Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qlrfm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T11:17:00.729Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Euripides, Hippolytus 1009–16, and Greek Women's Property

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

J. H. Kells
J. H. Kells
Affiliation:
University College, London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Barrett finds lines 1010–15 difficult. He says that ‘hovers between “an heiress as my wife” and “marriage with an heiress”’, that ‘a Greek heiress ( here and I.T. 682) did not inherit property as her own: it passed not to her but with her, to her husband and ultimately to her children.—In Attic law a widow was never : a man's property went to his legitimate children.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , December 1967 , pp. 181 - 183
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1967

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

page 181 note 1 Cf. Lipsius, , Attisches Recht 492Google Scholar: ‘schon aus dem Gesagten ergibt sich, daβ in Athen so wenig wie unseres Wissens sonst in Griechen-land Gütergemeinschaft zwischen den Ehe-leuten geherrscht.’ Therefore the husband did not normally bequeath property to his wife, property which she would have been, in most states, legally incapable of adminis tering. Even here, however, it is dangerous to dogmatize, and there might be exceptional circumstances: cf. the which is bequeathed (verbally) by Herakles to Deianeira, , Soph. Tr. 161–2.Google Scholar

page 181 note 2 The absolutely vital basis of the dis ability is the lex that the woman was not competent-at-law beyond the value of a medimnus of barley: cf. Is. 10. 10 with Wyse's note. In spite of this disability, and that implied by the lex quoted in p. 182, n. 2 below, the is often spoken of, at least in the fourth century, as if she in person was the inheritress of property: cf.

page 182 note 1 Cf. [Dem.] 42. 18 father, as above.)

page 182 note 2 Cf. [Dem.] 43. 51 the property, unless he takes the heiress to wife along with it.)

page 182 note 3 Cf. [Dem.] 46. 20

page 182 note 4 Hence she was protected by the even against the hus band: cf. Lipsius, , op. cit. 350.Google Scholar

page 182 note 5 Arist. Pol. 1270 a.

page 182 note 6 Lex Gort. vii. 53 ff.Google Scholar

page 182 note 7 lb. ii. 45Google Scholar

page 182 note 8 lb. iii. 5Google Scholar (in regard to the property which a woman denies having wrongfully appropriated from the estate of

page 182 note 9 Hippolytus, however, being a bastard, would not inherit from Theseus, , cf. Ar. Av. 1649.Google Scholar

page 183 note 1 That the two kinds of aggrandizement are associated in I.T. 682–3Google Scholar, us from regarding them separately here, but is a further reason for considering 1013 as genuine.

page 183 note 2 Such a series of questions (whether with answers expressed or not) is a form of the rhetorical figure of hypophora (latinized as suggestio): cf. Hermog. Inv. 3. 4Google Scholar; Quint. 9. 2. 15Google Scholar; Jebb, , Att. Or. ii. 284 ff.Google Scholar This figure is often used for analysing psychological situations or motives, and is common in the two later tragedians and the orators: cf. S. Aj. 460 f.Google Scholar, Ant. 284 f.Google Scholar, O.T. 1375Google Scholar; E. Ale. 1049 f.Google Scholar, Med. 386 f. and 499 f.Google Scholar; Antiphon, , v. 27 f. and 57 f., fr. I passim, etc.Google Scholar