Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 11.pdf/243

 2l8

ever, a dowry was not an absolute necessity, although the want of it might entail diffi culty and discredit. In time the combined action of the affection of the girl's parents, her own desire of independence, and the cupidity of the husband made the dowry very general. In fact it came to be thought al most necessary, to make the distinction be tween the wife and the concubine. Isaeus says that no decent man would give his legi timate daughter less than one tenth of his property. It was a protection to her and sometimes gave her the advantage in the conjugal battlefield. Sheltered behind her property she ceased to be a mere dependent, became more self-reliant, more respected, and in turn played the domestic tyrant, at times. One poor, henpecked husband ex claims, " I have married a witch with a dowry. I took her to have fields and houses, and that, O Apollo, is the worst of evils." Another cries woefully, " Cursed be the man who invented marriage, and the second who married, and the third, and the fourth, and all those who imitated them." In Aristotle's time, so great had been the dowers that nearly two-fifths of Spartan territory be longed to women. The wife's dowry never became the prop erty of the husband, and consequently if she was divorced it reverted with her to her guardian, and with it he either supported her or found her another spouse. If the dowry was not landed property the husband had to give security for its due return in case of her death or divorce (this security was generally real estate). The husband enjoyed the use of it, its revenues and profits, and paid the taxes upon it, but it could not be seized for his debts. If, having got possession of her dowry he jilted the girl, he could be com pelled to refund it. Nor was the wife the absolute owner of the dowry; any transfer of it to a greater extent than the value of a bushel and a half of barley was void. In case of divorce the husband had to pay eighteen per cent interest on the wife's dowry

until it was returned to her guardian. On the husband's death the wife, if she had sons, might, if she chose, remain in her late hus band's house. If she stayed her dowry be came the absolute property of her sons (or their guardians), subject, of course, to her support. If she, wishing to try the matrimo nial lottery again, decided to leave her sons and their father's house, her property reverted ' to her guardian. If she had no sons she ne cessarily returned to her guardian, and her dowry went with her. The dower also went back to the guardian if she died childless during her husband's life. If a man had sons of age, he could not make a will; his property descended to them and to their issue, and they had to take it with any incumbrances attached to it. If there were daughters as well as sons, the daughters were morally, but not legally, entitled each to a dowry from their father, if they married in his lifetime, or from their brothers if the father was dead. If the dead man left only daughters, they were in a sense, heiresses of the estate, or as the Greeks put it, they were " on the estate." The nearest kinsman, however, was the real heir (unless the de ceased had otherwise arranged by his will); but, as he could not take the property with out marrying a daughter that was " on the estate," she did in a kind of way inherit. Each daughter took an equal share, and if one died before the father her children claimed her share. A man with only daugh ters could not deprive them of their rights by any will. He might it is true, devise the estate to whom he would, but then the de visee had to take the daughter as well as the property and marry her. Under the Athenian law of succession males excluded females if born of the same parents, that is, brothers excluded sisters; sons, daughters, and uncles, aunts. The Athenian dreaded the mere possi bility of the cessation of that family worship which was so necessary for the spiritual wel fare of his dead ancestors and of himself after