前4世紀アテナイにおける通婚禁止令とアポロドロス弁論の女たち

Abstract

本論稿は, 第11人目のアッティカ弁論家と呼ばれるアポロドロスによる, 紀元前4世紀前半の3人の非市民女性についての言及をとおして, この時代のアテナイにおける女性の市民性について考察するものである。アルキッペ, ネアイラ, ファノの3人はいずれも通婚禁止令によってアテナイ市民との結婚を禁じられながらも, 事実上市民の妻となった。なかでもアポロドロスの母アルキッペが, 夫パシオンにたいする市民権賦与によってどのような社会的地位にたたされたのかは, これまでも議論を呼んできた。ここでは, 通婚禁止令の制定年代の下限を前370年に確定するとともに, この通婚禁止令によってはじめて, 娘・妻・母という市民のオイコスにおける女性の立場が一体化し, 市民のオイコスの純潔性が法制上確立されたことを論じる。

The forensic speeches delivered by Apollodoros, the eleventh Attic orator, provides us with a detailed description of the lives of three non-Athenian women : Archippe, Neaira, and her daughter Phano. Through the analysis of Apollodos' speeches, this paper will show first that the ambiguity of their legal/ social status was caused by the inconsistency between their marital status, status as daughters, and the status as mothers. The controversy concerning the legal status of Archippe can be resolved by distinguishing the threshold status of females in household membership. Second, it will be argued that the bar of marriage between citizens and foreigners ([Dem.] 48. 16, 53), which was introduced by 370 B.C.E in the process of reestablishing the Athenian civic body affected the marital status of all three women. In an often neglected passage (Dem. 46. 15), Apollodoros, claims that Pasion had no legal right to decide the remarriage of his widow, Archippe, in his will.. The remarriage of a wife was usually within the legal hand of her husband or her closest kin. So the passage implies that by 370 B.C.E. when Pasion composed the will, Archippe ceased to be the legal wife of Pasion. On the other hand, their marriage had to have remained legally valid in 380 B.C.E., when their second son, Pasikles of Acarnai, was born. After the Periclean citizenship law was put into effect, the right to procure Athenian citizens was legally restricted to the daughters of the citizens. However, it was only after this ban on marriage that the women who were not the daughters of citizens were completely debarred from their status as citizen's wives, and that the membership of Athenian oikos was legally closed to foreign blood, and thus became consistent with the Athenian citizenship.