the make up of the

dowry and its use in legalizing marriage(Lacey 1968; Pomeroy 1975, pp. 57-119;Wolff 1944; Schaps 1979). To date siblingrelationships have been studied only in thetragedies, and scholars point out that trage-dies display deep affection between siblingsof opposite sexes (Pomeroy 1975, p. 101;Humphreys 1983a, pp. 71-72; Visser 1986).The purpose here is to investigate sibling

relationships in the corpus of orations, thelargest body of evidence on the Athenianfamily. The orations were legal speechescomposed and often delivered by orators intheir defense or prosecution of individuals inpublic (political) or private matters. The lat-ter involved disputes over inheritance andproperty rights, and therefore is the focus ofthis article. The extant orations date from thelast third of the fifth century B.C. with the

speeches of Antiphon, and run throughoutthe fourth century with the works of Lysias,Isaeus, Demosthenes, and assorted minorAttic orators (Kennedy 1963, pp. 125-263).The major shortcoming of these sources isthat they were rhetorical exercises gearedtoward the defense or prosecution of eliteAthenians: exaggeration and lies abound,while many sentiments expressed in themare themes in Greek drama. On the other

hand, the speakers were declaring sentimentsunderstood by the jurors or Athenian readersat large (Dover 1974, pp. 8ff, 187ff).’ More-over the bias in the texts cannot be balanced

by other sources; Plutarch, for instance, byfocusing on the prominent families, tends tocomplement and reinforce what the orationstell us. In order to present the families in theorations in a larger context, the historian cannow depend on the register of Davies (1971),which, by using all extant historical texts



380

and inscriptions, records the marital careersand economic background of the elite prop-ertied families at large. The economic back-ground for both sets of families-those men-tioned in the orations and those not-wassimilar: despite the ideal of land as a majorsource of livelihood, landed wealth was oftensupplemented, if not supplanted, by non-landed activities, such as mining, tax farm-ing, manufacturing, renting, and loaning(Casson 1976, pp. 34-47).

This article assumes that property-holdingand transmission affect sibling relations (cf.Medick and Sabean 1984, p. 13). Athenianlaws on partible inheritance among malesiblings and each man’s concern for his owninheritance and the paternal estate, couldstimulate conflicts between brothers, andtrust between brothers and sisters and be-tween brothers-in-law. Our sources, unfor-

tunately, are not informative on relationsbetween sisters.2 2

Ties Between Brothers

The sentiments of affection betweenbrothers that abound in the orations are

deeply entrenched in the Athenian desire tosave face and to preserve one’s honor andfamilial property. We will consider only fullbrothers, as the relations between half-brothers deserve a separate discussion. Abrother’s death or the prospect of his deathwas said to be a sorrowful occasion for hisbrothers (Lys. 2.71-72; Aeschin. 2.179). Abrother was expected to avenge any injurydone to a brother (Is. fr. 9; Lys. fr. 75 [Th] ),or avenge his brother’s death (Lys. 12.17ff;13.41-42; Antiphon 6.20-21; [Dem.] 58.28-29). The reputation of a man was frequentlybound with the reputation and activities ofhis brother (Lys. l8.lff; 20.28-29; Aeschin.1.63-64; also, Humphreys 1986, pp. 73ff).Consequently brothers worked together notonly in the political sphere (Aeschin. 1.71;[Dem.] 25.55), but also in business deals([Dem.] 35.6) and in performing liturgies

(state services) (Lys. 18.20-21; Isoc. 18.60).Brothers could also cooperate with each otherin their feuds with third parties; feuds result-ing from belligerent name-calling or fromcompetitiveness in contests (Dem. 21.62;54.3ff, 14ff). Private feuds often resultedfrom the desire to retrieve property owed to abrother, to protect the brother’s propertyagainst confiscation, or to extort the propertyfrom a third individual (Dem. 21.78; 29.3,15ff; 47.45ff, 62ff; 53.6ff; 55.2). Brotherscould also work together to maintain oracquire the property of a kinsman, either anagnate or cognate (Is. 1.1 ff; 4.1-3; fr. 4;[Dem.] 43.7), or to try to hold on to propertybelonging to the paternal estate, which wasthreatened with confiscation (Lys. 17.2ffj orwhich risked extortion by a greedy guardian(Dem. 38.1-2; Lys. 32.1-2, 9-10, 20).

Ties Between Brothers and Sisters

Unlike brothers, half-brothers and sisters(patrilineal or matrilineal) need not be con-sidered in a separate category. Bonds be-tween full or half-siblings of cross-sexeswere generally very strong. Rhetoric was putto good use to invoke pity, in describing asister’s bereavement when she was deprivedof her brother in war (Lys. 13.45-46; Lycurg.1.40; Hyp. Epat. 27) or when he was mur-dered (Lys. fr. 22 [Th]). Brothers and sisterswere also concerned with their honor. Theorations state that the brother (either full orhalf) and his sons were expected to protecthis sister from sexual abuse or from chargesof alien citizenship3 or from verbal abuselaced with sexual innuendo (Dem. 21.78-79;24.202-203; 25.55; 57.38-39; Hyp. Lyc. 4ff;Lys. 3.29; cf. Lavelle 1986, pp. 323-328). Inturn, a sister and her husband could defendher brother from charges of alien citizenship(Dem. 57.43, 68; Is. 12.5).

Sources other than the orations, moreover,testify to the close social and political al-liances between cross-siblings. For instance,the tendency to insult sisters was egregiously



381

displayed in the gossip concerning the poli-ticians Cimon and Alcibiades: both Cimonand his sister Elpinice and Alcibiades’daughter and son were accused of incestuousrelations (Eupolis fr. 208 [Kock] = Plut. Cim.15.3; FGRH 107 F4 [Stesimbrotus]; schol.Arist. 3.446 [Dind.]; [And.] 4.33; Suid. s.v.

K’tmon; Lys. 14.28, 41). Further, Plutarchstates that when Cimon was charged withbribery by his rival Pericles, Cimon’s sisterElpinice intervened and influenced Periclesto drop the charges (Per. 10.4-5). Elpinicelater denounced Pericles’ military actionsand contrasted them with those of herbrother (Per. 28.4-5). Although the veracityof these stories is uncertain (Davies 1971,pp. 303-304), the fact that when Cimon wasthreatened with ostracism, an ostrakon sug-gests that when he leaves Athens he shouldtake Elpinice with him (Holladay 1978, p.186); and the fact that Elpinice was buriedwith members of her original family (Plus.Cim. 4.2) and not with her family of mar-riage,4 indicate that the bond between thesiblings and their family of origin was thesource for further embellishments. When

Hipparete, the wife of Alcibiades, attemptedto divorce her husband, she sought refuge ather brother’s house, but was forced by herhusband to return to his house ([And.] 4.14;Plut. Ale. 8.1-5). Even though Hipparete’sbrother Callias was immediately powerlessagainst Alcibiades’ rights as a husband, Cal-lias had his revenge. Shortly after Hippa-rete’s death, Alcibiades was accused of pro-faning the Elusinian Mysteries, the very ritesoverseen by Callias as a chief priest. Thecharge resulted in Alcibiades’ exile (And.1.11-16; Thus. 6.27ff; Isoc. 16.6; Plut. Alc.19.2; 22.4; Nep. Ak. 3ff).To return to the orations, a major concern

of the brother was the material welfare of hissister. The orator Demosthenes states thatthe chief aim in contracting a marriage for asister or daughter is to give her the greatestamount of security (Dem. 30.21). Therefore,when Demosthenes’ own sister was de-

frauded of her dowry by her guardians,Demosthenes, in his lawsuit against the

guardians, lamented the fact that his sisterwould not be able to marry well (Dem.27.61; 28.21). Also, a brother could be con-cerned with his sister’s childlessness after

marriage and, with the approval of the hus-band and the consent of the sister, couldinitiate her divorce from her husband. Thelatter made sure to return the dowry so thatthe woman could remarry (Is. 2.4ff). Anothersource reveals a brother’s concern for theconfiscation of a widowed sister’s dowryalong with her late husband’s property: thedowry was needed to care for his sister andher children (Lys. 19.32-33). Elsewhere,after a man is sued by his political rival, hiswife’s brother is concerned with her welfareand with that of one of her daughters, whoallegedly may not be able to be dowered([Dem.] 59.7-8, 12). The brother thereforeaided his brother-in-law in prosecuting therival. Another oration informs us that a

woman was divorced by her husband be-cause she could not provide a dowry fromher father’s impoverished estate: she and hersons were cared for by her brothers (Dem.39.24-25, 28; Davies 1971, p. 366). Other -orations reveal that the married womanreturned with her children to her brother’shouse on the termination of a marriage (Lys.3.29), or that a brother avoided contracting amarriage for his sister to a family enemy(Lys. fr. 8 [Th] ).By extension, therefore, relations between

an individual and his mother’s brother couldbe very close: any exceptions will be dis-cussed more fully below (Is. 8.40ff; 9.18-19,24ff; 10 passim). Charmides, Andocides’

patrilineal cross-cousin, was reared by hismother’s brother, Andocides’ father; Char-mides was one of Andocides’ advisers duringthe famous political scandal known as theHermocopidae Affair (And. 1.48-50; Mac-Dowell 1962, p. 175).5 Both Andocides andand Aeschines spoke with pride of their ma-ternal uncles (And. 3.29; Aeschin. 2.78):



382

Andocides’ pride was equaled only by hisinterest in marrying his uncle’s heiress andthereby acquiring managerial control of hisuncle’s estate { 1.120ff j. In other orations, amother’s brother could be a valuable ally inlegal battles (Is. 3.26, 30, 71; 12.5-6; Hum-phreys 1986, p. 63). In Isaeus 1, two brotherswere reared by their maternal uncle Cle-onymus despite the latter’s quarrel with theboys’ paternal uncle Deinias and perhapstheir father (Is. 1.1 ff; Wyse 1979, p. 176;Humphreys 1983a, p. 8).Emotional embellishments aside, the

sources reveal a brother’s concern for his sis-ter’s welfare at and after marriage, concernfor her children, and concern particularly forthe dowry that originally belonged to thewoman’s paternal estate. The fact that al-though uterine half-siblings could not marry,but homopatric half-siblings (offspring of thesame patriline) could legally marry (Harri-son 1968, p. 22), reflects this concern forsibling control over the paternal property.

PATERNAL PROPERTY

The DowryWhen discussing the dowry in the ora-

tions, we must emphasize that dowries were

given by the elite families; smaller amountsfor dowries appear on Attic inscriptions indi-cating property mortgaged for that purpose,but the amounts cited there may not reflectthe entire dowry (Schaps 1979: Appendix 1).In any case, the Athenian oikos (household),which was always concerned with the devo-lution of property, practiced an extreme formof inheritance: brothers shared equally in thepaternal estate, whereas a daughter wasgiven a dowry as a pre-mortem inheritance.The dowry, consisting of cash or real estateand movable items valued in cash, wasmeant to take care of the woman’s needs inthe marital household and to consolidate theties between her children and her natal oikos.The woman could otherwise have no furthermaterial claim to the paternal estate, if shehad brothers who themselves had sons

(Wolff 1944, p. 62; Levy 1963, p. 141; Har-rison 1968, pp. 45-60, 130-132; Lacey1968, pp. 109-110; Schaps 1979, pp. 23,74-84). Further, the sister’s dotal wealthnever seems to have been equal to the wealthinherited by her brothers: Isaeus 11.39 statesthat a father should endow his daughters welland ensure that the son was not less wealthyfrom inheriting what remains. In Table 1,6the figures known for the estates of thewealthy (valued in talents) and those for dotal

Table 1Dotal Outlays for Daughters and Sisters



383

outlays (valued in talents and minae) fromthese estates, show that dowries never ex-ceeded one-third of the estate’s wealth and

rarely exceeded one-fifth.~ 7The largest percentage of wealth devoted

to the dowry comes from one of the smallestestates in the orations (Is. 8.7-8). From anestate of approximately 1 V2 talents, a fatherdowered his daughter with 25 minae, orabout 28% of the estate’s wealth (Table 1).He then remarried her with a smaller dowryof 10 minae, or 11 % of the estate. Because a1 V2 talent estate was well below the incomeof wealthier families (3 to 4 talents

minimum) who were required to performstate services (Davies 1971, p. xxiv), thefather in Isaeus 8 probably inflated the valueof the dowry to secure a proper marriage forhis daughter.8 8A larger number of families in the table

had estates ranging from 13 to 15 talents,with each daughter or sister receiving any-where from 5% to 14% of the estate’swealth. One of the wealthiest men in the ora-

tions, Onetor, worth about 30 talents (Davies1971, p. 423), dowered his sister with 1talent 20 minae, a very substantial dowry butworth only 4.4% of his own wealth (Dem.29.48, 31.6-9). In fact, because Onetor had abrother (Davies 1971, p. 423), Onetor’s 30talents may have been his share of the pater-nal estate, which could have been worth asmuch as twice that amount before the sonsinherited. If so, the dowry would have beenworth only 2.2% of the original estate’swealth. The wealthiest dowry in Athenianhistory, 20 talents, was given to Hipparete,the daughter of Hipponicus, who was wortharound 200 talents. Hipparete thus received10% of her father’s wealth, with the bulkgoing to her brother Callias (Plut. Ale. 8.15;[And.] 4.13; Isoc. 16.31; Davies 1971, pp.19,260).Even though a woman did not inherit

equally with her brothers, a great deal ofattention was directed toward the dowry.Brothers were concerned about the recovery

of the dowry after termination of the sister’smarriage (Lys. 19.32-33), or ensured thatshe was remarried with a dowry equal invalue to the one initially set aside by thefather for her first marriage (Dem. 29.48 +30.7 + 31.6-9; 40.6-7). In most cases ofdowering, the father set aside the dowry, orattempted to, before his death (Lys. 19.14-15, 32.6; Is. 8.7-8, 11.39; Dem. 27.5,28.15-16; 29.43, 40.6-7, 20-22, 56-57,41.3, 6, 26, 29, 45.66, 59.7-8; Plut. Alc:8.1-5 + [And.] 4.13 + Isoc. 16.31 ), and inone case well before his daughter’s marriage(Dem. 27.5). In the latter instance, the fatherof Demosthenes the orator, in his will be-

queathed 2 talents of his 14-talent estate tohis 5-year-old daughter and specificallystated whom she was to marry (Dem. 27.5,28.15-16, 19, 29.43-45).

. Historians have known for years that the

dowry, which was always the property of thewoman’s original oikos, would not allow thewoman to be separated from the paternalestate. This can certainly be seen in Athenianlaws that mandated the return of the dowryto the woman’s natal family on the dissolu-tion of her marriage by death or divorce(Wolff 1944, pp. 50, 53; Levy 1963, p. 141;Harrison 1968, pp. 55-60; Schaps 1979, pp.81-83). The dowry, however, could be esti-mated as part of the husband’s wealth (Dem.27.4,9-11) and could be included in the con-fiscation of his property by private creditorsor by the state (Is. 8.8-9; [Dem.] 47.56-8;Lys. 19.32; Schaps 1979, pp. 75-76). Out-side of confiscation, Demosthenes declaredthat the dowry was the woman’s propertyand by giving a dowry, a brother made thewoman’s husband his kinsman (30.12; seealso Is. 2.4-5). That the dowry belonged tothe woman’s natal family is clearly demon-strated by the dowry given to a sister of

Dicaeogenes 11. The woman was doweredwith a city house instead of a cash dowry (Is.5.26-27; Wyse 1979, p. 446; Davies 1971, p.146; Osborne 1985, p. 247, n.30) and sheand her husband took up residence there. In



384

an effort to reassess the property of Di-caeogenes II, his adoptive son, DicaeogenesUl, demanded and received the house back.

Although the dowry was never legallyrequired, it was a social obligation (Harrison1968, pp. 48-49; Finley 1952, p. 79; Mac-Dowell 1978, p. 87): not only could a mar-riage be suspect without it, but also the pres-tige of the family depended on a good matchacquired through a substantial dowry (Lacey1968, pp. 109-110). The orations reveal thatdowries were needed to attract prestigioushusbands (Lys. 19.15-16; [Dem.] 40.6),whereas the wealthy dowry was an indica-tion of a family’s good standing and that ofits affines (Dem. 39.32-33, 40.20-22). Thisconcern for the dowry as part of the paternalestate caused the brother to guard his sister’sdowry jealously, but concern for his owninheritance from that estate could lead himinto conflicts, sometimes violent, with hisbrothers.

Conflicts Between Brothers

Athenian law placed highest priority onthe inheritance of the paternal estate by sonsof the same father. In the absence of sons,daughters of the same father inherited, and intheir absence kin of the patriline were pre-ferred to those of the matriline (Harrison1968, pp. 130-149). The bulk of the estatewas left ideally to male heirs and dividedequally among them (Lacey 1968, p. 125;MacDowell 1978, pp. 92-93), but at times,when sons inherited, rather than split up theestate, they shared it (Is. 2.28ff; [Dem.]44.1Off; Lys. 32.4; Aeschin. 1.102). In Isaeus9 two brothers, Thudippus and Euthycrates,quarreled over the division of land, a con-frontation that led to Euthycrates’ death atthe hands of Thudippus; Euthycrates in-structed his son to carry on the feud with

Thudippus and his descendants (16-17). InIsaeus 2, two brothers quarreled over theattempt of one brother to sell part of the pa-ternal estate, which was shared jointly, and

give the money to an orphan under his

guardianship (28ff; Lacey 1968, p. 126). InLysias 10 an elder brother became guardianof the younger one and therefore had controlover the estate, but, according to the speaker,would not hand over the younger brother’shalf when the latter reached majority (4-5).This situation led the younger brother towish ruefully that his father were still alive,implying that the father would have resolvedthe conflict.9 In [Demosthenes] 45 Apollo-dorus feuded with his younger brother overthe inheritance of their father’s estate, the

property of the wealthy banker Pasio. Thefeud reached such a pitch that Apollodorusclaimed in court that his brother was ille-

gitimate, the son of his father’s slave assis-tant Phormio (83-84). In turn Apollodorus’enemies claimed that he was defrauding hisbrother of part of the paternal estate (Dem.36.36-37). That Apollodorus’ charge of ille-gitimacy was indeed slanderous is indi-cated in another speech delivered by Apollo-dorus in which he is dependent upon hisbrother’s testimony regarding a loan con-ducted by their father ([Dem.] 49.42-43); nomention of the brother’s illegitimacy is madehere. Significantly, in Lysias 16.10 the

speaker asserts that he allowed a larger por-tion of the estate to go to his brother so as toavoid a conflict.We can also infer from [Demosthenes] 44

that two brothers feuded over the paternalestate. One brother Meidylides offered hisonly child, a daughter, in marriage to hisbrother Archiades (10), an action that wouldhave further consolidated the property.Meidylides’ only child, a daughter, wouldhave been a potential epikleros (heiress). Thetrue heiress in classical Athens, if unmarriedat the time of her father’s death, was obli-gated to marry a close agnate of her father:her father’s brother received priority. Only inthe absence of agnates would the heiress’maternal kinsmen become eligible to claimher hand. Therefore, epikleroi and kleroi

(estates) were governed by the same laws of



385

inheritance, which were agnatically biased.As with any other form of kinship endogamysuch a union was meant to consolidate thetwo oikoi (Harrison 1968, pp. 132-138;Lacey 1988, pp. 139-145; Schaps 1979, pp.25-37; Kamezis 1972, pp. 206ff). For ex-ample, in Lysias 32.4 two brothers sharedthe real property of the paternal estate; onebrother married the only child of the other, adaughter, and became guardian of thatbrother’s fortune, which was accrued apartfrom the paternal wealth (4-5). Nothing inthe oration signifies that the property held incommon was split up after the marriage. In[Demosthenes] 44, however, Archiades notonly refused to marry his brother’s daughter,but even in his lifetime adopted the grandsonof their sister. The adoption angered Meidy-lides, split up the joint estate, and allowedArchiades’ share to be devolved upon the sis-ter’s descendants for two generations ([Dem.]44.19-20, 26; Gemet 1957, p. 137, n.2;Davies 1971, p. 195).I~ Significantly, how-ever, Meidylides eventually agreed to the

adoption and was persuaded by relatives notto prosecute his sister’s grandson ( 18ff).

This is not the only case in which brotherand sister became allies in a feud withanother brother. [Dem.] 25.55, 79 points outthat Aristogeiton’s brother prosecuted himfor the manner in which Aristogeiton con-tracted a marriage for their uterine half-sister.&dquo; The conflict seems to have beenresolved (55) because the brother defendedAristogeiton against the speaker in theDemosthenic oration. Also, from Demos-thenes’ quarrels with his guardians, we learnthat Demosthenes’ father had willed hiswidow to his sister’s son Aphobus and hisdaughter to his brother’s son Demophon, sonof Demo. The two nephews, however, keptthe dotal property and refused to marry theirbetrothed kinswomen (Dem. 27-30 passim).Further, Aphobus allied with both Demo andhis son to extort the paternal estate of theorator (Dem. 27.4ff, 29.19-20).

In other orations, an individual who served

as a guardian was charged either with mis-management or with depriving his brother’sson or daughter of his/her share of an in-heritance either from the paternal estate orthe estate of a male agnate (Is. 7.8, 10.4-6,ll.Sff, 36ff; Lys. 32.1-10; Dem. 38.23). Inone oration (Aeschin. 1.102) the reverse isthe case: Timarchus is charged with depriv-ing his father’s brother Arignotus, a blindman, of his right to assistance from the jointestate bequeathed to both Arignotus and hisbrother Arizelus, the father of Timarchus. Bycontrast to these quarrels between brothersand by extension between the testator’s chil-dren and their father’s brother, we have onlyone certain case in which the natural brotherof a woman, her uterine brother, was criti-cized for his guardianship of her child (Is.

~ 4.$0-42).12Thus, quarrels over the estate between full

brothers and between brother and brother’sdescendants could be vicious; those betweenhomopatric half-brothers were, if anything,inevitable because of the brother’s unwill-

ingness to share the paternal wealth. Individ-uals at times charged that their half-brotherswere illegitimate, that the brother was theproduct of an informal union between theirfather and another woman, or that the rivalwas the son of a non-Athenian mother, orwas supposititious, and therefore an alien

(Dem. 39.4, 40.8-13; Is. 6.1-26). Any ofthese charges would deprive the half-brotherof his right to inherit. One oration revealstwo sisters and their marital families alliedwith the women’s full brother against theirhalf-brothers (Is. 6.Sff). Another oration re-veals a man in collusion with his brother-in-law to exclude his homopatric brother fromreceiving any share of a kinsman’s estate([Dem.] 48.20ff relationship of kinsman isunspecified). Finally, there is one oration inwhich two sets of half-brothers argue overwhether their father’s second wife poisonedhim to death (Antiphon 1.1-13). Conflictbetween homopatric brothers, especiallyover inheritance, was such a truism that in



386

an exceptional case where a man defendedhis half-brother against charges of alien citi-zenship, the man declared: &dquo;But as for my-self, no man would consider me so insane asto lie under oath for this man [his half-

brother] just so that I would share mypatrimony with more heirs&dquo; (Is. 12.4). (Forone further example: P.~ Oxy. 2538;Humphreys 1986, pp. 75-76.)13On the other hand, matrilineal half-

brothers could not inherit from each other ifthe testator had living agnates, yet the homo-metric brother did attempt to threaten theinheritance rights of the testator’s agnatickin. In one case, Hagnias n stipulated that hisadopted heiress marry his uterine half-brother (Is. 11.8-9; Broadbent 1968, pp.86-87; Thompson 1976, pp. 11 - 13),14 whilein another case the speaker claimed his rightto inherit his uterine half-brother’s estatesimply on the basis of their close emotionalties and his brother’s distrust of and emo-tional separation from his agnates (Is. 9.1 l ffi.By contrast to the hostile relations be-

tween full and homopatric brothers, an indi-vidual could often have a trusting relation-ship with his brother-in-law (either sister’shusband or wife’s brother).

Cooperation Between Brothers-in-Law’5

Attention to the dowry, the outlays devotedto it, and the prestige accompanying it, allcontributed to a family’s interest in a mar-riage for a daughter or sister. This concernwent hand in hand with another social phe-nomenon : in many cases, the daughter mar-ried before-in some cases well before-herbrother of an equal age. In Davies’ register ofpropertied Athenian families there are 18instances in which the brother married afterhis sister (or sisters), as opposed to 6 instancesin which roughly contemporaneous marriagesoccurred Of the families in the orations notconsidered in the register, there are 5 moreinstances of later marriages for brothers;there is no explicit statement of contem-

poraneous marriages for cross-siblings (Ly-curg. 1.17ff; Is. 2.3ff; Lys. 3.29ff; Dem. 4.3,48.53ffj.The pattern indicates an interest in con-

tracting both a secure and beneficial maritalalliance for the woman and her natal house-hold. For the political families, for instance,before Epilycus the Philaid married, Epily-cus’ sisters were married to some of the most

powerful politicians of the day: the greatgeneral (strategos) Glaucon of Cerameis, theson of Pericles, and the father of Andocides.These alliances brought the family out ofpolitical obscurity (Davies 1971, pp. 296-297). Plato never married, but the marriageof his sister to his neighbor consolidated twocontiguous landed estates for two genera-tions (Davies 1971, p. 334; Cox forthcom-ing). In Lysias 19(15-16) a girl married herfirst cousin years before the marriage of herbrother; the alliance consolidated the kin

group after the cousin was prosecuted andhis property confiscated for his role in themutilation of the Herms in 415 (Davies1971, p. 201). Although Andocides’ sisterwas married by 415, Andocides remainedunmarried at the end of the century. Duringthis time he concentratred on laying claim tothe estate of his maternal uncle Epilycus andon shielding the property from rival claim-ants (And. 1.1 l7ffj. One of those rival claim-ants was his matrilineal parallel cousin Lea-gros II (MZS) the son of the general Glaucon(Davies 1971, pp. 91, 297). Leagros re-

mained unmarried approximately 20 yearsafter his sister’s marriage to Callias ill, oneof the wealthiest Athenians of his day and achief priest of the major state cult, the Eleu-sinian Mysteries (Davies 1971, pp. 91, 254-255, 263). Leagros and his brother-in-lawCallias colluded in keeping Andocides fromEpilycus’ estate: Leagros relinquished hisclaims to the heiress of his maternal uncle

Epilycus on behalf of Callias’ son, maneu-vers which brought the brothers-in-law intoconflict with Andocides. In an attempt toextricate Andocides from the claimant pool,



387

Callias III charged him with profanation ofthe Mysteries at the end of the fifth centuryand attempted to have the crime punished bydeath (And. I . I 1 Off). i 7

Outside the powerful fifth-century fami-lies, the orations reveal that the pattern rein-forced a trust between associates and fre-

quently resulted in the collusion betweenbrothers-in-law for the enhancement of theirwealth. Both Deinias of Athmonon and hisson Theomnestus married after their sisters;through such a practice both men allied tothe wealthy banking family of Pasio and hisson Apollodorus. Around 395 Deinias’ sistermarried Menecles of the deme (village)Achamae (Davies 1971, pp. 430,437-438).A son Stephanus was bom from this mar-riage, who would later become the agent ofPhormio, Pasio’s manager and guardian ofPasio’s estate. Deinias c.365 married his

daughter to Pasio’s son Apollodorus, also ofAchamae, so that the girl followed her pa-ternal aunt into the same deme: Theomnes-tus, the son of Deinias, then married his ownsister’s daughter by Apollodorus (Davies1971, p. 437), thereby reinforcing the al-liances into Acharnae by kinship endogamy(Cox forthcoming). It is also noteworthy howalliances developed once Apollodorusquareled with his guardian Phormio overPasio’s estate. Apollodorus’ chief opponentwas Stephanus, the son of Deinias’ sister, butduring this quarrel, Deinias, although calledupon by the prosecution, would not testifyagainst Stephenus for his own daughter’shusband Apollodorus ([Dem.] 45.54-56).18Despite this conflict with Deinias, Apollo-dorus remained on good terms with hisbrother-in-law, Deinias’ son Theomnestus,who prosecuted one of Apollodorus’ politicalenemies ([Dem.] 59.7-8, 12).

In other cases demonstrating trust, broth-ers married after their sisters, in one case topursue a military career, and then were

adopted as heirs into the house of the sister’shusband (Is. 2 passim; Dem. 41.3). In the lat-ter oration, however, the wife’s husband

Polyeuctus and her brother quarreled and adivorce ensued between the brother and

Polyeuctus’ daughter (4ff). However, the factthat the wife’s brothers witnessed and ap-proved financial transactions she made onher deathbed, with the daughter’s secondhusband Spudias, suggests that the quarrelbetween the families may have been patchedup. The wealthy estate prompted the speakerin Lysias 32 to defend the property of hiswife’s unmarried brothers against the allegedmisappropriation of the estate by their ma-ternal grandfather (lff, 20, 28). The trustbetween brothers-in-law is clearly evident inLycurgus 1, where Leocrates, who had aconcubine but apparently no wife (17), mar-ried his two sisters to Amyntas and Timo-chares of Achamae (21-23). After the defeatof the Athenians at Chaeronea, Leocrateswent into self-exile to Rhodes and then to

Megara (21). While in Megara he sold hisestate to one brother-in-law, Amyntas, whoin turn sold the slaves to Leocrates’ other

brother-in-law, Timochares (22-23). Leoc-rates seems to have owned the same slaves

again on his return to Athens (30ff): he wasasked to hand over his slaves for torture so asto give information about his departure fromAthens. Logic would dictate that the slavesin question were those who helped him topack up a boat and leave Athens secretly(17), the very slaves bought by Leocrates’affines. Therefore, we may infer that Leoc-rates’ property was bought by his brothers-in-law for safekeeping during his sojourn.Finally, in [Demosthenes] 47 Theophemususes his brother and his sister’s husband to

help him confiscate property to settle a debt(9ff; Humphreys 1986, p. 77).

Collusion is again evident in other ora-tions, although in those we have no informa-tion as to whether a brother married after hissister. Onetor married his sister first to Tim-ocrates and gave her away with a dowry of 1talent 20 minae. Onetor then instigated adivorce between the two, and in collusionwith Timocrates did not hand the dowry over



388

to Aphobus, his sister’s second husband

(Dem. 30.7ff). Rather, Aphobus secured, orhypothecated, his farm and a house in One-tor’s name for the dowry he had never beengiven. Dotal hypothecation was the securingof property equal in value to the dowry; theproperty in question was secured should thereturn of the dowry on the dissolution of themarriage be necessary. If the dotal propertyitself was not returned, the hypothecatedproperty was seized by the woman’s natalkin (Finley 1952, pp. 44-52; Harrison 1968,pp. 284-286). Both moves, the absence ofdotal transaction and the hypothecation ofthe farm, were maneuvers to save both thedotal and landed property when Aphobuslost the lawsuit brought against him byDemosthenes and was threatened with con-fiscation (Dem. 30.26, 32.1-7). Neither wasOnetor’s sister passive in these machinations:she and her brother registered a false divorcewith the chief archon (magistrate) so thatOnetor could seize the hypothecated farmwhen Aphobus fled Athens to escape furtherprosecution (30.26f~. Demosthenes acknowl-edged that Onetor and his sister were activelyinvolved in the machinations to gain controlof his, Demosthenes’, estate (31.11-12).

Other orations reveal the encroachment ofthe wife’s brother on her husband’s estate,with, it seems, the testator’s approval. Dio-des was said to have maintained his hold onCiron’s estate by encouraging his sister, Cir-on’s second wife, to stay in the house ofCiron even after her sons by him had died.Further, Diocles aided the claims of Ciron’sadelphidous (brother’s son) to Ciron’s estateagainst the claims of the son of Ciron’sdaughter by a first marriage (Is. 8.3ff, 36ff;Davies 1971, p. 314). The complexities ofbrother-sister ties and brother-in-law rela-tions is clearly evident in Isaeus 9, whereEuthycrates was killed by his brotherThudippus. As he lay dying, Euthycratescharged his sister’s husband to keep Thudip-pus’ descendants from his, Euthycrates’,estate (19-20). Astyphilus, Euthycrates’ son,

may have defied his father’s orders and

adopted one of his paternal uncle’s descen-dants. The caretaker of Astyphilus’ will washis mother’s brother, who in turn conflictedwith Astyphilus’ uterine half-brother; the lat-ter had anticipated inheriting Astyphilus’estate (Iff, 18ff; Wyse 1979, pp. 626, 640;Davies 1971, p. 229). There are other in-stances of the brother-in-law’s protection ofthe testator’s will: in Lysias 13.2, 41 a wife’sbrother witnessed her husband’s will and isasked to avenge his death at the hands of oneof the Thirty. In Isaeus 6.3ff a sister’s hus-band was the caretaker of the testator’s will

(Humphreys 1986, p. 77), which insisted onthe adoption of another sister’s son to theexclusion of the testator’s homopatricbrothers.

Collusion between brothers-in-law couldat times break down: Polyeuctus quarreledwith his adopted son, who was his wife’sbrother (Dem. 41.3ff); Cleonymus quarreledwith the brother of his sister’s husband, andperhaps the husband himself (Is. 1. 1 ff); and aman was accused of breach of guardianshipby his wife’s brothers (Lys. fr. 43 [Th]).Finally, in [Demosthenes] 48 an unmarriedbrother, Olympiodorus, contracted a mar-riage for his sister with a certain Callistratus.Both men conspired to share the estate of adeceased relative and to exclude all otherrelatives from the property ( 1 ff, 53). A quar-rel, however, developed between the twomen when Olympiodorus claimed and wonthe whole estate for himself after a series ofcourt trials with the other relatives (25-31).Olympiodorus’ victory led his brother-in-lawCallistratus to berate Olympiodorus forabandoning his sister and her daughter anddevoting his extra wealth to his concubine(53), thereby equating a quarrel betweenaffines with the abandonment of a sister’sneeds. In other words, collusion broke downwhen the two affines became rivals for thesame estate. It is relevant to point out herethat in the fifth century the famous Alcibi-ades was accused of profaning the Eleusinian



389

Mysteries overseen by his brother-in-law

Callias, shortly after Alcibiades allegedlyattempted to assassinate Callias to gain con-trol of the latter’s estate ([And.] 4.15).19The orations reveal, then, a clear tendency

for trusting relationships between brothers-in-law. It is difficult to generalize the reasonsfor a breakdown of this trust, but certainlythe possibility that two affines vied for thesame estate or threatened each other’s prop-erty could precipitate a feud. Could the mari-tal alliance endure a feud between affines?The evidence for Roman society gives aclear negative answer (Dixon 1985, p. 330),but the Attic orations are not as informative.In Demosthenes 41.3ff the oration does notstate why Polyeuctus feuded with his wife’sbrother but only that the feud resulted in adivorce between Polyeuctus’ daughter andthe brother-in-law, not between Polyeuctusand his wife. In the case of Alcibiades, hiswife’s attempt to divorce him on the groundsof sexual promiscuity was contemporaneouswith his feud with her brother Callias ([And.]4.14 Plut. Alc. 8.1-5).

ADOPTION

Having discussed the potential distrust be-tween brothers, and the trust between broth-ers and sisters and brothers-in-law, we willnow examine the institution of adoption,which again points up the interest of thewoman in her brother’s estate.The law in Athens stipulated that if a man

had no heirs, his estate would devolve uponhis brothers and their descendants; in theabsence of these, the sister and her descen-dants had the right to inherit (Harrison 1968,pp. 144-146; MacDowell 1978, p. 98).Therefore, in Isaeus 1.4-5 the testator wasinstructed by his father to leave the estate tothe testator’s sister and her descendants. InIsaeus 3 Pyrrhus’ sister, through her son thespeaker, attempted to inherit Pyrrhus’ estateafter the death of her other son Endius, whohad been adopted by Pyrrhus. The move was

contested by Pyrrhus’ daughter who claimedto be legitimate, a claim denied by Pyrrhus’sister and her son but defended by thedaughter’s mother’s brother (8ff) and by thebrothers of Pyrrhus’ mother (26, 71 ).

In any case, Athenian law permitted theheirless man to adopt whomever he wishedas heir so that his oikos would not be extin-

guished (Harrison 1968, pp. 82-96). How-ever, as Louis Gernet (1955) pointed out in astudy originally published in 1920, the ma-jority of adoptions concerned the man’s

adoption of descendants through the femaleline (Gemet 1955, pp. 121-149 and esp. pp.129-131). Of 28 instances of adoption,2o 8involve the adoption of a son or descendantof the testator’s sister or testator’s father’ssister.21 In one case, a man whose two broth-ers had died, relied on his two married sis-ters, one of whom remained childless

throughout her marriage, to ensure that hisestate had an adopted heir. One of the sistershad her son adopted into the estate, while thechildless sister and her husband were en-trusted with the brother’s will stipulating theadoption (Is. 6.5-7). In another oration, thespeaker admits publicly that his wife per-suaded him to have one of their sons adoptedinto the estate of her two dead brothers (Is.11.49). In the same oration, the wife of the

speaker’s brother, instead of having her onlyson adopted into her brother’s estate, had oneof her daughters adopted (41-42). Thesecases, it could be argued, simply reveal thesister’s right to inherit her brother’s estateafter all her brothers are dead: in Is. 11.41-42 the speaker states that the adoption of thewoman’s daughter reinforced the woman’sability to inherit her brother’s estate and herhusband’s ability to manage it. In other cases,however, individuals were chosen who werenot in a direct line to inherit (Is. 7.9; fr. 4;[Dem.] 44.19, 46): in [Demosthenes] 44.19,46 a man adopted his sister’s daughter’s son,while in Isaeus 7.9 the testator chose hisuterine half-sister and then her son as adop-tees in a deliberate attempt to exclude all



390

living male agnates. In the latter case, thewoman’s natural father had aided her half-

brother, Apollodorus, in preventing Apollo-dorus’ agnates from extorting the estate (6ff).In gratitude, Apollodorus later used hiswealth to recover his stepfather’s insolventestate (9). The adoption, therefore, solidifiedthe trust between the two oikoi and consoli-dated their wealth.

Outside the eight cases of adoption throughone’s sister or father’s sister, there are twoinstances concerning the adoption of thewife’s brother (or ex-wife’s brother) into theestate of her husband (Is. 2.14; Dem. 41.3),and in one case (Is. 2.14, 21) the adoptionthwarted the succession rights of the de-ceased’s brother and the latter’s son. There-fore, in 10 out of 28 instances of adoption(just over one-third), brother-sister ties play adominant role in the provision of heirs to thetestator. On the other hand, in 4 instances outof the 28 we have a male agnate through themale line adopted (Gemet 1955, p. 129). Inone of these instances, Isaeus 10, Cyronideshad originally been adopted out of his pater-nal estate and therefore had no claim to it (4,7f), but when the estate became insolvent, hisfather’s brother, as guardian, handed over theclaims to the estate to Cyronides, and gavehis daughter in marriage to Cyronides. Thelatter, with the help of his wife’s brother, pur-chased the estate and reestablished it in hisfather’s name and by posthumous adoptionintroduced his natural sons as the estate’sheirs (6ff; Gemet 1955, p. 129; Wyse 1979, p.650). These maneuvers were challenged bythe son of Cyronides’ sister, who laid claim tothe estate as the son of an heiress (4-5,12ff;Wyse 1979, pp. 649-652).When the testator did not adopt a direct

descendant of his sister, therefore, a feudbetween brother and sister, or between theirdescendants, might develop, much as thefeuds we witnessed between brothers. InIsaeus 5 the sisters of Dicaeogenes II andtheir sons feuded with Dicaeogenes 11’s

adopted heir, Dicaeogenes ill. The latter was

not a direct descendant of the sisters, butrather the son or grandson of the sister of

Dicaeogenes II’s father (Davies 1971, pp. 145,476-477). In other words, Dicaeogenes II’sattachment to the marital family of his father’ssister conflicted with the strong attachment ofhis own sisters and their sons to the women’s

paternal estate. In an attempt to compromise,the natural father of the adoptee may haveagreed that his son receive only one-third ofthe estate of Dicaeogenes II, while the sistersreceive two-thirds. Dicaeogenes III, the

adopted son, however, when he reached

adulthood, challenged this arrangement andinherited the entire estate (Is. 5.6-11; Wyse1979, p. 414; Davies 1971, p. 146).

Finally, there is the exceptional case ofDiocles who was a rival to his uterine half-sisters in their claim to their father’s estate.Because Diocles claimed that he had been

adopted by his stepfather, the latter had nonatural son (Is. 8.40-41 ). The adoption, how-ever, was underhanded at best, illegal at

worst. By law, a father of daughters couldadopt only on the understanding that the

adopted son marry one of the daughters (Har-rison 1968, p. 82). Although homopatriccross-siblings could marry, homometriccross-siblings could not; therefore Diocleswas legally restricted from the hand of one ofhis half-sisters (Wyse 1979, p. 621; Harrison1968, p. 22; Davies 1971, p. 313). Further,because the sisters had married and one ofthem seems to have had a son before the

adoption took place (8.42), their father’sestate may well have by law devolved uponthat son (Harrison 1968, pp. 11-12). Becausethe adoption of Diocles would have pre-vented the women and their children from

inheriting, violent conflicts erupted betweenDiocles and his half-sisters’ husbands (Is.8.41-42).

CONCLUSION

In summary, the complexities of sibling rela-tionships resulted from the struggles for the



391

acquisition of property and wealth that ne-cessitated alliances, realliances, and misal-liances. The Athenian sources simply con-firm the tendencies toward fraternal conflictfound in partible systems elsewhere inEurope at later times. In Athens, brothercould often cooperate with brother in politi-cal feuds or social conflicts in which a third

party threatened the property of one brotheror the paternal estate of the brothers. Whenthe time came to inherit, however, successionlaws and practice could often pit brotheragainst brother. The Athenian emphasis ondownward devolution of property onto malesactually encouraged male attention towardthe welfare of women-in our case sisters-in particular: concerns focused on whether ornot the sister was dowered adequately, or thewidowed or divorced sister would return tothe brother’s house with an intact dowry, orthe sister had children after marriage. Thecare devoted to the dowry and the contract-ing of a suitable marriage for the sister wenthand in hand with a family’s concern for itsprestige and its maintenance of ties with

trustworthy allies. Because the sister ideallyhad little claim to the paternal estate outsidethe dowry, she was not a rival to her brother,and as such she and her husband could workwith her brother in a trusting relationship forthe benefit of the paternal estate. The trustbroke down when brother and sister, or theirdescendants, became rivals to the paternalestate, a rivalry at times fueled by the institu-tion of adoption. Also, conflicts between

generations of cross-sibling pairs coulderupt; interests between brother and sistermight be sustained for only their generation.No system was perfect, especially not for thelitigious families of Athens. Ironically, how-ever, a legal system that emphasized themale actually promoted the role of thewoman in the preservation of the paternaland/or fraternal estate: the sister made surethat she provided an heir for her brother, orshe and her brother worked together to pro-tect her dotal property, or, in order to pro-

tect her brother’s estate, she could ally withhim against another brother. It was the tiebetween brother and sister that could proveessential in the machinations of the typicalaffluent Athenian, who constantly strove tomake his neighbor less wealthy than himself.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

A version of this article was originally pre-sented at the Classical Association of theMiddle West and South in April 1987. Mydeepest thanks must go to Virginia Hunterand Mark Golden, whose comments andencouragement helped me to expand the

original into its present form. Any errors are,of course, my own.

NOTES

1. Plakans (1984, pp. 258-259) argues thatalthough "interactional" documents, such astrials, rely heavily on the selectivity of the record-keeper ; they do contain, nevertheless, infor-mation that "has parallels in the anthropologicalexperience."

2. See Plakans (1984, p. 159) who maintainsthat an investigation of dyads can lead to a betterunderstanding of affective ties.

3. Aliens, or non-Athenians in classical

Athens, could not produce offspring considered tobe Athenian citizens (Harrison 1968, pp. 25-26;Lacey 1968, pp. 100-101).

4. See Humphreys (1983, pp. 111-112) for

examples of the burial of married women withtheir original kin. Such burials suggest closebonds between siblings.

5. Herms, or images of Hermes, the god of trav-eling, were mutilated just before the Athenianfleet set out on the Sicilian expedition in 415 B.C.The act was considered sacrilegious and an in-fliction of bad luck on the fleet (MacDowell1962, p. 3).

6. See Casson (1976, p. 55), who, however,includes the dowering of two sisters by their

brothers in Isaeus 2.3, 5. Casson claims that eachwoman received 20 minae from a 1½ talent

estate. However, Isaeus specifically states that the1½ talent estate into which one of the brothers



392

was adopted (2.34-36; Davies 1971, p. xxiii), andnot the paternal estate from which sisters weredowered but for which we have no figures. There-fore, we have not included this case in our table.Further, Casson’s chart values the estate in Lysias19 at 5 talents. The original estate before outlaysto the state, however, was worth around 13 talents(Davies 1971, p. 200).

7. For our discussion: 1 talent = 60 minae.8. The 1½ talents is the figure estimated from

the real property of the estate. The owner had an

unspecified amount of money out on loan (Davies1971, p. 314).

9. Humphreys (1986, p. 75) without explana-tion declares that these two brothers were "patri-lateral stepbrothers." The text offers no suchevidence.

10. Davies (1971, p. 196) suggests that Ar-chiades had inherited the bulk of the estate anddid not want to share it by marrying his niece.Such an inheritance practice, however, woulddefy standard Athenian custom of equal division.

11. The Greek (25.55) states that Aristogeitonsold his sister for export (ep exagoge), the samephrase used in Dem. 24.202-203 to indicate thata brother gave his sister in marriage to a non-Athenian without a dowry but with a gift ofmoney from the groom. Although Humphreys(1985, p. 338) contends that Aristogeiton and hisbrother were half-siblings, there is no evidence forthis. Standard prosopographical studies view themas full siblings (PA 1775 + 5863).

12. Although Davies (1971, p. 416) assumesthat Aristaechmus, who was sued by his wards formismanagement in Demosthenes 38, was theirmother’s brother, the oration nowhere states Aris-taechmus’ relationship to the men. In fact, ap-pointments outside the family were not uncom-mon (Harrison 1968, pp. 99-101; MacDowell1978, p. 93).

13. P. Oxy. is a corpus of Egyptian papyri dat-ing from the Hellenistic period to the Byzantine.Some texts, such as 2538, were handwrittencopies of Attic orations.

14. The intended marriage is inferred, notstated. See Humphreys’ objections (1983b, pp.222-224).

15. The Greek word kedestes (in-law) in theorations can be used to define wife’s brother orsister’s husband as well as other affinal ties. We

focus only on relationships that clearly involvedbrothers-in-law.

16. Many of the dates for the marriages in thefollowing cases from Davies’ register are basedon the birthdates of offspring: Davies 1971, pp.30-31 (Andocides IV and his sister); p. 91 (Lea-gros II and his sister); pp. 118-121 (DemosthenesSenior and his sister); pp. 138, 143 (Demosthenesthe orator and his sister); pp. 145, 147 (Menexe-nus and one sister); pp. 152-153 (= Lys. 32.9-10);194ff (= [Dem.] 44.9-10); pp. 200-201 (= Lys.19.15-16, one sister married before her brother);pp. 296-297 (Epilycus and his sisters); pp. 319-320, 462 (Cleon’s son and daughter: Cleon’s

daughter was married c.422, but her brother’swife was not born until c.420-415); pp. 329-330(Pyrilampes and his sister); pp. 333-334 (Plato’ssister); pp. 379-381 (Megacles IV and Agrista);pp. 437-438 (Deinias and his sister; Theomnestusand his sister). Of less certainty: Davies 1971, p.230 (= Is. 9.29) for a daughter’s being betrothedafter her brother came of age—there is no indica-tion of the brother having married; pp. 256-257(Hipponicus II and a possible sister); pp. 326-327(Critias IV and a possible sister; Critias seemsnever to have married). For the contemporaneousmarriages: Davies 1971, p. 30 (Andocides III’sdaughter and son); p. 93 (Damostratus’ son anddaughter); pp. 200-201 (= Lys. 19.15-16 abrother and one sister); p. 263 (Callias III andHipparete); pp. 303-305 [Cimon and Elpiniceand possibly a second sister (p. 235) who marrieda man of the deme Halimous].

17. Humphreys (1986, 77-78) views the rela-tionship between Leagros and Callias as antagon-istic, but Andocides (117ff) specifically under-lines the fact that the two affines collaborated toease Andocides out.

18. Humphreys (1986, pp. 77ff) tends to thinkthat because an individual was called upon by theprosecution he was necessarily against the defen-dant. Therefore Deinias is against Stephanus, andin cases to be discussed further in our text, Timo-crates conflicted with his ex-brother-in-law One-tor (Dem. 30), while Timochares feuded with hisbrother-in-law Leocrates (Lycurg. 1.22ff). How-ever, in the orations witnesses are often called

upon by, but are hostile to, the prosecution (Is.9.18-19; Dem. 29.20; Lycurg. 1.20). (The spuri-ousness of Dem. 29, although insisted upon by



393

Humphreys (1986, p. 84) is debatable (see Harri-son [1968, pp. 105-106, note 4]). Further, wit-nesses in Athens were constrained to give testi-mony under threat of punishment (MacDowell1978, p. 243). If a witness did not wish to swear tothe written statement, often prepared by the liti-gant (MacDowell 1978, p. 243), he could take anoath disclaiming the facts, which, as Humphreysadmits, could make him look foolish or possiblyleave him open to a charge of perjury (1985,p. 321).

19. If Callias III died childless his estate wouldhave devolved upon his sister Hipparete, who wasAlcibiades’ wife (Hatzfeld 1951, p. 137; Davies1971, p. 19).

20. Gernet (1955, p. 129) counted 27 cases ofadoption, but one case, Isoc. 19.12, does notinvolve an Athenian family. To the remaining 26cases we add two adoptions not included inGernet’s list: the adoption of Leocrates I byArchiades in [Dem.] 44.19, 46 (Davies 1971, p.195), and the adoption of Theopompus’ son intothe estate of his wife’s brother (Is. 11.49).

21. Is. 3.1 (son of a sister); 5.6-7 (the son orgrandson of a father’s sister; see Davies 1971, pp.145-146); 6.4ff (the son of a sister); 7.9 (the adop-tion of a half-sister and then her son); 11.41 (thedaughter of a sister); 11.49 (the son of a sister);[Dem.] 44.19, 46 (the grandson of a sister). In Is.11.49 above, the adoption of a woman’s son intoher brother’s estate may have been an attempt toblock a possible claim from a collateral to thebrother’s estate (Thompson 1976, p. 58). Is. 11.8may concern the adoption of a sister’s daughter(Gernet 1955, p. 129; Humphreys 1983b: Table1 ), or the daughter of a uterine half-brother

(Broadbent 1968, p. 87; Thompson 1976, pp.11-13; MacDowell 1978, p. 104).

REFERENCES

A. Ancient authors

(incorporating abbreviations)Aeschin.: AeschinesAnd.: Andocides [And.]: orations spuriously attrib-

uted to Andocides

Antiphonschol. Arist. (Dind.): scholia on Aristides, 1829.

Edited by W. Dindorf, Leipsiz: G. Reimer.

Dem.: Demosthenes [Dem.]: orations spuriouslyattributed to Demosthenes

Eupolis (Kock): Comic fragments 1880-85.Edited by T. Kock, 3 vols., Leipzig: Teubner.

F (or fr.) = fragmentFGrh: Felix Jacoby, Die Fragmente dergriechischen

Historiker. 1922-. Berlin and Leiden: Brill.

Hyp.: Hyperides; Lyc.: Lycophron; Epit.: Epitaphios(Funeral Speech)

Is.: IsaeusIsoc.: Isocrates

Lycurg.: LycurgusLys.: Lysias; Lys. fr (Th): fragments of Lysias’ ora-

tions edited by Theodor Thalheim. Leipzig:Teubner, 1901.

Nep.: Nepos; Alc.: AlcibiadesPA: Johannes E. Kirchner, 1981. Prosopographia

Attica. 2 volumes. Chicago: Ares, originallypublished 1901-1903.

Plut.: Plutarch; Alc.: Alcibiades; Cim.: Cimon; Per.:Pericles

P. Oxy.: 1966. J.W.B. Barns et al. (eds.), TheOxrhynchus Papyri. Volume 31 (nos. 2531-2616). London: Egypt Exploration Society.

Suid.: Suidas, Lexicon s.v. KimonThuc.: Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War

B. Modern authors

Berkner, Lutz K. 1976. "Inheritance, Land Tenureand Peasant Family Structure: A German

Regional Comparison." Pp. 71-95 in Familyand Inheritance: Rural Society in Western Europe1200-1800, edited by J. Goody, J. Thirsk, andE.P. Thompson.

Broadbent, Molly. 1968. Studies in Greek Geneal-ogy. Leiden: Brill.

Campbell, John K. 1974. Honour, Family andPatronage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Casson, Lionel. 1976. "The Athenian Upper Classand New Comedy." Transactions of the Ameri-can Philological Association 106: 29-59.

Collomp, Alain.1984. "Tensions, Dissensions, andRuptures Inside the Family in Seventeenth- andEighteenth-Century Haute-Provence." Pp.145-170 in Interest and Emotion: Essays in the Studyof Family and Kinship, edited by H. Medick andD.W. Sabean. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.

Cooper, J.P. 1976. "Patterns of Inheritance andSettlement by Great Landowners from the



394

Fifteenth to the Eighteenth Centuries." Pp.192-327 in Family and Inheritance: Rural

Society in Western Europe 1200-1800, editedby J. Goody, J. Thirsk, and E.P. Thompson.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cox, Cheryl A. Forthcoming. "Sisters, Daughtersand the Deme of Marriage: A Note." journal ofHellenic Studies.

Davies, John K.1971. Athenian Properties Families600-300 B.C. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Dixon, Suzanne. 1985. "The Marriage Alliance inthe Roman Elite." Journal of Family History 10:353-378.

Dover, Kenneth J.1974. Greek Popular Morality inthe Time of Plato and Aristotle. Berkeley: Uni-versity of California Press.

Faith, Rosamond J. 1966. "Peasant Families andInheritance Customs in Medieval England."Agricultural History Review 14: 77-95.

Finley, Moses I.1952. Studies in Land and Credit inAncient Athens 500-200 B. C. New Brunswick,NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Flandrin, Jean-Louis. 1976. Parenté, maison, sex-ualite dans l’ancienne société. Paris: LibrairieHachette.

Friedl, Ernestine. 1962. Vasilika: A Village in Mod-em Greece. New York: Holt, Rinehart andWinston.

Gernet, Louis. 1955. "La loi de Solon sur le testa-ment." Pp. 121-149 in Droit et société dans laGrèce ancienne. Paris: Sirey = Revue des étudesgreques 33(1920): 123-168, 249-290.

____.1957. Demosthène: Plaidoyers Civils.Volume 2. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.

Harrison, A.R.W. 1968. The Law of Athens.Volume 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Hatzfeld, Jean. 1951. Alcibiade. Paris: PressesUniversitaires de France, 2d edition.

Herzfeld, Michael. 1980a. "Social Tension andInheritance by Lot in Three Greek Villages."Anthropological Quarterly 53: 91-100.

___. 1980b. "Dowry in Greece: Terminologi-cal Usage and Historical Reconstruction." Eth-nohistory 27: 225-241.

Holladay, James. 1978. "Medism in Athens504-480 B.C." Greece and Rome 25: 174-191.

Houlbrooke, Ralph A. 1984. The English Family1450-1700. London: Longman.

Humphreys, S.C. 1983a. The Family, Women andDeath: Comparative Studies. London: Rout-ledge and Kegan Paul.

___. 1983b. "The Date of Hagnias’ Death."Classical Philology 78: 219-225.

___. 1985. "Social Relations on Stage: Wit-nesses in Classical Athens." History and An-thropology 1: 313-369.

___. 1986. "Kinship Patterns in the AthenianCourts." Greek Roman and Byzantine Studies27: 57-91.

Karnezis, I.E. 1972. The Epikleros. Athens: n.p.Kennedy, George. 1963. The Art of Persuasion in

Greece. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UniversityPress.

Kertzer, David L., and Caroline Brettell. 1987."Advances in Italian and Iberian Family His-tory." Journal of Family History 12: 87-100.

Lacey, W.K. 1968. The Family in Ancient Greece.Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Lavelle, Brian M. 1986. "The Nature of Hippar-chos’ Insult to Harmodios." American Journal

of Philology 107: 318-331.LeRoy Ladurie, Emmanuel. 1976. "Family Struc-

tures and Inheritance Customs in Sixteenth-

Century France." Pp. 37-70 in Family andInheritance: Rural Society in Western Europe1200-1800, edited by J. Goody, J. Thirsk, andE.P. Thompson. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.

Levy, Harry. 1963. "Inheritance and Dowry inClassical Athens." Pp. 137-143 in Mediterra-nean Saciety: Essays in the Social Anthropologyof the Mediterranean, edited by J. Pitt-Rivers.Paris: Mouton.

Loizos, Peter. 1975. "Changes in Property Trans-fer among Greek Cypriot Villagers." Man 10:503-523.

MacDowell, Douglas M. 1962. Andocides on theMysteries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

___. 1978. The Law in Classical Athens. Lon-don : Thames and Hudson.

MacFarlane, Alan. 1986. Marriage and Love inEngland: Modes of Reproduction, 1300-1840.Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Medick, Hans, and David W. Sabean. 1984."Interest and Emotion in Family and KinshipStudies: A Critique of Social History andAnthropology." Pp. 9-27 in Interest and Emo-tion : Essays on the Study of Family and Kinship,edited by H. Medick and D.W. Sabean. Cam-bridge : Cambridge University Press.

Osborne, Robin. 1985. Demos: The Discovery ofClassical Attika. Cambridge: Cambridge



395

University Press.Peristiany, Jean G. 1966. "Honor and Shame in a

Cypriot Highland Village." Pp. 173-190 inHonour and Shame: The Values of Mediterra-nean Society, edited by J.G. Peristiany.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Plakans, Andrejs. 1984. Kinship in the Past: AnAnthropology of European Family Life, 1500-1900. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Pomeroy, Sarah B. 1975. Goddesses; Whores,Wives, and Slaves. New York: Schocken.

Sabean, David W. 1976. "Aspects of KinshipBehaviour and Property in Rural WesternEurope Before 1800." Pp. 96-111 in Familyand Inheritance: Rural Society in Western Europe1200-1800, edited by J. Goody, J. Thirsk, andE.P. Thompson. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.

___. 1984. "Young Bees in an Empty Hive:Relations between Brothers-in-Law in a SouthGerman Village Around 1800." Pp. 171-186in Interest and Emotion: Essays on the Study ofFamily and Kinship, edited by H. Medick andD.W. Sabean. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.

Sant Cassia, Paul. 1982. "Property in Greek

Cypriot Marriage Strategies." Man 17:643-663.

Schaps, David M. 1979. Economic Rights ofWomen in Ancient Greece. Edinburgh: Edin-burgh University Press.

Smith, Richard M. 1984. "Families and TheirLand in an Area of Partible Inheritance: Red-

grave, Suffolk 1260-1320." Pp. 135-195 in

Land, Kinship and Life Cycle, edited by R.M.Smith. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Stone, Lawrence. 1977. The Family, Sex and Mar-riage in England 1500-1800. New York:Harper and Row.

Thompson, Wesley E. 1976. De Hagniae Heredi-tate : An Athenian Inheritance Case. Leiden:Brill. Mnemosyne Supplement 44.

Vann, Richard T. 1979. "Wills and the Family inan English Town: Banbury, 1550-1800." Jour-nal of Family History 4: 346-367.

Visser, Margaret. 1986. "Medea: Daughter, Sister,Wife and Mother. Natal Family versus Conju-gal Family in Greek and Roman Myths aboutWomen." Pp.149-165 in Greek Tragedy and ItsLegacy: Essays Presented to D.J. Conacher,edited by M. Cropp, E. Fantham, and S.E.Scully. Calgary: Calgary University Press.

Wheaton, Robert. 1980. "Affinity and Descent inSeventeenth-Century Bordeaux." Pp. 111-134in Family and Sexuality in French History, editedby R. Wheaton and T. Hareven. Philadelphia:University of Pennsylvania Press.

Wolff, Hans J. 1944. "Marriage Law and FamilyOrganization in Ancient Athens." Traditio 2:43-95.

Wyse, William. 1979. The Speeches of Isaeus. NewYork: Amo (originally published 1904).



Documents

Sibling Relationships in Classical Athens: Brother-Sister Ties