CONCUBI´NA
CONCUBI´NA (
παλλακή,
παλλακίς).
Greek
The
παλλακή occupied at Athens a kind of
middle rank between the wife (cf. Lys. 1.31) and the
ἑταίρα. The distinction between the
ἑταίρα, παλλακή, and legal wife,
is accurately described in [Dem.]
c. Neaer. §
122, p. 1386,
τὰς μὲν γὰρ ἑταίρας ἡδονῆς
ἕνεκ᾽ ἔχομεν, τὰς δὲ παλλακὰς τῆς καθ᾽ ἡμέραν θεραπείας
τοῦ σώματος, τὰς δὲ γυναῖκας τοῦ παιδοποιεῖσθαι γνησίως καὶ
τῶν ἔνδον φύλακα πιστὴν ἔχειν. Thus Antiphon (1.17
ff.) speaks of the
παλλακὴ of Philoneos
as following him to the sacrifice, and also waiting upon him and his
guest at table. If her person were violated by force, the same penalty
was exigible from the ravisher as if the offence had been committed upon
an Attic matron; and a man surprised by the quasi-husband in the act of
criminal intercourse with his
παλλακὴ
might be slain by him on the spot, as in the parallel case (Dem.
in Aristocr. § 55, p. 637,
ἢ ἐπὶ δάμαρτι . . . ἢ ἐπὶ παλλακῆ ἣν ἂν
ἐπ᾽ ἐλευθέροις παισὶν ἔχῃ, and Lys. 1.31; cf. also
the decree said to have been passed during the time of the Peloponnesian
War,
γαμεῖν μὲν ἀστὴν μίαν, παιδοποιεῖσθαι
δὲ καὶ ἐξ ἑτέρας,
D. L. 2.26. See
Ath.
13.556 a, and Gell.
Noct. Attic. 15.20). The
concubine of Philoneos was a slave woman (after his death she undergoes
servile punishment, Antiph. 1.20); but from Isaeus (3.39) we learn that
also Athenian women, probably of the poorer families, became sometimes
concubines, and that their
κύριος
stipulated a sum of money to be paid to the woman in case her
quasi-husband died or dismissed her. From this it would appear that a
kind of
concubinatus was recognised by law,
and scarcely proscribed by public opinion (Philoneos is called
ἀνὴρ καλός τε κἀγαθός, Antiph. 1.14:
see, however, Isae. 6.18; Dem.
c. Boeot. de Dot.
§ 5, p. 1009, etc.); but Buermann (
Supplem. Jahrb. f.
cl. Phil. 1878, p. 569 ff.) goes too far in thinking that
such a
παλλακὴ was duly betrothed by
her
κύριος (the
δάμαρ, in addition to being betrothed, was introduced to
the phrateres of her husband [
GAMELIA]), and that the children of a
παλλακὴ of civic birth were
γνήσιοι. He draws these conclusions from the case of
Mantias and Plangon (Dem.
in Boeot. de nom. and
de dot.), the case of Euctemon and the sister of
Democrates (Isae. 6.22 ff.), and the reports of Socrates' bigamy.
Mantias was compelled by Plangon's oath (that he was the father of her
children,
de nom. § 4, p. 995: cf.
Arist.
Rhetor. 2.23, 11, p. 1398 B) to
introduce forthwith her two sons into his phratry. On this occasion he
had to swear that the children were
ἐξ ἀστῆς
καὶ ἐγγυητῆς γυναικός: hence, B. concludes, Plangon
must have been betrothed to him. Lipsius (
Att. Proc. p.
543, n. 166; see also Gilbert in
Jahrb. f. cl. Phil.
1887, p. 24), however, shows that this oath was not necessary in all the
phratries; and Philippi (
Jahrb. f. cl. Phil. 1879, p.
417) points out that the distinction between
ἐγγυᾶσθαι and
γαμεῖν,
as indicated by B., is not borne out by the use made of these words by
the orators (cf. Isae. 6.24,
ἐγάμει,
in what B. considers an instance of
concubinatus;
ἐπέγημε, Andoc. 1.128, 124; and
especially Isae. 3.39, where
ἐπὶ παλλακίᾳ
διδόναι is contrasted with
ἐγγυᾶν). The connexion of Mantias and Plangon was probably
of a different nature; it would seem that Mantias married her (her son
Boeotus claimed the name of the paternal grandfather as being the eldest
grandchild,
de nom. § 27, p. 1002), but
divorced her (hence her sons returned with her to the (
φυλὴ Ἱπποθωντίς,
de nom. § 23, p. 1001), before marrying
the daughter of Polyaratus (
de dot. §
6, p. 1009), without, however, breaking off intercourse with her (
de dot. § 27, p. 1016). If one of the
characteristics of the legitimate
concubinatus had been, as B. says, that no dowry was brought,
and if Plangon had been a
παλλακή,
Mantitheus would no doubt have met Boeotus' claim to his mother's dowry
in a different way from what he does (
de dot.
§ 20 foll., p. 1014). As regards Euctemon, he too, as Luzac
suggests (
Lect. Attic. p. 59
ff.;
cf. Schoemann,
ad Isae. p. 334), divorced
his wife (for a time, § 40) and threatened to marry the sister
of Democrates ( § § 22, 25). Luzac likewise exposes
the fallacy of the view entertained by several writers of the
Peripatetic school, that Socrates had two wives at once;
1 and Zeller (
Socr. and the Socr. Schools, transl.
by Reichel, p. 57 n.) accounts thus for the origin of the story:
“We gather from the remains of the treatise
περὶ εὐγενείας, that this dialogue was
concerned with the question, whether nobility belonged to those
whose parents were virtuous. Now none were more celebrated for their
spotless virtue and their voluntary poverty than Aristeides and
Socrates. Accordingly the writer brought the two into connexion.
Socrates was made to marry a daughter of Aristeides; and since
Xanthippe was known to be his wife, Myrto was made to be his second
wife and the mother of his younger children. Others, however,
remembered that Xanthippe survived her husband. They thought it
unlikely that Socrates should be the son-in-law of a man dead before
he was born, and they tried to surmount these difficulties in
various ways. As regards the first difficulty, either it was
maintained that Myrto was his second wife and that the younger
children were hers, in which case it was necessary to place her side
by side with Xanthippe, as Hieronymus actually did, and invented a
decree of the people to make it probable; or to avoid romance, this
supposition was given up, and Myrto was made to be his first wife,
who then can have borne him no children, since Lamprocles, his
eldest son, according to Xenophon, was a child of Xanthippe. The
second difficulty might be got over either by making Myrto a
grand-daughter of Aristeides, or by making her father to be
Aristeides the Just. The former is the usual one; the latter is the
[p. 1.526]view of Athenaeus.” Buermann
interprets
ἐλεύθερος in the law (Dem.
in Aristocr. § 55, p. 637) to mean
γνήσιος. This is scarcely correct when we
consider [Dem.]
c. Neaer. § 118, p. 1385; the
speaker meets what might be urged in defence: “They cannot say
that Neaera is a woman of civic birth, for it is in evidence that
she is a
ἑταίρα, and has been the
slave of Nicarete; perhaps they will pretend that she is not his
γυνή, but that he keeps her as
a
παλλακή. This cannot be; for her
sons, who have been introduced by Stephanus to his phrateres, and
her daughter, who has been given in marriage to an Athenian citizen,
clearly prove that Stephanus lived with her as his wife.”
Hence it follows that the children of a concubine were not admitted to
the phratry of the father; they were not
γνήσιοι, for “wives are kept
τοῦ παιδοποιεῖσθαι γνησίως ἕνεκα” (
§ 122, p. 1386; cf. Luc.
Tim. 17,
ἐπ᾽ ἀρότῳ παίδων γνησίων), but they
were
ἐλεύθεροι, i. e. possessed civic
rights, and by an act of legitimation (
ποιεῖσθαι, Andoc. 1.124; Dem.
in Boeot. de
nom. § 29, p. 1003) the father could procure for them
all the rights and privileges of children born in wedlock. If the mother
was not an Athenian, the father might not adopt this course (
Att.
Proc. p. 529 ff).
[
J.S.M] [
H.H]
2. Roman
According to an old definition, an unmarried woman who cohabited with a
man was originally called
pellex (Paul. Diac. p.
222;
Gel. 4.3), but afterwards by the more
decent appellation of
concubina (
Dig. 50,
16,
144).
Concubinatus
is cohabitation other than marriage (i. e. without
affectio maritalis) between free persons who are already
unmarried, or between an unmarried free man and an
ancilla. In the older times this was viewed as an offence
deserving punishment (Livy,
10.31,
25.2); but when the possibility of a lasting
affection between persons who had not
connubium came to be recognised, the cohabitation of an
unmarried man with his
liberta or
ancilla (Plautus,
Epid. 3.4, 29,
30;
Poen. prol. 102) was regarded without censure. In
Cicero's time (
de Orat. 1.40.183) the name
of
concubina would have applied to a woman
who cohabited with a man who had not divorced his wife; but this was not
considered lawful concubinage in aftertimes. The Lex Julia de adulteriis
of Augustus imposed severe penalties on
adulterium,
incestus (Gaius, 1.64;
Inst. 1.10, 12), and
stuprum (which is defined,
Inst. 4.18, 4, as “cum quis sine vi vel virginem
vel viduam honeste viventem stupraverit:” cf.
Dig. 25,
7,1, 1; 48, 5,
12. 13); but by the Lex Julia and Papia Poppaea
concubinatus was legalised ( “per leges nomen
assumpsit,”
Dig. 25,
3,
1) and exempted from the penal provisions of the
earlier statute (
Dig. 25,
7,
3,
1), though
an
honesta femina who wished to become a
concubina was not dispensed from them
unless she made an express declaration of her intention or testatio
(Dig. ib. 3, pr.). But a man who already had an
uxor could not have a
concubina
at the same time (Paul
Sent. rec. 2.20;
Dig. 50,
16,
144), nor apparently could a man have more than one
concubina at a time; and widowers who already
had children, and did not wish to contract another legal marriage, took
a
concubina, as we see in the case of
Vespasian (Suet.
Vesp. 3), Antoninus Pius; and M.
Aurelius.
Concubinatus differed from lawful marriage
in three especial respects: (1) In the relation of the parties, there
being no
affectio maritalis:
“Concubina ab uxore
solo dilectu
separatur,” Paul.
Sent. rec. 2.20. (2) In the
loss of reputation to the woman if
honesta:
“parvi autem refert, uxori an concubinae quis leget, sane enim,
nisi dignitate, nihil
interest,” Ulpian in
Dig. 32,
49,
4. Yet there is an
inscription in Fabretti (p. 337) to the memory of Paullianus by Aemilia
Prima, “concubina ejus et heres,” which seems to show that
the term
concubina was not one that a woman
need be ashamed of. (3) In its legal effects: it was not a marriage, and
therefore the rules as to
dos, donatio propter
nuptias, donatio inter virum et uxorem, had no
application; nor were the children in
patria
potestas, though their paternity was recognised: they
could be legitimated, and under the emperors were entitled to
maintenance, even from the legitimate children after the father's death
(
Nov. 89, 12, 6); also they had some rights of
succession on the father's dying intestate.
Concubinatus between a patron and his
liberta was governed by special rules (
Dig. 25,
7,
1, pr.; 23, 2, 41, 1; 48, 5, 13, pr.); and others were made by
Justinian relating to that between a
dominus and his
ancilla, e.g. as
to the children becoming free and legitimate (Cod. 7, 15, 3;
Nov. 78, 4).
Heineccius (
Syntag. Ap. 1.39) denies that an
ingenua could be a
concubina, and asserts that those only could be
concubinae who could not be
uxores; but that this is wrong is shown by Aurelian's
prohibition (Vopisc.
Aur. 49) of
ingenuae becoming
concubinae, which however was a dead letter. By later
emperors
concubinatus was discouraged, but
it was not made generally unlawful till the 9th century by Leo
Philosophus.
Cohabitation between two slaves was called
contubernium, a name also applied to that between a slave
and a free person (Paul. 2.19, 6). The paternity of the children was
recognised: e. g. as a
justa causa
manumissionis under the Lex Aelia Sentia.
[
J.B.M]
