Pomeroy, Women in Hellenistic Egypt: From Alexander to Cleopatra
Wayne State University Press (1984, 1990)
chapter three
"Some Married Women in the Papyri," 83-124.

STUDENTS, PLEASE NOTE: The bold text is primary material and should be brought to class.

(page 83) MARRIAGE contracts written on sheets of papyrus that happen to have been preserved in Egypt are the richest source of information about the ideal relationship between wives and husbands who were neither members of the royal courts nor characters in fiction. Almost all the evidence that will be adduced for the study of marriage derives from areas of Egypt beyond Alexandria, for few Ptolemaic papyri from the city are preserved. Thus, for this study, evidence of a different type from that used in the preceding chapters will be employed. Moreover, for the most part, the women whose marriages will be discussed were not the sophisticated denizens of a cosmopolitan city, but rather lived in the smaller Greek cities of Ptolemais and Naucratis, or in medium-sized Greek settlements scattered through Egypt, or in Greco-Egyptian communities. Some of them were fairly well-to-do, though none of them could have afforded to own racehorses as did extremely wealthy women in Alexandria. Often old-fashioned Greek customs, which were not evident in the great cosmopolis of Alexandria, flourished in the smaller Greek communities. Sex roles were more clearly defined and men and women were expected to function in separate spheres.

The historian must be aware that the condition of women varied according to geographical location and changed through the three centuries of Ptolemaic rule. However, the papyri that (page 84) may be employed for a study of marriage derive from a variety of geographical areas and time periods. Moreover, there are only about one hundred marriage contracts extant; these date from 311-310 B.C. to the sixth century A.D., and some of them are quite fragmentary. Neither state nor religion had any influence on marriage contracts; consequently, no standard format was used all over Egypt, nor was precisely the same form followed by everyone in a limited geographical locality at approximately the same time. Each contract has its own stipulations and individual details that make it unique. Yet there are more similarities than differences, and, insofar as the various contracts stipulate the same rules of conduct for the wives and husbands, respectively, they reveal the ideal relationship between women and men in the society as a whole. While not denying the diversity of marriage in Ptolemaic Egypt, in this chapter we will pay special attention to those features that are typical of marriage in both Greek society and Mediterranean society at large.

The marriage contracts extant from the Ptolemaic period are written in either Demotic or Greek. In this chapter, Greek documents will be discussed and the participating parties referred to as Greeks, although it should not be assumed that everyone who uses the Greek language in Ptolemaic Egypt is totally, or even partially, of Greek lineage. However, native Egyptians who chose to use the language and laws of the Greek ruling class were likely to be assimilating other Greek values as well. Therefore, it is reasonable to view the Greek marriage contracts primarily in a context of Greek mores. The Demotic contracts and the social history of Egyptian and Greco-Egyptian families in the Egyptian countryside have been the subject of continuing study by specialists, most notably P. W. Pestman.3 Legal historians have devoted a great deal of attention to the form, language, and content of the Greek marriage contracts. Because of the ethnic diversity of Ptolemaic Egypt, many scholars have attempted to distinguish the Greek and non-Greek characteristics of the contracts, and have identified precedents in the legal formulas of Greek states, but Orsolina Montevecchi has both catalogued the documents and written the finest general historical analyses.

(page 85) The purpose of each contract is to establish a legally binding agreement between the spouses. It is surprising that in some of our modern affluent communities, such as those in the United States of America, where few hesitate to engage in lawsuits on the slimmest of pretexts, brides and grooms do not usually write legally binding contracts tailored to their individual needs. Perhaps that is because it is felt that spouses coming from a common background share the same view of the mutual rights and obligations of a married couple, whereas a written contract would be prophetic of marital discord. In contrast, the Greeks who drew up the marriage contracts did not assume that the relationship between the spouses would take care of itself. Parents did not count on the goodwill of sons-in-law, but, before they entrusted their daughters and dowries to husbands, they attempted to assure their safety. The uncertainties of life in the Hellenistic period made these contracts more essential than ever before. The migration of Greeks in this period differed from the earlier colonization in the Dark Age beginning in the eighth century B.C.; the earlier colonies were usually populated by Greeks from a single mother city. Even then, although the colonists came from a common background and had used the same laws, they often established their own new law codes for which they obtained the approval of Apollo at Delphi. In contrast, in a Hellenistic settlement of colonists from a wide variety of areas in the Greek world, not only was there no uniform law code, but there were multiple versions of the informal social contract. Thus it was essential to set forth the relationship between a bride and groom-especially when they hailed from different parts of the Greek world. For an understanding of the diversity of family arrangements among Greeks, one can simply try to imagine a marriage between a Spartan and an Athenian, where the conflict between the Dorian and Ionian ways of life would have been severe. Such a marriage was theoretically possible in cosmopolitan Ptolemaic Egypt.5 Brother-sister marriage certainly offered one way of avoiding some areas of conflict, although this was not its purpose. Because mercenaries from a given geographical area were often recruited as a group and migrated together, and because of the tendency (which we have noted in the preceding (page 86) chapter) for migrants of the same ethnic background to flock together, it was possible that - at least during the early period of Ptolemaic rule - there would not be great disparity between the backgrounds of the spouses. In any event, marriage contracts between spouses who were not familiar with one another served to reduce misunderstanding.

The earliest Hellenistic marriage contract extant is dated to 311/3 10 B.C. and comes from Elephantine, where a Greek garrison was stationed up the Nile, far from Alexandria:

P. Elephantine I = Chrest. Mitt. I 283 = Select Papyri I 1

In the seventh year of the reign of Alexander, son of Alexander, the fourteenth year of Ptolemy's administration as satrap, in the month of Dius.

Contract of marriage of Heraclides of Temnos and Demetria.

Heraclides takes as his lawful wife Demetria of Cos from her father Leptines of Cos and her mother Philotis. He is free; she is free. She brings with her to the marriage clothing and ornaments (5) valued at 1,000 drachmas. Heraclides shall supply to Demetria all that is suitable for a freeborn wife. We shall live together in whatever place seems best to Leptines and Heraclides, deciding together.

If Demetria is caught in fraudulent machinations to the dishonor of her husband Heraclides, she shall forfeit all that she has brought with her. But Heraclides shall prove whatever he charges against Demetria before three men whom they both approve. It shall not be lawful for Heraclides to bring home another woman for himself in such a way as to inflict contumely on Demetria, nor to beget children by another woman, nor to indulge in fraudulent machinations against Demetria on any pretext. (6) If Heraclides is caught doing any of these things, and Demetria proves it before three men whom they both approve, let Heraclides return to Demetria the dowry of 1,000 drachmas which she brought, and forfeit 1,000 drachmas of the silver coinage of [Ptolemy bearing a portrait head of] Alexander. Demetria, and those representing Demetria, shall have the right to exact payment from Heraclides and from his property on both land and sea, as if after a legal action.
(15) This contract shall be decisive in every respect, wherever Heraclides may produce it against Demetria, or Demetria and those (page 87) helping Demetria to exact payment may produce it against Heraclides, as though the agreement had been made in that place.
Heraclides and Demetria shall each have the right to keep a copy of the contract in their own custody, and to produce it against one another.

Witnesses: Cleon of Gela, Anticrates of Temnos, Lysis of Temnos, Dionys-
ius of Temnos, Aristomachus of Cyrene, Aristodicus of Cos.

Several marriage contracts from the fertile area of the Fayum all stipulate exactly the same obligations for the spouses, making it clear that a legal form had evolved in which the chief variables were the date, the identity of the spouses, and the composition of the dowry. The first of these, P. Tebtunis IV 974, of the early second century B.C., is fragmentary. The second, P. Giessen I 2, dated to 173 B.C., is from Crocodilopolis. This bride has a more pretentious dowry than the others: she not only has 95 copper talents (i.e., about 1,140 silver drachmas), but she brings with her a slave with a nursing infant. The contract that uses the same legal formulas as those just mentioned, but which is in the best state of preservation, is P. Tebtunis I 104 from Cerceosiris. The papyrus had been reused to wrap a crocodile mummy that was discovered in the necropolis at Tebtunis. The date of the contract is 92 B.C.:

P. Tebtunis I 104

(5) In the twenty-second year of the reign of Ptolemy also called Alexander, the god Philometor, the priesthood of the priest of Alexander and the other priests as listed in Alexandria, the eleventh of the month Xandicus which is the eleventh of the month
Mecheir at Cerceosiris in the district of Polemon in the Arsinoite nome.

Philiscus, son of Apollonius, Persian of the Epigone, acknowledges to Apollonia (also known as Cellauthis), (10) daughter of (page 88) Heraclides, Persian, with her brother Apollonius as guardian, that he has received from her 2 talents and 4,000 drachmas in copper coinage as her dowry agreed to by him. Apollonia is to remain with Philiscus, obeying him as a wife should her husband, owning their property in common. Philiscus is to provide everything (15) necessary both clothing and whatever else is appropriate for a wedded wife, whether he is at home or away, according to the standard of their common resources.

It shall not be lawful for Philiscus to bring home for himself another wife in addition to Apollonia nor to maintain a female (20) concubine nor a little boyfriend nor to beget children by another woman while Apollonia is alive, nor to dwell in another house over which Apollonia has no rights, nor to throw her out, nor insult her or treat her badly, nor to alienate any of their common (25) property to defraud Apollonia. If he is shown to be doing any of these things, or not to be providing her with necessities and clothing and other things as written, Philiscus is to pay the dowry Of 2 talents and 4,000 drachmas of copper in full to Apollonia, immediately.

In the same way it shall not be lawful for Apollonia to be absent for a night or a day from the house of Philiscus without the knowledge of Philiscus, nor to have intercourse with another man (30) nor to ruin the common household nor to dishonor Philiscus in whatever brings dishonor to a husband.

And if Apollonia of her own free will wishes to separate from Philiscus, Philiscus is to return the dowry unaltered within ten days from the day the demand is made. If he does not return it, as written, he is to forfeit one and a half times the amount of the dowry to her immediately.

Witnesses:
Dionysius, son of Patron
Dionysius, son of Hermzfiscus Theon, son of Ptolemy
(35) Didymus, son of Ptolemy
Dionysius, son of Dionysius
Heraclius, son of Diocles (all six Macedonians of the Epigone)

Guardian of the contract: Dionysius

Signed: I, Philiscus, son of Apollonius, Persian of the Epigone, acknowledge that I have the dowry of 2 talents and 4,000 drachmas (page 89) of copper as written above, and I have deposited the contract, which is valid, with Dionysius. Dionysius, son of Hermalscus, the aforesaid, wrote for him [Philiscus] since he is illiterate.

A fragmentary papyrus from the second century B.C. records a marriage contract with the same stipulations as P. Tebtunis I 104, translated above, but it has an additional section dealing with the disposition of the dowry in the event of the death of the spouses:

P. Geneva I 21.15-21

If one of them experiences something mortal and dies, the property that is left shall belong to the survivor and to the children that they will have in common. But if they do not have children in common, or if they are born and they pass away before they grow up, and both the spouses survive, then after the death of either one of them - if Arsinoë should die first, Menecrates is to return the entire dowry to Olympias her mother, if she is alive, if she is not, then to Arsinoë's closest relatives.

WHO MAKES THE CONTRACTS

According to Greek law, a woman could not sign a contract of any consequence, not even a document as personal as a marriage contract. Contracts were made between men. In marriage contracts, women were objects to be exchanged between men. A man, the kyrios, or guardian, gives the bride to the groom, and, in the language of the marriage contracts, the groom "takes" (lambanei) her. There was no minimum age for marriage, and a girl would generally marry in her teens-before she knew enough about the world to protect herself and her dowry. As is the case in P. Elephantine I, the father usually acted as kyrios and gave his daughter in marriage, but in this period, when the duration of life was often short, a girl's father might be dead and she could be given in marriage by a brother. This is the situation of Apollonia in Cerceosiris, in P. Tebtunis I 104. The Hellenistic time was a period when people moved about a great deal. Not every girl had a male relative close at hand, but some fatherless (page 90) and brotherless brides did have a mother. In P. Tebtunis III 815, fragment 4, of 228 B.C., a groom acknowledges that he has received a dowry from the mother of his bride-to-be. Since even mature women, acting according to Greek law, needed male guardians for legal transactions, the mother acted with a male guardian. Inasmuch as such a contract would usually be made between men, the mother and daughter must have been totally bereft of available male relatives. Some other man would have had to sign the contract. Even if a woman's guardian was not related to her, he probably was not a total stranger. His appointment had to be approved by the state, and he was expected to act in her interests.

P. Elephantine I is unique in that the bride's mother and father share the responsibility for giving the bride in marriage. Yet the mother has no say in deciding where the married couple will live. The customs that this family brought with them from Cos to Egypt are responsible for the naming of the mother in the contract. Cult inscriptions from this island list citizens by both patronymic and matronymic (which was unusual among Greeks). Although the relevant inscriptions are later than the Elephantine marriage contract, the purpose is the same: the establishment of pure Coan descent.

In addition, however, the mother's participation in giving away the bride is evidence of the expanding legal capacity of Greek women in the Hellenistic period. P. Tebtunis III 815, mentioned above, shows a mother giving away her daughter. Similarly, in a Will of 225 B.C. (P. Petrie III 19C.25-26), a testator directs his wife to give his daughters in marriage, supplying each one with a dowry. P. Giessen I 2 (173 B.C.) supplies the only Hellenistic evidence for a woman giving herself in marriage, although her father is still alive and acts as her guardian.'3 The bride is a Macedonian, appropriately enough named Olympias, marrying Antaius, an Athenian.

The first contract, coming from the earliest period of Greek settlement in Hellenistic Egypt, was made between two parties of Greek descent. This particular marriage contract was found stored in an urn in duplicate copies written on one sheet of papyrus. The inner one was still sealed with sealing wax depicting (page 91) Heracles (Heraclides' eponym), the head of a woman, and a winged Eros. In the copy that is usually published, the husband's ethnic was omitted because of an error of the scribe. The other copy-that translated above-identified him (line 2) as coming from Temnos. Heraclides was vouched for by other immigrants from Temnos, three of whom served as witnesses for the marriage contract (and none of whom has a patronymic). Neither Leptines nor Heraclides has a military title, although they may be soldiers.

A copy of the marriage contract is usually turned over to one of the witnesses for safekeeping; this procedure is followed in P. Tebtunis I 104. However, the Elephantine contract stipulates that each party is to keep a copy of the document so as to be able to produce it against one another no matter where they are. This arrangement must have been adapted to the early Hellenistic period, when the new immigrants anticipated further migration. Both P. Elephantine I and the second papyrus in the collection, P. Elephantine 2 (285/284 B.C.), impart a similar feeling of married couples who may go off together away from their blood relatives. In this latter document, the husband and the wife, who are both from Temnos, bequeath everything they have to one another.

DOWRY

The dowries in all the Greek contracts consist of movables, in contrast to dowries in most other areas inhabited by Greeks for many generations, where the daughter may take as dowry her share of her father's land (see p. 156). In a practical sense, movables were more desirable in the early Hellenistic period, when there were countless options for migration. That there is a choice of domicile for the married couple is obvious from the provision in P. Elephantine I, lines 5-6, stating that the bride's father must be consulted in such a move. The primary protection a married woman had against a husband's abuse was the continuing surveillance by her own family." The phrase "those representing Demetria" in lines I 1- 12 provides, in effect, for substitute kin to aid the married woman who has been separated (page 92) from her natal family. Such a move would scarcely have been available in the preceding period of Greek history, or for contemporary Greeks on the mainland.

Demetria's parents get away with giving her a dowry that is actually nothing more than a trousseau, for it is constituted solely of personal property and had nothing that Heraclides could have controlled. Moreover, the value of Demetria's property is fixed at i,ooo drachmas, a round number that does not indicate an appraised value of the goods, but instead must represent the amount of the dowry agreed upon after many discussions by those making the contract. Not only does Heraclides allow a generous valuation to be placed on Demetria's personal property-although the clothing will surely depreciate over time-but he undertakes to pay her 1,000 drachmas in hard cash if he is the one who breaks the contract. For a groom to agree to a contract that favors the bride's side as much as this one suggests that there must have been very few Greek brides available.

The dowry constitutes a daughter's portion of the parents' property; the daughter receives a share at marriage, whereas the son must wait for his father's death or voluntary retirement. Mothers alone often supplied dowries for their daughters. It is unlikely that, on the occasion of their daugher's marriage, Demetria's parents went out to buy the women's clothing and personal ornaments that comprised her dowry: if they had had cash, they would have given it to her as part of her dowry. Demetria's mother, Philotis, is named just before the contents of the dowry. Most likely Philotis had contributed the dowry from her own personal property. Mothers all over the world still bestow jewelry and other prized personal possessions upon their daughters at the occasion of marriage. If the distribution of a mother's personal property were not made at the time of a daughter's marriage and before her move to her new home (which in the Hellenistic period could be far away), this property would become part of the family's possessions which are eventually inherited by the sons. The wives of the sons would adorn themselves with their motherin-law's possessions. A mother may prefer to have her own daughter wear her clothing and jewelry, and keep them as a tangible reminder of their days together.

(page 93) In P. Tebtunis III 815, fragment 4 (228 B.C.), a mother provided a dowry of 700 copper drachmas for her daughter. No father or male relative is mentioned, but the document is incomplete. The dowry usually passes vertically down through the generations of a family. According to a provision in P. Freiburg III 29 and 30 (179/178 B.C.), if the bride dies childless, her dowry will be returned to her nearest kin, designated by a collective noun in the masculine plural. In contrast, the fragmentary ending of P. Geneva I 2 1, indicating that a dowry will revert to the bride's mother if the bride dies childless, suggests that-like Philotis or the mother in P. Tebtunis III 815, fragment 4 - the mother had contributed it from her own property.

THE HUSBAND'S OBLIGATIONS

The bride's father or guardian is concerned about her welfare too, and all the contracts stipulate the obligations of the husband to maintain the wife. The husband is viewed as the provider. He undertakes to give his wife what is suitable for a woman of her status, even in a document such as P. Tebtunis I 104, where it is stated that she has brought a dowry, that she is co-ruler of the house, and that their possessions are held in common.

Of the three necessities of life-food, clothing, and shelteronly clothing-is specified," doubtless because, of the three, it is the greatest source of marital discord. Shelter could not be an issue for debate, since the presumption is that the husband has a roof over his head; he does undertake not to evict her. Food need not be mentioned, since no society sanctions the starving of a wife by a husband and the wife is in charge of the kitchen. Clothing is the only discretionary item, for a mean or frugal husband might point out that the dresses a wife had brought with her as a trousseau, though they are no longer stylish and do not suit a mature woman, are nevertheless wearable.

Ancient clothing was draped rather than cut to fit the body, so it was impossible to outgrow it. The material was so well made that it could last several generations. Therefore, it might be difficult for a wife to convince her husband that she needed a new dress. To impute to women an interest in clothing is not (page 94) anachronistic. Theocritus' Idyll 2.74 shows a Simaetha who borrows a stole in order to go to a show, and, in Idyll 15.69-71, Praxinoa upbraids a man in the crowd because he steps on the hem of her cloak. Greek housewives in Ptolemaic Egypt, unlike their predecessors in, for example, Classical Athens, did not make their clothing from start to finish at home. Textile weaving was a major industry in Egypt and women did not need to weave their own.

Praxinoa confessed that she bought the fabric for her dress for more than 2 minas (more than 200 drachmas) and then fashioned the dress from it. Admittedly Alexandria was the center of high fashion, and a bride in the Fayum did not expect to adorn herself like Praxinoa; nevertheless, she had to have the assurance that her husband would supply her with enough money so that she could dress according to the local standard. Otherwise, he must return her dowry.

DIVORCE
In the Fayum, the wife also has the right to leave the husband voluntarily, whether or not he has transgressed the provisions of the contract. Both men and women enjoy equality in terminating marriages. The wife needs neither the approval of a magistrate-such as the archon at Athens-nor the assistance of male relatives. Of course, in this mobile society a woman seeking a divorce might not be in touch with a male relative, but she does not need even the authority of a guardian to divorce her husband and demand the return of her dowry. The woman receives only her dowry; although a contract such as P. Tebtunis I 104 may stipulate that the couple's possessions are to be held in common, the communality of property is in effect only for the duration of the marriage.

The Fayum contracts do not specify any penalty for the wife who transgresses the provisions of the contract. The dowry which was, after all, a daughter's portion of her patrimonymay have been an inalienable possession, at this time and in this place, and under no circumstances could she be forced to forfeit it. Despite a larger body of evidence, the same question arises (page 95) concerning the fate of the dowry of the adulteress in Classical Athens.

The marriage contract from Elephantine differs from the later Fayum contracts at several key points. The Elephantine contract provides neither for the wife to separate from her husband voluntarily nor for any sort of no-fault divorce. Although the contract is shorter than those from the Fayum, approximately one-third of the text is devoted to the grounds, procedure, and penalties for divorce. A notional fund is established, consisting of the wife's dowry and a sum equal to the value of the dowry contributed by the husband. This provision is unique among Greek marriage contracts. It has elements of a game of chance that seem appropriate to the ambiance at Elephantine-a frontier settlement whose population expanded rapidly due to an influx of soldiers and other immigrants." The contract stipulates that, if three arbitrators agree that one party has broken the contract, the entire fund is to become the property of the wronged party. Thus, if wronged, Demetria stands to double her capital, while the wife in the Fayum is guaranteed only the return of her dowry. If Demetria transgresses, she loses her dowry, while we do not know the disposition of the dowry of the adulterous wife in the Fayum. However, it must be kept in mind that, although Demetria must approve the choice of the three arbitrators, they are men, not women, and there is room for a range of opinion on what constitutes "fraudulent machinations" and "dishonor." Since her dowry consisted only of jewelry and clothing, the condemned Demetria would suffer a fate similar to that of the errant wife ~n Athens, where the penalty for adultery included a prohibition against wearing ornaments."

HONOR AND SHAME
The contracts offer a microcosm of the principles regulating acceptable behavior for married women and men, and make it clear that we are dealing with a society that is different in many respects from any earlier Greek society and that differs as well from the contemporary society of the Macedonian courts.

The monogyny clause is absolutely essential in view of the (page 96) polygynous practices of Macedonian kings. Thus, the contracts have carefully detailed stipulations obliging the husband to refrain from marrying another woman and from having any relationship that might be construed as marriage, and which would consequently threaten the wife's position as legitimate wife and mother of legitimate children. The husband is not to keep a mistress, nor to do any of the things that would be the consequence of having a mistress-live in another house or beget children who are not the wife's children. Surely, legitimate children were expected to be the natural result of formal marriage, but they are rarely mentioned in a marriage contract, except, as in P. Geneva I 2 1, in the stipulation on inheritance. Perhaps the birth of children was a foregone conclusion. Only legalistic, waspish Athenians in a state that supported the perpetuation of oikoi ("families") would spell out such an objective of marriage with the formula "I give you my daughter for the production of legitimate children."

The husband was not expected to be sexually monogamous, certainly not when he was away from home. No ancient moral code, formal or informal, required that-but he could not have truthfully made the statement that an Athenian orator propounded in the third quarter of the fourth century in the speech "Against Neaera":

We keep mistresses for our enjoyment, concubines to serve our person each day, but we have wives for the bearing of legitimate offspring and to be faithful guardians of the household.

The husbands in the marriage contracts are permitted to indulge only in the most casual and inexpensive extramarital associations and must always make the interests of their family their primary concern. Keeping a concubine or a boy lover would be a drain on the financial resources of the family, and, in the Fayum documents, these resources are explicitly declared to be held in common. The comparison between the code of the Athenians and the code of the Greeks in Egypt is not between what the wealthy do, on the one hand, and what the poor do, on* the other. In "Against Neaera," the Athenian orator was addressing (page 97) an Athenian jury comprised of men who were no better off than Heraclides or Philiscus, and the men who had "kept" the woman Neaera as their mistress, although they apparently were financially secure, had frugally shared her and her support with others. No Athenian would have to return his wife's dowry because he also kept a concubine or a mistress or a boy lover. It appears, then, that the sexual freedoms of the Greek husband in Egypt were more restricted than those of his counterpart in Classical Athens.

The husband can travel freely. A husband who was a soldier might be compelled to travel, but freedom of movement is foreseen for all the husbands, including those in the Fayum' since they undertake to maintain their wives whether or not they are themselves at home, as in P. Tebtunis I 104.17. The travel of the wife is severely restricted. As we see from lines 27-28 of this document, without obtaining her husband's permission, the wife can go out of the house, but only as far as she can go in less than the course of an entire day. Thus, she can fetch the water, check on wandering children and livestock, and visit neighbors and relatives who live close by. But she cannot stay away overnight without her husband's permission. This stipulation has both a practical purpose and a sexual basis. A household could more easily tolerate the absence of a husband than of a wife. Who would feed the husband, the children, and the chickens in the yard? Who would fetch the water? These domestic tasks are traditionally done by women, and it would be humiliating for any husband to perform them himself or even to direct a slave to perform them. This sexual division of labor was traditional. Athenian drama shows us a king, Admetus, lamenting that with the death of his wife Alcestis the floors are unswept, and a husband telling his wife that in her absence the household is falling to ruin and the baby (who is in the arms of a slave) is hungry and dirty." The plots of New Comedy also dramatize what is obvious about the prohibition against staying out all night: rapes were likely to occur in the dark. Moreover, when husbands were away from home, they indulged in extramarital sexual activities and, doubtless, they suspected that wives would do the same.

The idea of sexual fidelity is made explicit in the Fayum contracts (page 98) in the wife's agreement to avoid sexual contact with another man, as well as neither to destroy the household nor to dishonor her husband. In P. Elephantine I.6, the "fraudulent machinations" must be a modest allusion to the first two items, and the wife explicitly agrees as well, not to dishonor her husband. Although it might appear that the only dishonor would arise from adultery, the three ideas-sexual fidelity, preservation of the household, and maintenance of the husband's honor-are closely entwined, and that is why they are listed individually but in unbroken sequence in the Fayum contracts. A wife can bring dishonor on a husband by any of a number of possible assaults on his masculinity that can turn him into a laughingstock in the community. For example, a wife who lets her children run about in filthy rags, a wife who herself boldly parades about the marketplace in immodest attire, or a wife who scolds her husband in public-making it evident that he is not the authority in the family-would be a wife who brings both dishonor upon her husband and shame to herself.

But there is an essential connection between the sexual purity of a wife and not destroying the household or bringing dishonor upon a husband. Any blemish on a woman's character including any failure to carry out her housewifely duties-was believed to have sexual laxity as its foundation; radiant children, a clean house, and a full larder were the emblems of a woman's honor. This idea was traditional among the Greeks. The Archaic poet Semonides had made the relationship between the sloven and the slut explicit in his diatribe in which he compares women to the earth and the water and to various species of livestock. Of the ten possible types, the only good wife is like a busy bee. She carefully tends her husband and her family, and not only does not destroy her household but causes her husband's property to grow. This is the wife who is so chaste that she does not like even (page 21) to listen to women when they talk about sex.

SOLDIERS' WIVES
Among women whose lives were most severely affected by the historical change from Classical to Hellenistic were the wives (page 99) of soldiers. Throughout the fifth century, a soldier was normally a citizen who defended his polis in times of need. He rarely campaigned at a great distance from home, nor did he stay in the field for more than a season. Thus, military obligations did not radically disturb family life. When, owing to the Spartan occupation of Decelea in 413 B.C., Athenians had to wage war all year long, the absence of men put a strain on family life. Aristophanes' Lysistrata gives a reflection in comedy of the loneliness of women and the disruption of Athenian society during the latter half of the Peloponnesian War. The heroine Lysistrata reflects on the hardships endured by women at that time and asserts that war is to be the business of women.

Decelea was only a deme (district) in Attica. The wars of the fourth century took Greek soldiers to more distant lands on campaigns that lasted years. Greek mercenaries who served under Cyrus the Younger took along some dancing girls, and those who served under Pelopidas were accompanied by their wives and children. The troops of Darius III brought women with them, a practice that contrasted with the policy of the Macedonians. Philip II had not permitted women to accompany his troops, although he did make an exception for his daughter Cynane. She was not a supernumerary, but fought on horseback and killed an Illyrian queen (see p. 6).

The more important men in Alexander's army were permitted the luxury of female company. It is interesting to note that the three categories of women mentioned in the speech against Neaera-courtesans, concubines, and wives-had their counterparts among the women in Alexander's expedition. Some generals brought their wives, and Ptolemy was accompanied by the hetaira Thals. Alexander also was considerate of his newly married soldiers, for he sent them back home when they reached Caria. Despite his efforts, noncombatants continued to be drawn into the expedition, requiring an elaborate support system. Since these women were not formally married to soldiers, they should be labeled concubines. Using what appears to be a highly original form of triage, at one point in the expedition, when supplies were scarce, Alexander ordered that the women (page 100) and children be sheltered in a dry riverbed during the flood season. When Alexander had proceeded a great distance from home, he permitted his troops to marry. Justin remarks that he did this so that they would assuage their desire to return home, regard the camp itself as their home, and enjoy the pleasant charm of women as a respite from their labors.38

Although Menander's comedy Perikeiromene portrays a mercenary returning to Athens from time to time to live with his mistress, historical sources present a picture more consistent with Justin's statements. The typical Hellenistic soldier was a professional granting allegiance and service to a commander for a price. Without conflicting loyalties to country, kinsmen, or political party, his family and personal possessions assumed paramount importance. Considering the army itself as his home, the mercenary lived like a nomad, bringing his family and all his material property along with him wherever he went. The soldiers' possessions, both animate and inanimate, were called collectively "those in the baggage" (hoi en te aposkeue). When forced to make a choice, a mercenary gave priority to the defense of his "baggage" rather than obedience to his general. If his "baggage" had been captured by the opposition, a mercenary did not hesitate to disobey his commander or even to desert to the other side. Ptolemy I solved the problem presented by the soldiers' families by keeping them in Egypt. When Demetrius defeated Ptolemy's general Menelaus at Salamis in 306 B.C., he freed two thousand captives and distributed them among the units of his own army. However, Menelaus' troops deserted Demetrius and returned to their former commander, since their families had been left in Egypt.

As part of their effort to attract and keep an army, and to recruit soldiers from the sons of soldiers, the Ptolemies granted parcels of land--cleruchies-to their soldiers. It was to their advantage that the soldiers' families regard Egypt as their home, rather than accompany their husbands on campaigns outside the country. The families are no longer called hoi en te aposkeue; the term was abbreviated to aposkette ("baggage"). The word aposkeue itself sometimes narrowed its meaning from "family" to "wife" and continued to be used even when wives had ceased to (page 101) travel. The women used it of themselves. From Chytroi in Cyprus there is an inscription recording a dedication by a thiasus of aposkeuai (a religious guild of soldiers' families). In a letter from Alexandria of 126 B.C. which a wife wrote to her husband complaining that she was being unjustly subjected to legal proceedings as the result of an altercation in the market over a mattress, she tells him that she asserted that she was aposkeue (a soldier's wife), since, as such, she was accorded special immunities. Certain legal privileges of a soldier's wife were connected to her husband's absence. Ptolemy I compelled soldiers on duty to be separated from their families, but he granted them protection in compensation. The civil code of Alexandria distinguished between methods to be adopted in legal cases against families (hoi en te aposkeue) when the soldiers were absent and those to be used when they were at home.

P. Halle 1. 124-46 = Select Papyri II 201
(middle of the third century B.C.)

No one is to bring into court a case against those who have been sent on service by the king, either against them or against their sureties, nor may the collector of debts or his subordinates arrest them. In the same way, if any persons bring cases against the families [hoi en te aposkeue) or the sureties [of these absentees] concerning charges that arose when those who left them behind were still at home, these cases may not be brought into court, unless it happens that, although they are members of the family, they have themselves obtained legal satisfaction from others concerning matters of complaint that occurred at the same time. If the case is against such persons, it is to be brought into court.

If any persons claim to belong to the class of members of the family, the judges will make a decision about this, and if they are recognized to belong to this class, and if the charges concern matters that manifestly occurred when those who left them behind were still at home and they have not obtained legal satisfaction from others, as noted above, the cases shall be adjourned until those who left them behind shall return....

All cases in which the members of the family are accused by others of having wronged them after the departure of those who (page 102) left them behind, or in which the members of the family accuse others, alleging they have been wronged by them after they had been left, shall be judged before the designated court.

Philon of Byzantium, who lived in Alexandria and Rhodes in the late third century B.C. and wrote on poliorcetics, mentioned widows and children in the context of a passage on obtaining the loyalty of mercenaries:

If there are any wounded among the foreigners, they must be treated attentively.... If any of them die...and if they leave their children or wives behind, these must be looked after carefully. This is the best way to make them well disposed to the generals and citizens, so that they confront danger bravely.

We do not know of any precedents in earlier Greek legal systems for the provisions for soldiers' wives. Because Philip II and Alexander had prevented wives from accompanying husbands on campaigns, these women were left at home in Macedonia. In the Egypt of Ptolemy I, the soldier's wife was alone in a new country, without friends or kin to defend her. The first marriage contract from Ptolemaic Egypt, P. Elephantine I, takes cognizance of this vulnerability of the wife without recourse to family (see pp. 91-9 2).

A wife left alone by a soldier-husband certainly required legal protection. In the last half of the second century B.C., Egypt was reeling from the invasions of Antiochus IV, civil unrest, the devaluation of currency, and a host of other ills. These disturbances had led to the abandonment of cultivated plots. The government was not only faced with a crisis in agriculture, but was deprived of the income arising from the various taxes on land and crops. The Greeks, unlike the Romans, did not believe women should be exempt from compulsory physical labor. Local officials began to compel those least able to resist to cultivate the abandoned plots. Those pressed into service included artisans, fishermen, and the wives of soldiers on active service in Alexandria. The soldiers protested that, while they were serving the king, their families should not be compelled to cultivate land. At this time Ptolemy VI (page 103) added to the privileges of soldiers' wives by exempting them from compulsory cultivation of land. Unlike the legislation of Pto!emy 1, which may have pertained only to Alexandrians, the provision of Ptolemy VI embraced all soldiers' wives.

UPZ I 110 = P. Paris 63, col. 7.198-207

Herodes, the dioecetes, to the local officials:
The soldiers in the city [Alexandria] have once again petitioned us asserting that land is being assigned for cultivation to their families.
You appear not to have taken the slightest account of those who were excluded in accordance with regulations that were previously issued to you concerning those who must be compelled to cultivate land and those who must not at all be disturbed. Otherwise, you would not have so totally misunderstood as to harass the families of those garrisoned in the city.

APOLLONIA (ALSO CALLED SENMONTHIS), WIFE OF DRYTON:
WOMAN OF TWO CULTURES

Apollonia, also called Senmonthis, lived in Pathyris, thirty kilometers south of Thebes. Her father, a descendant of a long line of soldiers, was himself a soldier. The names of three generations of Apollonia's male ancestors in the paternal line are known (see p. 104). Both an Egyptian and a Greek name are extant for all except some of her collaterals, who are known to us only through their Egyptian names. This nomenclature indicates that her family had lived in Egypt for about a century, and perhaps longer. If their ethnic designation "Cyrenean" is a true ethnic rather than an example of a fictitious denomination of the sort that was bestowed on Egyptians upon entering the army, then Apollonia's ancestors had migrated to. Egypt from nearby Cyrene at a time when Cyrene was under Ptolemaic control. Like other inhabitants of Egypt, they retained their ethnic designation generation after generation.

(page 104 is a genealogical chart of Apollonia and Dryton, but it would not scan properly; page 105 starts in the middle of a sentence for some strange reason) were attractive as husbands, for they constituted a privileged class.) He immediately wrote a short will (P. Bad. 11 5), now fragmentary, in which he named Apollonia and his son by a former marriage as his beneficiaries. By 146 B.C., he had written a much more elaborate will (P. Grenf. I 12 + P. Heid. inv. 1285 [= SB 14637]) naming his son, Apollonia, and their future children as beneficiaries.

LAST WILL OF DRYTON
P. Grenfell I 21 = Select Papyri I 83 (126 B.C.)

In the forty-fourth year, Pauni 9, at Pathyris before Asclepiades, the agoranomos. Dryton, son of Pamphilus a Cretan, of the diadochi, of the reserve force, a hipparch over men, being healthy and of sound mind and sensible, has made the following will.

May I be in good health and master of my property, but if I suffer something mortal, I bequeath and give my property, including land and movables, and livestock and whatever else I may have acquired. The horse on which I campaign and all my armor [I bequeath] to Esthlaclas, my son by Sarapias my former wife, the daughter of Esthlaclas son of Theon, a citizen, according to the (5) laws and the will that was made through the public archives at Diospolis Parva before Dionysius the agoranomos in the sixth year of the reign of Philometor. This will includes in its provisions the designation of his guardian ... who is a kinsman. And [to Esthlaclas), of the four household slaves, those whose names are Myrsine and her child. The remaining two females, whose names are Eirene and Ampelion, I leave to Apollonia and her sisters, being five, as well as the vineyard site belonging to me at Pathyris, and the wells in it made of baked brick, and the other apparatus and the wagon with the harness, and the dovecote, and the other halfcompleted one, and the yard of which the boundaries are, on the south, waste grounds of the said Esthladas, on the north, a vaulted (10) dwelling of Apollonia the younger, on the east, waste ground of Petras ... son of Esthladas, on the west, waste ground of Esthladas up to the door facing west. The remaining rooms and utensils [e.g., a grain mill, oil press, stands for water jars, and sheds] and ... the waste ground designated for a dovecote down below the door of Esthladas and to the west of the vaulted dwelling I give to Apollonia and Aristo and Aphrodisia and Nicarion and Apollonia (page 106) the younger, being five daughters from me and my present wife Apollonia also called Senmonthis in accordance with the laws, and also two female slaves, and the cow in equal shares for their households according to the division I have made.

And Esthladas is to give, from the waste land granted to him opposite his door facing west, four square cubits for the site of an i oven. Of the remaining buildings and waste ground in Diospolis Magna in the Ammonion and in the Potters' Quarter, let Esthladas have half, and Apollonia and her sisters half, and of all my other property in grain and money and movables half.

Esthladas and Apollonia and her sisters in common shall pay the expenses for the building of the designated dovecote until they finish it.

And to my wife Apollonia also called Senmonthis, if she stays at home and is irreproachable, they shall give every month for four years for the maintenance of herself and her two daughters 2 1/2 artabs of wheat, 1/12 of croton [for oil], and 200 copper drachmas. And after four years they are to give the same amounts from their common funds to the two younger daughters for eleven years. They shall give to Tachratis [the Egyptian name of Aphrodisia] (20) for a dowry 12 copper talents from the common funds. Whatever property Senmonthis may have evidently acquired for herself white married to Dryton, she is to continue to own. And those who proceed against her concerning these ... Year 44, Pauni 9.

Dryton holds the record for the number of wills written by one person in Ptolemaic Egypt. He wrote no fewer than four, the last three of which are extant, albeit mutilated. Perhaps his record should not be attributed to a compulsive nature, but rather to luck of preservation and a lifespan of approximately eighty years.

Dryton was older than his wife. He was born early in the second century and was in his late forties when he married Apollonia.," Apollonia's date of birth is not known. However, her age at marriage may be estimated. She had five living offspring in 126 B.C. Their range in age shows that she probably bore these children at two- or three-year intervals-a natural spacing which could result from the contraceptive effect of nursing. Dryton's will from 126 B.C. (P. Grenf. I2 1) mentions all the daughters. The eldest daughter is referred to by name. Since no provision is made for her dowry, she must already be married. (page 107) The dowry of the second or third daughter, Tachratis, is stipulated. Finally, the maintenance of the two youngest daughters is provided for eleven years. If the youngest are five and six years old, then their father must have expected them to be married by the time they were sixteen or seventeen, although he made no provision for their dowries. In Classical Athens, and among the Roman upper classes, the average age of marriage for girls was fourteen, but in Greco-Roman Egypt it was usually sixteen to eighteen. Thus, taking minimum and approximate figures, Apollonia's daughters ranged in age from five to eighteen. In other words, by 126 B.C., she had been married twenty-two years, at least eighteen of which she had spent rearing children. This figure means that she must have married Dryton when she was, at most, twenty-five years old. Most likely she was much younger, possibly in her late teens-the age postulated for the marriage of her youngest daughters. By any reckoning, Dryton was old enough to be Apollonia's father.

The bride and groom were disparate not only in age but in social background. Apollonia's family is attested in Pathyris in 16l B.C. (P. Giss. II 36-17-18; P. Stras. dem. W.G. 16.8; P. Berl. dem. 157 10). They had not been citizens of one of the Greek cities in Egypt before moving to Pathyris, for no one in her family bears the title "citizen" (astos).

Dryton, too, had been active in the Thebaid in the 160s, but in contrast to members of Apollonia's family, he was a citizen oi the Greek city of Ptolemais. In 174 B.C., when he was a young man, as a member of a consortium, he had borrowed 100(?) artabs of wheat from a twenty-two-year-old man (P. Grenf. I 10). The text of the loan describes him as fair-skinned, with bristling hair and hook nose, having a long face with a scar on the right brow. The loan was recorded on the obverse of a piece of papyrus. The verso was later used for copying a bit of literature. This work, which the editor titled "An Alexandrian Erotic Fragment," is highly stylized and rhetorical, replete with references to the power of Eros and the pain and madness suffered by the lover. The genre of the work is the paraclausithyron, the lament sung by the rejected lover outside the door of the beloved. But the "Alexandrian Erotic Fragment" is somewhat original: (page 108) the rejected lover is female. Accompanied by an attendant, she wanders through the city crying:

I am about to go mad. Passion grips me.
And I burn, being abandoned....
Sir, do not leave me locked out.
Receive me. I am happy and anxious to be your slave.

This sort of literature is perfectly suitable to a young man and provides an insight into Dryton's taste and intellectual aspirations. It also indicates that he was familiar with at least a literary representation of the demimonde of the Greek cities in Egypt and their games of seduction and abandonment.

Dryton had been married before he wed Apollonia. His former wife, Sarapias, came from a background similar to his own. From their names and the ethnic used by Dryton and his son, it has been deduced that Dryton came from Crete,'an island that supplied the Hellenistic world with large numbers of soldiers. Greeks in Greek cities in Egypt tended to socialize with other Greeks who had ethnic roots in their own part of the world. Thus, like Dryton, Sarapias was presumably of Cretan lineage and was a citizen (aste; P. Grenf. I 21-4) of Ptolemah. Sarapias had given birth to a son around 158 B.C. He was given a Cretan name, Esthladas, after his maternal grandfather. Dryton and Sarapias must have been married at least by 159 B.C. If he was born around 195 B.C., he was about thirty-six or younger when he married her. (Most Greek men married at about thirty.) Dryton's first marriage was broken either by the death of Sarapias or by divorce. According to Greek law, children belonged to their father. Thus, Esthladas remained with his father. He was about ten years old when Dryton married Apollonia. His stepmother was probably, in her late teens at the time.

The Nuances of Names
In Pathyris, Dryton continued to style himself in the Greek way "son of Pamphilus, Cretan, of the deme Philoteiris," followed by a list of his military titles. He slowly but reluctantly learned to use his wife's Egyptian name.

(page 109) In the first and second wills written during their marriage, he called her by her Greek name only (P. Bad. II 5; P. Grenf. I 12 + P. Heid. inv. 1285 [= SB I 4637]). In three loans, when Dryton acts as his wife's kyrios, she is identified by her Greek name (P. Grenf. I 18- 20), although her sister and brother-in-law, who are borrowers, are each identified by a double name (P. Grenf. I 18). In the third will, he twice calls her by her double name (P. Grenf. I 21.12, 17) and once by her Egyptian name alone (P. Grenf. I 21.20). Dryton may have been compelled to use his wife's Egyptian name in order to distinguish her from two of his daughters, who were also named Apollonia. Since these were the eldest and youngest daughters, and the eldest may well have been married when the youngest was born, sharing a name may not have caused daily confusion. The eldest daughter, Apollonia, in turn named her daughter Apollonia, so that there were four women in three generations of the same family bearing this name at the same time. Like the Romans, who used one name for all the daughters in a family (the feminine form of the father's nomen), they alleviated the problem by adding a second name (a cognomen or nickname). Thus the youngest daughter named Apollonia is called Neotera, "the younger."

Apollonia bears the same Egyptian name as her daughter Aristo. The sharing of the Egyptian name would have posed little problem for Dryton, for he preferred to use his daughters' Greek names. In fact, he refers to only one of them, Tachratis, by her Egyptian name (P. Grenf. I 2 1.19). Like other slave owners, Dryton called his three slaves whose names are known by Greek names (Myrsine, Eirene, and Ampelion), though they were not necessarily of Greek origin.

Apparently Dryton took little interest in his daughters, and he left it to his wife to find names for them. Certainly he had nothing to do with bestowing their Egyptian names. Female names beginning with Sen ("daughter") are common, and this prefix appears in the names of Apollonia and two of her sisters, as well as in the names of three of her daughters. Apollonia's Egyptian name, Senmonthis, means "daughter of Month"; her sisters Senminis and Senapathis are daughters of Min and Apachte (cognomen of Horus), respectively, while Tiesris perhaps (page 110) connotes "she of the necropolis of Hermopolis." The theophoric tradition continues strongly in the Egyptian names of Apollonia's daughters: Senmouthis is "daughter of Mut"; Tachratis is "the girl"; Senmonthis, like her mother, is "daughter of Month"; Thermouthis is (the goddess) Thermouthis; and Senpelaia. is "the daughter of the herdsman" (cognomen of Anubis). All the names except Tiesris are very common in Demotic and, with the exception of Tiesris, are attested throughout Egypt. Senmonthis, Senminis, and Senmouthis point to upper Egypt. Apollonia also selected the majority, if not all, of her daughters' Greek names, for the references to the god Apollo appear among her ascendants. In patriarchal societies, fathers often leave the naming of girls to mothers, for girls' names have less public significance and, after they are married, can reflect their father's lineage only very remotely. Thus, even among the eponymous priests mentioned on Greek papyri, Egyptian names-including Thermouthis, Thaubarium, and hybrids built on the stem Isis-appear earlier and more frequently among the women (see P- 56). S. D. Goitein, in a study of Jews and Moslems in medieval Cairo, has shown that mothers commonly gave names to daughters." These names alluded to power in male spheres, military prowess, and dominion over men. Goitein suggests that mothers selected such names in order to compensate themselves and their daughters for their lack of such power. Thus Apollonia, wife of Dryton, named one of her daughters Nicarion ("Little Victory"). The name of another daughter, Aristo ("Best"), suggests that although she is female, and not the firstborn, she is not second best. Aphrodisia is simply a theophoric name alluding to Aphrodite. The connotations of beauty in such a name are quite common in girls' names.

Affections and Property
In comparison to his feelings for his son, Dryton's concern for his wife and her children diminished over the years. In his first extant will, Apollonia is named before Esthladas (P. Bad. II 5). In his other wills (P. Grenf. I 12 + SB I 4637, P. Grenf. I 21), his son takes precedence. This ranking was natural, for among the patrilineal Greeks, Esthladas, as Dryton's son, would be expected (page 111) to perpetuate his father's lineage, although it is not clear whether he actually married." Dryton also seems to have had a particular emotional attachment to his firstborn child. Although he makes provisions for all his children, his son clearly meant more to him than all his womenfolk put together. In his last testament, in line 7, he first refers to his five daughters as "ApolIonia and her sisters, being five"; in line 12, he gives all their Greek names; and, in line 15, they are again "Apollonia and her sisters." Then, in line ig, he refers to his second daughter by her Egyptian name. Evidently his first two daughters had made an impression on him, but the last three were redundant.

Five daughters would be a cause for acute embarrassment to almost any Greek man. Dryton's discomfort at the proliferation of his female offspring is perceptible in his reluctance to call them each by name and to treat them as individuals. As a soldier, Dryton must have been accustomed to the company of men and the whole spectrum of masculine activities. Apollonia herself had come from a family of four daughters and no sons, and bore five daughters. Among the families I have come across in the study of Greek history, only that of Themistocles also has five daughters.

Exposure of infants was an option that Greeks chose from time to time, especially in the case of unwanted daughters, and Dryton certainly must have known about it, even if he evidently did not practice it. One of the most decisive pieces of evidence for female exposure in the Hellenistic period derives from lists of new citizens in Miletus, inscribed mostly in the last quarter of the second century B.C. The majority of the new citizens whose ethnics are known come from Crete, Dryton's fatherland. Among these families, sons outnumber daughters in a ratio of nearly four to one. It is also interesting to note that the only evidence for exposure in Ptolemaic Egypt-a sacred law prescribing a certain number of days of purification after abortion, childbirth, and child exposure-was found in Dryton's city, Ptolemals (see p. 136).

Dryton was a professional soldier, and was paid for his services. Because he did not hold a cleruchy (land allotted to military colonists), he bought land. He owned private property, (page 112) including land, grain, money, livestock, and slaves, which he could bequeath as he pleased. Dryton divided his property in favor of his son. According to each of his wills, Esthladas would inherit his father's horse and armor. Since he was already a soldier by the time the last will was written, he must have owned his own equipment. In any event, Esthladas would know how to dispose of his father's paraphernalia if he did not wish to keep it. He also shared his father's holdings in land, grain, and money.

Dryton's daughters received the other share. Esthladas and the daughters as a group each received two slaves. His provisions for his children fall within the normal range of Greek wills of the Ptolemaic period. These wills show a variety of divisions of property among children, including partible inheritance in equal shares among children of both sexes, primogeniture, or the favoring of sons.14 Daughters are never favored. Thus, in naming his firstborn and only son as the major beneficiary, Dryton was doing nothing unusual.

Dryton did not free his slaves by testament, for that would have reduced the value of his estate. Yet his arrangements for them show some mercy. Myrsine, a slave with one child, could well have been valuable as a concubine, too. Dryton kept Myrsine together with her child and bequeathed them to Esthladas.

The meanness of Dryton's provisions for his wife is unprecedented. The beneficiaries most often named in wills are: (1) children, and (2) wives. Sometimes the wife is not mentioned at all, and it is assumed either that she has died or that the couple no longer lived together. Sometimes, in order to avoid taxes, the wife does not inherit the husband's property, but it is stipulated that she will continue to be able to live with her children who are the heirs. What Dryton has done is to mention-but leave nothing to-the woman who had been his wife for some twenty-two years. His heirs are to give her a cash income in addition to wheat and croton (for a common type of oil), but only if she lives at home and looks after her two young daughters. This income will cease after four years,.unless the intent of the will be construed beyond what is written: Apollonia may be omitted in the second clause because she would be the (page 113) one who would take care of the two youngest daughters and would need to be supported to do so. However, even in this case, her support would cease when theirs did. Moreover, she is to receive her income only if she is "irreproachable" (aneghletos). The heirs-her stepson and daughters-are to be her judges. This last provision is somewhat reminiscent of a clause in the earliest Greek marriage contract from Ptolemaic Egypt, P. Elephantine I, in which a jury of three is to decide whether a wife has brought dishonor and shame to her husband.

Dryton may have felt justified in cutting off his wife from his estate, because she did have some means of her own, and, although she was raising her daughters at the time, her financial transactions were concentrated in the nine years preceding the writing of the final will. Almost as an afterthought, in the last clause of the will, he stipulated that Senmonthis (i.e., Apollonia) was to keep whatever property she apparently had come to possess while living with him. Apollonia had also inherited some property. In 135 B.C., she and her three sisters engaged in litigation concerning 35 arouras of sacred land that had been left to them by their father. A holding of 81 arouras each was a large one for an individual woman. Since Dryt6n's will does not mention their house specifically, the couple may well have been living in a house belonging to Apollonia.

Unlike her husband and stepson, Apollonia was a lender, never-as far as the extant documents indicate-a borrower. The archive includes a few papyri recording Apollonia's financial transactions. In 136 B.C., she leased 35 arouras (or a portion thereof) of land belonging to a temple of Hathor (P. Giss. II 37) Two documents that must be dated before 135 B.C. indicate that she planted grain. One (P. Heid. dem. 739a = P. Heid. N.F. IV 25) records her loan of grain to a veteran, and another (P. Grenf. I 15, 16 verso) is an account of Senmonthis concerning barley. Four years later, she made a loan of 35 artabs of wheat to her sister Hera~fs and her brother-in-law Apollonius (P. Grenf. I 18). * The scale of this loan can be appreciated when it is known that one artab of wheat was the average monthly ration for a man. As was normal, if the loan were not paid back by the date specified, five months later, the borrowers were to pay her, as a fine, (page 114) one and one-half times what the grain was worth at the current market price. She apparently made money. Three years later (P. Grenf. I 19), she made some small loans: she loaned i talent and 5,030 copper drachmas; and two years later she made a loan of 1 talent and 4,000 drachmas (P. Grenf. 1 20). As was usual in such transactions, if the loan was not repaid by the date specified, the borrowers were to pay immediately one and one-half times what they owed, plus interest.

Dryton was financially comfortable. There are no indications in the archive that he ever had difficulties meeting financial obligations. Seven is the maximum number of slaves mentioned in any Ptolemaic WiIlV (though more are mentioned in other kinds of documents), and Dryton had four. Since ownership of slaves was peculiar- to the Greeks, Dryton's holding such a large number must have been particularly ostentatious in the Egyptianized milieu of Pathyris. He could well afford to dower five daughters. He directs in his will that 12 copper talents (i.e., 144 silver drachmas) be paid as dowry to his daughter Tachratis. This dowry was not a generous one. In giving his daughter cash, rather than land, Dryton was following the practice of Greeks in Ptolemaic Egypt. Land is not a constituent of any dowry mentioned in Greek documents before the Roman period, although private land like Dryton's (unlike cleruchic land) could legally be owned by women.

Tachratis married her husband Psenesis soon after 126 B.C., when her father mentioned her dowry in his will. By 124/123 B.C., she was divorced (P. Bad. dem. 7). Another document records that one of Dryton's daughters (whose name is not visible) obtained a divorce from her husband, Erienupis (P. Bad. dem. 8). In 100/99 B.C., Dryton's granddaughter, Apollonia, was divorced from her husband Pamenos, a Greek born in Egypt. The female descendants of Dryton were particularly unfortunate in their marriages, since three of the four divorces known from the second century B.C. occurred in this family. The marriage of Apollonia and Dryton, perhaps, had set a bad example.

There is no evidence that the three youngest daughters married, unless the divorce document in which the wife's name cannot be read refers to one of them (P. Bad. dem. 8). An ostracon (page 115) from 100 B.C. shows them paying tax together (W.O. 1618). Their eldest sister, Apollonia, also called Senmonthis, paid separately in a different month of the same year (W. 0. 1617). They were paying a tax on clovecotes, probably the ones that Dryton mentioned in his Will. These dovecotes were on the land that their father had left them. Doves were-and still are-a favorite food of the Egyptians as well as a source of fertilizer. Although some people preferred to have their dovecotes near, or even adjacent to, their home so that they could look after the birds, Dryton, being a Greek and a man from a city, preferred to keep these noisy and dirty little birds on his agricultural property.

There was not much fertile land on the right bank of the Nile, where Dryton's property was located. The expression psilos topos ("waste ground") recurs in his own description of his property (P. Grenf. I 21. 9-11, 14). Although he was a soldier not a farmer, Dryton took steps to improve his land. That he really cared about it and suspected that his heirs did not is evident from his last will, in which he sternly directs his heirs to contribute funds to build a dovecote "until they finish it" (P. Grenf. I 21.16-17).

Dryton's country place was a typical rural establishment. Dwellings like his, with brick arches (a characteristic feature of Egyptian architecture), dovecotes, and brick walls, have been excavated. His daughters, as we shall see, did not move there, but they kept the property. That they were able to pay the high taxes on the dovecotes so many years after their father's death suggests that they were able to maintain the comfortable living standard established by their parents. At the time when the daughters paid the tax, their mother may have been dead, too, and they probably had inherited her property.

Dryton died between 113 and 111 B.C., at the age of eighty or older. His property was distributed according to the provisions in his will. His daughters inherited their share, including a vineyard of 2½ arouras and other land. They lived on the west bank of the Nile, but the property was on the east. Due to disturbances in the neighborhood, they were unable to look after their land. The two eldest sisters petitioned the strategus in behalf of all the sisters, complaining that a certain Ariston from Thebes (page 117) on the east side of the Nile had taken possession of their land. The sisters wrote that the culprit had taken advantage of them because he "knew that we were women and lived in another place" (P. Lond. 1140 1, P- 13 = Chrest. Mitt. 11 18). Other women landowners had similar experiences. In the preceding generation, Apollonia and her sisters complained that their great-uncle and his two sons had taken possession of property left them by their father (P. Stras. dem. W. G. 16; P. Heid. inv. I 280 + P. Grenf. I15 + 17 = SB I 4638 [137/136 B.C.]). Unlike Dryton (who wrote so many), their father had not been careful to write a will (SB I 4638.5).

Esthladas did not join his sisters in their complaint. Although he had inherited adjacent property, he may have sold it fairly quickly, preferring to have cash. In fact, he does borrow and lend cash (P. Grenf. II 26; P. Bad. II 6; P. Lond. III 889). For this reason, Dryton left the vineyard and whatever farming equipment he had to his daughters. They continued to hold their property in common, as Dryton had foreseen they would. The land may not have been readily divisible, owing to irrigation arrangements. Certainly it would have been difficult to divide two slaves, a cow, and two dovecotes into five equal portions. It was reasonable for the sisters to manage the property as a whole and then to share the profits. In the preceding generation, their mother Apollonia and her sisters likewise had held in common the land that they had inherited from their father (P. Giss. II 36 + 108 = Meyer, Jur. Pap. 29, P. Heid. inv. 1280 + P. Grenf. I15 + 17 = SB I 4638).

Language, Literacy, and Law
The archive of the family of Apollonia and Dryton is bilingual, but whether the members of the family were also bilingualand, if so, to what extent-is not easily determined. The investigation is complicated not only by the wretched state of our knowledge of bilingualism in Ptolemaic Egypt, but by questions of literacy and the dual legal system. Whether the people being discussed are male or female must constantly be kept in mind as the evidence is reviewed.

Dryton's native language was Greek. The documents testify (page 118) that he was literate in Greek and that he retained this literacy even after living many years in Pathyris. In 136 B.C., he wrote in Greek, in his own legible hand, a document recording a loan for two people who were illiterate (P. Grenf. II 17 = Chrest. Mitt. II 138; BL I, p. 186). There were not many others in Pathyris who were literate in Greek, for, in 126 B.C., Dryton had to resort to men who were literate in Demotic to.witness his will (Pap. Lugd. Bat. XIX 4). Dryton may have learned to speak the native language both by living in upper Egypt and by dealing with native soldiers. In this context, it is interesting to recall Plutarch's observation that none of the Ptolemaic kings ever learned to speak the native language. Cleopatra VII was the first to do so. At any rate, there is no evidence that Dryton learned to read or write Demotic. A letter containing a blessing for him is written and addressed to him in Demotic (P. Heid. dem. 742a). But the use of this language should be attributed to the fact that the Egyptian priests who wrote the prayer would naturally have used Demotic. The mere presence of Demotic documents in his archive does not guarantee that he was literate in this language. People who are thoroughly illiterate still hold on to their documents.

Apollonia is nowhere labeled illiterate. The documents recording her transactions either did not require her signature or are fragmentary in the section where she might have signed. She may have been literate in Greek. In his note on P. Grenfell I 15 (137/136 B.C.), the editor remarks that on the verso of this document there is an account of Senmonthis concerning barley. He describes it as "hopelessly illegible." Illegible penmanship is not tantamount to a low level of literacy, or many scholars would be so labeled. Three of Apollonia's loans are recorded in Greek (P. Grenf. I 18- 20), but one is in Demotic although the borrower is a Greek veteran (P. Heid. dem. inv. 739a = P. Heid. N.Y. IV 25).

The litigation that Apollonia and her three sisters engaged in over the 35 arouras of land they had inherited from their father is recorded in both Greek and Demotic (P. Stras. dem. W.G. 16; P. Giss. 136 + 108 = Meyer, Jur. Pap. 29). Some phrases in the Greek reveal that the Demotic was written first and the Greek is the translation. Since the language of the document tended to determine the venue, this order suggests that their first choice (page119) was to use the Egyptian legal apparatus. Nevertheless, in the Demotic version, Apollonia. refers to herself as a "Greek woman" (P. Heid. dem. inv. 739a.5 = P. Heid. N.F. IV 25) and, in the Greek document, Ammonia likewise describes herself as "gyne Hellenis" (P. Giss. 136 + I 108.10).

There are distinct differences in the language preferences of Apollonia's and Dryton's children. Esthladas must have attended school in Ptolemals before moving with his father to Pathyris. Not only can he sign his name (P. Cairo inv. 10388 = Archiv 1 [1 go 1], pp. 63-65), but he is literate enough to write a letter (P. Louvre inv. 10594 = Chrest. Wilck. 10), albeit his style is laconic. There are no Demotic documents recording his affairs, though we may speculate that he spoke with native soldiers in the same ways that his father may have. He did mingle with Egyptians and Egyptianized people. An Egyptian priest made a payment on his behalf to a woman with both a Greek and an Egyptian name (P. Lond. III 889).

There is no evidence that the female descendants are literate in any language. Moreover, in further contrast to Esthladas, they use both languages for their various transactions: their divorces are in Demotic (P. Bad. dem. 6-8), but the daughters' petition (P. Lond. 11401 = Chrest. Mitt. 18) is in Greek. In their petition, the daughters use both their Greek and Egyptian names. Approximately twelve years later, when they pay taxes, they again employ the Greek language, but they use only their Egyptian names. The choice of the Egyptian name, when only one name is necessary, is evidence for Egyptianization of Greeks in Egypt at this time.82

The three divorces in this archive are in Demotic (P. Bad. dem. 6-8). P. W. Pestman has pointed out that even the women in this Greek family preferred to use Demotic because of the position of women in Egyptian matrimonial law. There was no standard marriage contract, but the return of the dowry in case of divorce is a provision that does appear in most Greek documents. In Egyptian law, the husband not only returns the dowry, but if he repudiates a wife who has not committed adultery, then he must pay her a fine. If he remarries while the repudiated wife is still alive, the fine is doubled. Moreover, Greek law required that women act with a male as kyrios. Egyptian (page120) law regarded women as capable of acting in their own behalf. The state was neutral concerning the use of a guardian. For example, if a woman petitioned the government to appoint a guardian for her, the request was granted. On the other hand, if a woman desired to act without a guardian, she was permitted to do so and her transactions were valid. Both legal systems were open to all members of the population. However, if we posit that, despite its attractions and the avail.ability of bilingual scribes, no woman would choose to use the Egyptian system unless she also spoke the language, then we must regard the Demotic documents as further evidence that Apollonia and her sisters, daughters, and granddaughters were all bilingual.

On the other hand, perhaps this assumption is not valid. In the twentieth century, Americans have visited foreign countries such as Mexico and the Dominican Republic to take advantage of their matrimonial laws. Apollonia was able to employ Dryton as a kynios when he was available. In fact, he may have insisted that she employ Greek law whenever he was present. Yet when he was away on military duties, or perhaps looking after his land in Diospolis, Apollonia had no other immediate male relatives to whom she could turn. Male relatives most frequently acted as kyrioi. Her father was dead, she had no brothers, and Esthladas may not have been available. Rather than have a Greek court appoint a guardian, it was more convenient to act under Egyptian law. This is what she did when she made a loan to a Greek veteran. Apollonia was a Greek or a Hellenized Egyptian; by marriage, if perhaps not by birth, she was a member of the ruling class. Yet, as an enterprising woman transacting business, she had nothing to gain by enduring the constraints that Greek law imposed on women.

The women in Apollonia's family were capable of conducting their affairs. Dryton himself was aware of this, for although he had appointed a guardian for his minor son Esthladas and any children he would have in the future with Apollonia, in an earlier will (P. Grenf. I 12.21-22) he did not appoint any guardians for the women named in his final testament-not even for his younger daughters.

Employing scribes as men (both literate and illiterate) might, (page 121) the women wrote their various petitions concerning their land. In fact, in only three documents does a woman employ a kyrios. These are three loans made by Apollonia (P. Grenf. I 18-20).

In contrast to women like Apollonia, some women who were not members of the ruling class adopted the legal disabilities of Greek women as part of the process of assimilation. Thus, Jewish women living in Egypt acted with a kyrios, although Jewish law, which they were permitted to use in Egypt, did not require women over the age of twelve to employ guardians." Eventually, even Egyptian women appear acting with kyrioi.87

Ethnicity and Gender
Isocrates declared that being a Greek was no longer dependent on blood, but rather on participation in Greek culture." Paideia refers to both culture and formal education. Greek boys like Esthladas, whose parents could pay tuition, were educated as a matter of course. Ambitious Hellenized Egyptians probably enrolled their sons in Greek schools so that they might acquire the education necessary for advancement in the public sphere. Girls were more likely to receive an education in the Hellenistic period than in earlier periods of Greek history, but they were never educated with the same frequency as boys. Because girls were not groomed to make their way in public life, it was not incumbent on parents to educate daughters. Thus, as the papyri show, in proportion to their total numbers, fewer women than men are able to sign their names. Moreover, girls could be enrolled in schools, but they were excluded from those aspects of paideia that demanded attendance at the gymnasium. Women as well as men who lived in Greek cities had access to Greek culture in the form of theatrical representations and festivals. Nevertheless, it is fair to say that, insofar as Hellenization is defined in terms of paideia, women at all times were less qualified to be called Hellenes. Since most girls were denied the education that is the distinguishing characteristic of Hellenization, they were more likely to pick up their attitudes and customs from their mothers, neighbors, and playmates. In a place such as Pathyris, these were Egyptianized Greeks or Egyptians.

Moreover, girls probably followed their mother's example because men like Dryton remained aloof from their daughters. (page 122) Women can preserve their own traditions from generation to generation. For example, Herodotus describes the foundation of Cyrene by Greeks who married native women. The women of Cyrene continued to practice their own dietary customs. He also writes of the union of Amazons and Scythians, where the Amazons preserved their own language and customs among themselves.'9 In Chapter i, we have observed the continuity of warrior traditions in the female line in Macedonian history from Audata-Eurydice (wife of Philip II) to Cynane to Eurydice (wife of Philip III Arrhidaeus).

The documentation for the children of Apollonia and Dryton is thin, but it is clear that the daughters chose to use Egyptian law when it was to their advantage, and, when needing to be brief, used only their Egyptian names. Esthladas, in contrast, was apparently unaffected by his years in Pathyris. Like his father, as a young man he made a loan, and, of course, not only used his father's ethnic and demotic, but followed in his footsteps as a soldier. Thus, the parents' traditions were transmitted to the children of the same sex.

There was a large difference in the ages of Apollonia and Dryton, but young wives are often able to charm elderly husbands. She had, it is true, failed to produce a son and managed to rear a remarkable number of daughters. Yet, more than anything else, Apollonia's behaving like Egyptian women may have been responsible for the marital rift. Contrary to what was appropriate for Greek women, during Dryton's lifetime Apollonia made a loan to one of Dryton's fellow soldiers on her own, without a guardian (P. Heid. dem. 739a = P. Heid. N.F. IV 25). In leasing the land belonging to a temple of Hathor, Apollonia was also an exception. In Greek papyri, women far more commonly appear as lessors than as lessees. Moreover, in the Ptolemaic period, women with Greek names were more likely to deal in private land, while women with Egyptian names were more likely to deal in sacred land. Apollonia surely could not be faulted for inheriting sacred land, but, in choosing to lease land in a precinct of Hathor, she was behaving like an Egyptian woman. Furthermore, women who are agricultural entrepreneurs tend to cultivate vineyards, gardens, and orchards (see Chapter 5). In growing grain, Apollonia flouted the strict demarcation (page 123) in sex roles which was a fundamental feature of Greek society and behaved in what Greeks would consider a masculine manner.

On the basis of the fact that Dryton wrote his will in 126 B.c. at Pathyris rather than in a Greek city, Pestman conjectures that he was snubbed by the Greeks. Moreover, Dryton could not find enough Greeks at Pathyris to serve as witnesses; therefore, four of his five witnesses could sign only in Demotic. It may have been Apollonia's activities that led to Dryton's ostracism by the Greeks. Since he himself did not approve of what she was doing and considered the possibility that she would not be "irreproachable" once he had died, other like-minded Greeks could have felt the same. Yet shame that he had bequeathed nothing to his wife may also have motivated him to show the will to only one witness who could read it.

The history of this marriage depicts a lack of harmony even among the well-to-do. Of course, we cannot ignore the personal factor-although it is impossible to evaluate. Apollonia and Dryton may simply have been difficult, uncompromising people. Unfortunately, this kind of documentation does not exist for any other couple of similar background in the pre-Christian period. The marital stress may have arisen from the fact that Dryton lived according to Greek mores which were never adulterated despite his residency in Pathyris. Apollonia, in contrast, at times exhibited behavior appropriate to a Greek woman and at other times behaved like an Egyptian.

Certainly marriages between Greek men and Egyptian women did occur. In the Greek world, the sex ratio was often skewed, and among migrants in the Hellenistic period, unmarried men predominated. This factor alone made it most unlikely that a Greek woman would be given in marriage to an Egyptian man. The ruling class would have regarded such an alliance as dishonorable, and a marriage in which the wife was of higher status than the husband would have been anomalous. On the other hand, some Greek men, of course, married non-Greek women (and such marriages may have fanned the hostility of Egyptian men). The Ptolemies - unlike the Romans in Egypt later, who penalized those who married outside their own ethnic group - did not care whom their soldiers married, but they did encourage (page 124) them to wed. As an incentive to settlement, Philadelphus granted relief from a tax on animals and slaves to his troops in Syria and Phoenicia who married native women."

Historians often have raised the question of whether Hellenistic culture was actually comprised of two cultures-Greekand barbarian--existing separately, side by side, or whether the culture was mixed. Mixed marriages have drawn attention, since they had the potential to create a mixed culture. W. W. Tarn declared that mixed marriage did not matter, for Greek culture was dominant and "could absorb a good deal of foreign blood." J. P. Mahaffy, in his publication of the testaments of Greek cleruchs, observed with pleasure that some Greeks in Egypt managed to marry Greek women, for thus their children had mothers who were able to preserve the purity of the Greek language. Though the style of his statement appears quaint nowadays, Mahaffy did recognize that women's role was critical in the transformation and transmission of language.

In 1927, E. R. Bevan suggested that Dryton's daughters must have had an Egyptian mother, since they were given both Greek and Egyptian names. In 1953, A. Swiderek deduced that, in cases where a father with an Egyptian name had a son with a Greek name, an Egyptian man must have married a Greek woman. In recent times, more sophisticated theories have been advanced to explain the occurrence of Greek and Egyptian names in papyri. It is nowadays generally accepted that names alone are a fairly safe guide to ethnicity only in the first century of Ptolemaic rule. After that, Greeks adopt Egyptian names and vice versa, and many people bear double names. Occupations and activities may distinguish Greeks from Egyptians. However, such guidelines cannot be applied to women, for few are identified with m6tiers. Yet the number of mixed marriages may be exaggerated, because of the way in which gender affects our perception of ethnicity. The archive of Apollonia and Dryton gives evidence that, in important characteristics which aid scholars in determining ethnicity (that is, names, language, law, behavior, and mentality), there is some tendency for women to appear as more Egyptianized and men as more Hellenized.