Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T06:43:42.670Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Homeric Ἔδνα and Penelope's Κύριος

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

W. K. Lacey
W. K. Lacey
Affiliation:
St. Catharine's College, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

One of the features of the Homeric poems which has often excited comment is the marriage system, both in its apparent difference from that prevailing in classical Athens and for its own inconsistencies as they appear on the surface. Dr M. I. Finley in a paper to which my debt will be evident throughout this discussion, despite my disagreement with some of his arguments, has shown that the old theories of ‘Bride-Purchase’ will not really hold water, and that at a Homeric marriage the bride was part of an exchange of gifts or services between the prospective bride-groom and the bride's father, and that these gifts were called ἕδνα.

What this paper attempts to do is to suggest that (1) there were in fact two different patterns of marriage in Homeric, as in classical times; (2) that ἕδνα belonged essentially to only one of these patterns; (3) that ἕδνα were not δῶρα, although they had many of the facets of gifts, most particularly in that they expressed the giver's quality, and this in turn carried the assumption that to be outdone in ἕδνα, as in gifts, would incur a slur on a man's rank and quality as an ἀγαθός, and this would lead to criticism and ἐλεγχείη; and (4) (in a second part) that, if the analysis of ἕδνα attempted in the first part of this paper is acceptable, the apparent confusions and contradictions in the arrangements proposed for Penelope's second marriage disappear.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 86 , November 1966 , pp. 55 - 68
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1966

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 ‘Marriage, Sale and Gift in the Homeric World’ in Revue Internationale des Droits de l'Antiquité iii, vol. 2 (1955). I accept Finley's definition of the value of the Iliad and Odyssey as historical documents; p. 169, n. 5. I disagree with him about the validity of the two Hesiodic fragments (94 and 96 Rzach) as evidence for Homer's institutions for reasons given below (n. 12). On the fragments, see Finley p. 179, n. 38.

2 A. W. H. Adkins, Merit and Responsibility, uses ἀγαθός for a man who is accepted as of heroic class. For the code of values of the class in Homer, and the need to avoid ἐλεγχείη, see his Chap. iii. For meanness leading to ill-repute see Od. xix 325–34, spoken by Penelope; cf. the ‘Beggar’s' insult to Antinous, , Od. xvii 454–7.Google Scholar

3 This does not mean I attempt to deny that some of the not-human marriages of the Odyssey must have seemed strange to Greek customs: the marriages of Aeolus' sons and daughters (Od. x 5–7) however would not have seemed so strange to them as they do to us, nor would that of Alcinous and Arete even if they were brother and sister and not, as the poet tells us, uncle and niece (Od. vii 54–68). A marriage between uncle and niece would not have seemed in the least strange, since it was the normal way of arranging the marriage of an only daughter. We may note that there is no family life at all in many places in fairyland—Lotus-eaters, Sirens, Calypso, Circe etc., and the Cyclops whom Odysseus encountered had none either.

4 In marriage of the ‘kingly’ class which embraces virtually all marriages in Homer except those of Odysseus' servants; cf. Finley, p. 170. There is no mention of ἕδνα in these servants' marriages (Od. xxi 214–15), and I would think it unwise—if not absurd—to seek to stress πολυμνήστην in Eumaeus' statement of his hopes in Od. xiv 61–5.

5 On this question and its importance, see below, p. 65.

6 Od. xvi 387–92.

7 This is not to deny that there must have been such a time, nor that the main object of the suitors must have been to obtain Odysseus' οἰκος for themselves; what the Odyssey does not say, however, is that ἕδνα were to be given in this situation. Note that the phraseology of Od. xiii 380–81 is identical with that of Od. ii 91–2, which forms part of Antinous' speech to Telemachus whose climax urges him to send Penelope away and bid her to marry (Od. ii 113–14).

8

It should be noted that in both passages οί has nobody to whom it can refer; the previous lines are (Od. i 276), and (Od. ii 195).

9 Another alternative is to say that they are a re-use of a formula in an inappropriate context by a bard who was either ignorant or else influenced by the later custom of dowry. To me this seems a less. satisfactory explanation.

10 P. 178, with bibliography in n. 35 on the custom of giving a gift to provoke a counter-gift. It may be added that the fact that these lines are formulaic itself tends to suggest that they reflect a genuine piece of social custom, and that brides did in fact not come to their husbands empty-handed.

11 So, when Laertes and Anticleia μύρι' ἕλοντο for Ctimene, (Od. xv 367)Google Scholar, it was an indication of their status or rank.

If we study the related words, we see that they support this interpretation; ἐεδνόομαι is used once in Homer for what a bride's father will do for his. daughter (Od. ii 52–4), in Hesiod for what the husband will do for his bride-to-be (fr. 94.47). Except on the view that the word indicated an exchange ἕδνα these two senses are opposed. Nor, in either context, will the bride remain in her father's. house.

ἐεδνωταί, which appears only in Il. xiii 382, is used in a context in which a marriage-settlement is clearly being made, in which the bride will be given to the groom to go with him to his house, even if in mockery. ἑδνωτή, found only in Hesychius, and defined as ἐγγαμίστη νυμφίῳ suggests that the bride has come into the house of her husband.

12 In the Hesiodic fragments they certainly could; δῶρα and ἕδνα are quite indistinguishable in frs. 94 and 96; but in these fragments the poet seems merely to be striving for variety in expression in a quite unhomeric way. It is this artificial, literary, style which makes me doubt their validity as reliable documents for the language of Homer and the social customs to which he refers in the poems. The fragments do, however, make it clear that all the suitors but one will in fact fail, and give their gifts in vain. Another conspicuous difference between the wooing of Helen and the wooing of Penelope in the Odyssey is the fact that many of Helen's suitors wooed by proxy: Odysseus (fr. 94.21–6), two unnamed heroes (fr. 94.35 and 37–9), and it is stressed that Idomeneus came in person (fr. 96.16-g).

13 It has been suggested to me that in some of the ἕδνα passages, especially where there is said to be competition, the poet may have used ἕδνα where he really meant δῶρα. Since the purpose of the δῶρα was to persuade the κύριος of the bride to arrange for her marriage, the misuse of the more technical term is understandable, but the restriction of ἕδνα to its strict technical meaning seems preferable to me, especially when there is never any need to assume its use in a non-technical sense.

14 Wolff, H. J., ‘Marriage Law and Family Organization in Ancient Athens’ in Traditio ii 57–8Google Scholar, cited also by Finley.

15

16 See also Finley, pp. 183–4 and n. 57; Finley lists (p. 171, n. 18) the ‘dowry’ passages in Homer.

17 Pedasus does not occur at all in the Trojan catalogue; D. L. Page has argued (History and The Homeric Iliad, 143 f.) that it is quite an important place, but one very peripheral to the world of the Iliad. To Strabo it no longer existed, see Page, 170.

It may be some element of appropriate arrangements being made for each marriage (in the light of the standing of the parties, and their esteem in their own and the other's eyes) which lies behind the extraordinary use of the word ἄποινα in Hymn to Aphrodite 140, on which see Finley, p. 182, n. 47. ‘Otreus' daughter’ was in a situation in which it might now be hard for her to get a husband, since she was likely, whether Anchises was prepared to marry her or not, to have to lie with him, and though seduction by a ‘god’ was venial, there is no evidence that a girl who was not a virgin because she had lain with a mortal retained her value as a bride. Aphrodite was pretending to be a mortal, so she had to talk like one.

18 I do not believe that they were intended to mock Penelope as has been suggested; they were to influence her choice. For the view that she could make a real, though to her adulterous, marriage, see below, p. 65.

19 As I would regard these δῶρα as outside the ἕδνα I would not accept fully Hesychius' definition of πολυέδνος as πολύδωρος, except insofar that a girl who was πολύδωρος would probably have handsome ἕδνα too. I can see no evidence that ἠπιόδωρος (occurring once, in Il. vi 251) has any reference to dowries or marriage. There is no reason to think that the poet was trying to say more than that Hecuba was bountiful. Laodike had been married long ago.

20 On this, see below, p. 64.

21 ἐγγυαλίζω is most commonly used of abstract things given by the gods: τιμήν Il. i 353, κράτος Il xi 192, 207, 753) Il. xvii 206, κῦδος Il. xv 491, 644, κέρδος Od. xxiii 140; but also of more concrete things given by the gods: ἔργον, Il. ii 436, σκῆπτρόν τ' ἠδὲ θέμιστας Il. ix 98—9; the sense of entrusting is strong in both passages. One man (Idomeneus) by his death would have given (κε … ἐγγυάλιξεν) κράτος (Il. xvii 613); the other uses are of Peleus' handing his horses over to Achilles (Il. xxiii 278), and Eumaeus' handing over his ξεῑνος to Telemachus, (Od. xvi 66)Google Scholar; in both passages the sense of trust is clear. Cf. Hymn to Mercury 497 and 509 for the bargain between Hermes and Apollo.

22 Compare Priam's γαμβροί (Il. vi 249–50), not specifically mentioned here as warriors, though Imbrius was one (Il. xiii 172–6). For the recruitment of warriors without marriage, compare also what Menelaus says to Telemachus about his wishes for Odysseus, (Od. iv 171 ff.).Google Scholar

23 For the promise of a bride after the war cf. Menelaus' promise to Neoptolemus (Od. iv 5–7).

24

Il. xiii 377–82.

Note the implication of agreement with those who arrange ἕδνα (ἑδνωταί).

In Achilles' case it is even stressed that the gifts which are to accompany the daughter of Agamemnon are ‘μείλια such as nobody ever gave with his daughter’, and not ἕδνα (Il. ix 147–8 and 289–90); modern editors read ἐπὶ μείλια δώσω following the later Homeric commentators of antiquity. Aristarchus, however, read ἐπιμείλια δώσω with the comment ἐπιμείλια = ἐπιφέρνια; Apollonius (Lex. Hom.) sub μείλια comments Some Alexandrian scholars evidently saw the element of an agreement in this bargain. ἐπιφέρνια occur only in the lexica.

25 In other Near-Eastern societies there are plenty of parallels. In the Assyrian law-codes there are provisions for the normal type of marriage, and special provisions for marriages of this type, known to Assyriologists as erêbu marriages; see also Additional Note, p. 67.

26 He is not even counted among Antenor, 's sons in Il. ii 822 Google Scholar, though Homer is aware elsewhere of his patrilinear family connexions (Il. vi 298–9).

27 Kisses is not recorded as having any sons; it is more than likely that Iphidamas was his chosen heir, who would in a πόλις-community have been adopted as well as married to the heiress. Iphidamas is also the only certain example of a husband brought in as husband to a kinsman's house; this might help to explain the confusion.

28 Demosthenes' mother provides in Athens an interesting illustration of a somewhat similar, intermediate pattern. His father on his deathbed promised ἐγγυῶν his widow to Aphobus (Dem. xxviii 16), with a dowry of 80 minae, in return for which (in Demosthenes' submission) he and his fellow trus tees were to guard the children and the whole estate. Obviously the elder Demosthenes could not marry his widow to Aphobus since she was not yet a widow—it was only an engagement should he die, as he was sure he would. Note the difference between this arrangement and that with Demophon (xxviii 15) for whom the dowry was paid εὐθύς. Aphobus took the dowrymoney out of the estate and moved into the widow's house, but he did not marry her. Was she unwilling? Dem. xxvii 15 shows that there were disputes. Demosthenes' phraseology is interesting too. Dem. xxvii 56: (the widow), He does not use γαμεῑν for Aphobus' removal into her house, nor, clearly, did the ἔγγυαι with the elder Demosthenes, nor the acquisition of the dowry create a marriage. Had it done so, Aphobus would have been an authorised bigamist under the law. Equally, however, the widow was not an ἐπίκληρος, subject to ἐπιδικασία, because she had a son, and she is stated by Demosthenes (xxix 26) to have chosen to remain a widow for the sake of her children. Her position was very much like that of Penelope before the Odyssey begins. (See p. 61 below.)

29 Except, of course, for πολις-rules about eligibility for citizenship, which limited by law the field of choice for both classes, and at Athens at least required the formal registration of the marriage.

30 Finley, p. 172, n. 19 for an opposite view.

31 The poet makes this quite clear in what is in many respects the key passage of the poem—Od. xviii 266–70 (Odysseus' parting instructions to Penelope); it is highly probable that a son became κύριοζ of his mother if she were, or said she was, a widow, but not if her husband was merely missing, as happened at Athens when a son came of age. For ἀγαθός, see n. 2 above; for νήπιος as ‘one who does not know any better’ (Adkins, p. 29, n. 15); it is recognized that Telemachus cannot fully qualify as an ἀγαθός in Adkins's sense since he has to suffer ἀεικέλια; on this, see Adkins, ch. iii passim.

32 Claimed Od. i 397–8, accepted ibid. 402–4, etc.

33 Cf. the angry incident (Od. ii 303–20), the suggestions of the sort of crew he has raised, and the suitors' reactions (Od. iv 642–4 and 663–72). See also Adkins, 32–4, though with less stress on the followers.

34 Most clearly expressed by Agelaus, , Od. xx 326–37.Google Scholar

35 Od. ii 94–102; cf. Od. xix 138–47.

36 But never, apparently, Laertes. In the Odyssey there never seems to be any possibility of his assuming the headship of the family: Eumaeus in Od. xiv 180–2 even states that with the death of Telemachus the family of Arcesias will be extinct (it being assumed here that Odysseus is dead). No complete explanation is possible; it might be argued that Laertes belongs to a different strand in the story (cf. Page, D. L., The Homeric Odyssey 102 f.Google Scholar on the lateness of the Laertes part of Od. xxiv, and 121 and notes on Penelope's Web), but Laertes is mentioned outside the Web and Book xxiv, eight times in contexts where he is assumed to be alive, most significantly in Od. iv 738, spoken by Penelope, and in Od. xiv 173, in Eumaeus' speech, mentioned above.

A more probable explanation is that by his retirement into an ignominious station Laertes has excluded himself from the class of ἀγαθοί, and can therefore be ignored, since claims to status can only be established by appropriate deeds, and only an ἀγαθός could claim the κυριεία of Odysseus' οἷκος.

37 E.g. Clytaemnestra, Od. i 33–7; iii 263–75; xi 432–4, etc.

38 See Finley, p. 170–1; for Clytaemnestra, Od. i 36.

39 Od. iii 272. This did not make them any more creditable, and the fact of them being misdeeds arises not merely from the standpoint of a more sophisticated age, which blamed Helen for a breach of the laws of hospitality—though in Il. xiii 620–7 the Trojans are blamed on this ground—(and thus made her a suitable subject for epic poetry— Gordon, Cyrus, Before the Bible 115–6 and 254Google ScholarPubMed), but abo from the Homeric standpoint that their actions produced disastrous consequences, in Helen's case the Trojan War, in Clytaemnestra's her own doom and that of Aegisthus at the hands of Orestes. For the ‘bad’ as the unsuccessful see Adkins, Chap. iii.

40 Gortyn code, ii 20–24; compare also at Rome Dig. 48.5.24.

41 Nor had she borne him a child; it is not easy to exaggerate the importance of getting an heir in establishing Greek marriages.

42 Though in her case it was an ἔργον ἀεικές which her ἀγαθαί φρένες resisted for some time (aided by the minstrel left by Agamemnon to look after her) (Od. iii 265–8), presumably because she knew her husband was not dead, and she left more or less clandestinely.

43 Od. ii 114 and 128, perhaps also ibid. 50–54, though it is by no means certain that Penelope is the subject of ἐθέλοι, nor that oi is feminine.

44 But if it were not proved beyond doubt that Odysseus was dead it would be an adulterous, or bigamous, marriage like Clytaemnestra's, and one similarly open to criticism. Cf. what Odysseus says to the suitors who appeal for mercy (Od. xxii 35–41, and 321–5), and Penelope, by not remarrying is (Od. xvi 75 (= xix 527)); cf. Od. xxiii 149–51 for criticism should she not remain in Odysseus' palace.

45 Cf. Od. xi 177–9; Odysseus asks, without anger, whether Penelope has left home.

46 It also reiterates her ability to choose her new husband if she so desired; the fact that, when she decides to act on these instructions (Od. xviii 272–3), she decides on selection by means of the contest of the bow, is attributed by the poet to her dislike of all the candidates, by some modern scholars to the variant version of the story, in which it was a plot concerted by her and Odysseus; see e.g. Page, D. L., The Homeric Odyssey 122–4.Google Scholar

47 These two passages form a virtual doublet. Telemachus' object—to put an end to the period of doubt about Penelope's marital status—shows that her status was a matter of dispute; note that Telemachus will give her to a man (δώσω in ii 223), and there is no question about ἕδνα raised.

48 Od. ii 332–6 and cf. xvi 384–6.

Dr. John Chadwick has kindly discussed the word ὀπυίειν with me; in an article by a pupil as yet unpublished it is to be shown that ὀπυίειν is not synonymous with γαμεῑν, since γαμεῑν conveys the idea of the action of taking a wife, ὀπυίειν means living with a wife, legally and openly, equivalent in sense to the Classical συνοικεῑν; as Chadwick puts it 'ὀπνίοντες (and συνοικοῦρτες) mean the same as γεγαμηκότες'. It may be added that in the endogamous marriage of an ἐπίκληρος the classical Greeks did not use the word γαμεῖν normally, but employed either the legal term ἐπιδικάζεσθαι or the simple ἔχειν. It is only in the event of the death of Telemachus and the extinction thereby of Arcesias' line that the suitors can and do speak of ὀπυίειν Penelope and not γαμεῑν her. The limitation of the patrilinear ancestry of Telemachus to his great-grandfather coincides exactly with the limits of a γένος as given by Isaeus (viii 32).

49 The most useful parallel case to that of Penelope is that of the mother of Demosthenes (see above, n. 28), until, that is to say, the heir was ready to take over the mastership of the house. In Attic law this was prescribed with reference to the son's age, in Homeric society it depended on his power to assert himself (see above, p. 61). It would be wrong to see either Penelope or Demosthenes' mother as an ἐπίκληρος, though both had a κλῆρος, an estate, settled on them, whose usufruct they or their new husband would enjoy at least till the heir's majority was achieved. Obviously, there is a difference in that Demosthenes' mother had a living son, whereas Penelope, in the situation envisaged in Od. ii 332–6 and xvi 384–6, would not have one.

50 ἀπερρίγασι Od. ii 52.

51 As Athene in the guise of Mentes says; Od. i 275–8.

52 The fact of expulsion would of itself form a claim to the κυριεία of the οἶκος. That Telemachus could send Penelope away is assumed by all the speakers in the debate in Book ii, implicitly by Telemachus (130 ff.) and Eurymachus (195 ff.), explicitly by Antinous (113 ff. μητέρα σὴν ἀπόπεμψον); it is also assumed in the later argument with Agelaus (Od. xx 322–44, esp. 334–5 and 343–4). For compensation see Od. ii 132–3. It is usually assumed that this is a return of ἕδνα, and I would tend to agree, but think that there may also be an element of ἄποινα in the gifts, because to send her away ἀέκουσαν must be taken as a measure of disesteem for the family of Icarius, whereas her willing departure would not, and there is no question of return of ἕδνα in that eventuality.

53 Proved most clearly by Od. i 289–92 and ii 220–3: see above, p. 62. Note that the funeral-rites for Odysseus are the preliminary to Penelope's remarriage. These two passages are a virtual doublet.

54 Both Eurymachus, (Od. ii 188–91Google Scholar) and Leocritus (ibid. 243 ff.) had questioned his ability to make his claim effective. Contrast the speech of Agelaus, (Od. xx esp. 322–5)Google Scholar, and the suitors' acceptance of Telemachus' authority, as in Od. xviii 405–11, xx 262–72, xxi 368–79 etc.

55 We should note the implications of this thought, which are that Odysseus is still alive, and hence the οἶκος is his if he returns to claim it; see Page, The Homeric Odyssey 124–6. It is impossible to think that the ‘husband and son’ are anyone other than Odysseus and Telemachus. If common sense were not proof enough, the idea was the goddess's in the first place, and she knew who the beggar was, but it must have seemed rational to Penelope also. These lines prove firmly (if further proof were required) that even personal jewels of this sort were the property of the οἶκος, and hence of its κύριος. The only suggestion to the contrary is Od. xix 526 whose genuineness has been doubted. See CR 1966 1 ff.

56 See above, p. 58 for the view that these were not ἕδνα.

57 Od. xix 527 claims she is not a widow.

58 He also insisted that Odysseus might still be alive (Od. xx 340), and his refusal to coerce Penelope confirms that his attitude on this point is unchanged. He was in any case aware by now that Odysseus was the beggar.

69 The word ἄριστος is not explicitly used by her, perhaps because of her low view of the suitors (e.g. Od. xxi 331–3).

60 Compare the marriage of Pero; Od. xi 287–91, xv 230–8.

61 I must record my gratitude to many friends for their help, especially Professors Page, Kirk and Willcock, Dr Finley and Mr Camps.