Fig. 78.
Among the monuments which have been preserved to us, there are several which refer to marriage; but, as a rule, they adhere to a mythological form, and do not represent a real scene from daily life. Thus, for instance, we often see the bridal pair driving in a car, but those who attend them are the Marriage gods in person, especially Apollo and Artemis, and when the presentation of marriage gifts to the newly-wedded pair is represented, it is usually the celebrated couple, Peleus and Thetis, that we see depicted, while those who offer them the gifts are gods, such as Hephaestus and the Horae, etc. The vase painting, which is here given as Fig. [78], also bears a mythological character, though it, no doubt, adheres very closely to the forms of reality. It represents the arrival of the bride at the bridegroom’s house. The latter stands leaning on a spear (which, however, must be an heroic attribute, and not customary at marriages in the historic period) before the door of his house. On the left comes the bride, who is recognised by the veil covering her head. She approaches with a hesitating step, and the bridesmaid attending her is pushing her gently forward with both hands, while the groomsman, who goes before her, holds her left hand. Apollo, with his laurel staff, and Artemis, with quiver and bow, are gazing sympathetically at the bride; in front of them a woman, either the match-maker or the bride’s mother, holds out both her arms to welcome the bridegroom.
Of course, marriage customs differed considerably in the various Greek states, as is proved by many allusions. Strangest of all seems the Laconian custom, which points clearly to marriage by capture; a custom of great antiquity, mentioned in many legends (as, for instance, that of the Dioscuri and the daughters of Leucippus). No mention is made here of a real marriage celebration; the bridegroom carried off his bride, who must, however, have previously been betrothed to him by her father, from her parents’ house, and in his own dwelling handed her over to the charge of some middle-aged woman (νυμφευτρíα), who was either a relation or an intimate friend. During his absence at the common dining table, to which all Spartan citizens and youths went every day, this woman cut off the bride’s hair, dressed her in male dress, with men’s shoes, and left her lying in the dark on some straw. Then, when the bridegroom returned, he unloosed the bride’s girdle and carried her in his arms to the bridal chamber. Curiously enough, the appearance of secrecy was kept up for some time longer; the young husband continued to live with the other young citizens, and only visited his wife occasionally in secret. Similar practices prevailed also at Crete. We do not, however, know how long these strange customs continued in the Doric states.
In considering the position of women in relation to men and in the household, we must allow for the differences between the heroic and historic periods, and also between the Doric and the Ionic-Attic states. Of the Aeolian states we know very little. In the heroic period, as far as we can gather from the Homeric poems, women occupied an important position, in many respects equal to that of the men. Heroic times, like the rest of Greek antiquity, were only acquainted with monogamy; polygamy is an entirely Oriental custom. Still, it was by no means unusual in olden times for princes and nobles to have a number of concubines, who were either slaves or female captives, besides their own lawful wives, who were sprung of noble family. In fact, the idea of conjugal fidelity held good only for the female portion of the population, while the men were absolutely free to act as they pleased. Undoubtedly there were cases in which husband and wife were so well suited together that the men resisted all temptations to infidelity; among these we may include Hector, Laertes, and Odysseus, in spite of the amours of this last with Circe and Calypso. Whenever we obtain a closer insight into the conditions of married life, as in the case of Hector and Andromache, Odysseus and Penelope, the impression received is a favourable one. There is even a vein of true affection perceptible, which is generally absent from ancient conceptions of marriage.
In the heroic age women were chiefly occupied with household management and female accomplishments, while they plied their tasks with their attendants in the women’s apartments; but their life was not one of such absolute retirement as that of the Oriental harems. On some occasions they associated with men, and took part in their sacrifices and banquets; and though they never went out unattended, yet a good deal of liberty must have been allowed the young girls, to judge from the story of Nausicaa, who went down to the sea-shore to wash the clothes.
In the historic age, the Doric states bear the closest analogy to heroic times in their marriage customs. Here, too, we find the same undisguised assumption that marriage existed for the sake of rearing children; and, in fact, the laws of Lycurgus permitted a man to transfer his conjugal rights for a time to another, if his childlessness imperilled the existence of the family. In spite—or, perhaps, on account—of this custom, infidelity was very rare at Sparta, even among the men, and the institution of hetaerae never gained ground there. Concubinage, which was very common in the heroic age, fell into disuse during historic times, but, except at Sparta, it was really discontinued only in name. The domestic relations between husband and wife more closely resembled our own at Sparta than in the Ionic-Attic states. Even at Sparta the household was the centre around which the woman’s life revolved, but she was not degraded into a mere housekeeper; a Spartan addressed his wife as “Mistress” (δέσποινα), made her the partner of his interests, and consulted her about matters of importance. This seemed so strange to the other Greek states that they were inclined to regard the Spartan husbands as henpecked, which was by no means the case; but there is no doubt that Spartan history can boast of far more remarkable women and admirable mothers than Athenian. The strong patriotism of the Spartan women which triumphed over gentler feelings is sometimes a little unattractive to our modern sentiments, but, in any case, these women command our fullest respect.
The position of women in the Ionic states bears a more Oriental character, and here it is the wife who addresses the husband as “Master.” The Athenian regarded his wife as a subordinate being, who would bear him children and keep his house in order, but was incapable of rising beyond this sphere. A woman must keep silence about all political matters, and, as a rule, she was not even acquainted with her husband’s private affairs. The husband was very seldom at home; public life, professional duties, gymnastics, social intercourse, kept him from his family during the greater part of the day; at meals they met together, except when the husband had invited guests, and then the wife had to withdraw into retirement. As a rule, husband and wife hardly knew each other before marriage; it was not till afterwards that it was possible to discover whether their characters were suited to one another, and then it often turned out that these were quite incompatible. Then they went their own ways, or else jarred and quarrelled. Sometimes a sensible man succeeded in educating and raising to his own level a really intelligent wife, to whom he could communicate his plans and interests, and thus make her his partner in the true sense of the word; but this was the exception, and, as a rule, the spheres of husband and wife remained distinct. Moreover, the ever-increasing influence of the hetaerae did much to loosen the bonds of marriage. It was a very common thing for married men to visit hetaerae or enter into love intrigues with slaves; and, as a rule, the wives shut their eyes to it, so long as some regard was shown for appearances. If a married man were to take an hetaera into his own house, that would be a ground of divorce; but unmarried men very often kept mistresses, and the relation between them sometimes closely resembled marriage. Supposing a man were to neglect his own family too much through this intercourse, or, by spending his money in this way, to inflict an injury on them, the wife, if she possessed the full rights of citizenship, had the right to enter a complaint. Improper language in the presence of women was not permitted, and no stranger was allowed to enter the women’s apartments during the absence of the husband. The children were bound to the most absolute obedience and reverence to both father and mother.
Generally speaking, the law afforded a woman but little protection from her husband; infidelity on his part did not entitle her to a divorce. On the other hand, the strictest fidelity was required from the wife; but, in spite of the seclusion in which she lived, infidelity was by no means uncommon, since there were always plenty of obliging slaves ready to help their mistress in these matters. In most Greek states the offenders were punished by the loss of certain rights, and the husband was not only justified in demanding a divorce, but even morally bound to do so if his wife’s wrong-doing had been noised abroad. The law took no steps to punish the lover; but the husband had the right to inflict corporal punishment on him, or even, if he caught him in the act, to kill him, unless, indeed, he preferred to seek compensation for his shame in a money fine. In case of divorce, too, the woman was worse off than the man. In consequence of the loose relation of the marriage-tie, it was very easy to break it. A husband could dismiss his wife or send her back to her parents, or the woman could simply leave her husband’s house, and this was usually enough to annul the marriage. In the latter case the wife was obliged to lodge a complaint against her husband in person with the archon, as there were certain legal matters connected with the divorce, chiefly concerning the dowry; as a rule, if the husband sent away his wife without sufficient reason, he had to give back the dowry to her or her legal representative (father, brother, or guardian), unless the cause of the divorce was infidelity which had been clearly proved against the wife. But though there is an appearance of justice here, in reality the man had the advantage; for it was only the most cogent reasons that would induce a woman voluntarily to leave her husband, while the man often arbitrarily put away his wife for the most trivial reasons; moreover, as a woman was always politically a minor, and if she left her husband could not go on living by herself, she was obliged to return to a state of tutelage under her father, or, if he were no longer living, her brother or legal guardian. Many a woman would rather endure the most cruel treatment from her husband than return thus to her father’s house.