Scanned text contains errors.
DORON (5w/>oj/), a Dalni or hand-breadth.
DORON GRAPHE (U?w casmus.]
DORPIA (5<fyma). [apaturia.]
DORPON (8<Jpiro»). [coena, p. 303, b.]
DORU (S6pv). [hasta.]
DORYPHORI (Sopv$6poC). [mercenarii.]
DOS (irpo'%, <t>epvrn\ dowry. 1. greek. Euripides (Med. 236) makes Medeia complain that, independent of other misfortunes to which women were subject, they were obliged to buy their husbands by great sums of money (xp^^T®? vrrep-£^Arj). On this the Scholiast remarks, that the poet wrote as if Medeia had been his contemporary, and not a character of the heroic ages, in which it was customary for the husband to pur- \ chase his wife from her relations, by gifts called e5j/a or eeSm. The same practice prevailed in the East during the patriarchal ages (Genes, xxxiv. 2), and Tacitus (Germ. c. 18) says of the ancient: Germans, " Dotem non uxor marito, sed uxori : maritus offert." The custom of the heroic times . is illustrated by many passages in Homer. Thus, | we read of the airepdcria, and ftvpla, efiva, or many , gifts by which wives were purchased. (IL xvi.; 178, 190.) In another place (II. xi. 243) we are j told of a hundred oxen, and a thousand sheep and goats, having been given by a Thracian hero to his maternal grandfather, whose daughter he was about to marry. Moreover, the poetical epithet, a\<j)€<ri§otcu (Heyne, ad It. xviii. 593), applied to females, is supposed to have had its origin in the presents of this sort, which were made to a woman's relatives on her marriage. These nuptial gifts, however, or equivalents for them were returned to the husband in the ,e\vent of the commission of adultery by the wife^ :and perhaps in other cases. (Od. viii. 318.)
We must not infer from the above facts that it was not usual in those times for relations to give a portion with a woman when she married. On the contrary, mention -is made (IL ix. 147) of the fjLeiXia or marriage gifts which men gave with their daughters (eTreScoKcw), and we are told by Aesehines (Uepl HapaGpecr. 33), of one of the sons of Theseus having received a territory near Am-phipolis as a tyepvf) or dower with his wife. Moreover, both Andromache and Penelope are spoken of as &\oxol iroXvfiwpoi (IL vi. 394, Od. xxiv. 294), or wives who brought to their husbands many gifts,. which probably would have been returned to their relations, in case of a capricious dismissal. (Od. ii. 132.)
The Doric term for a portion was SomVTj, and Muller (Dor. iii. 10) observes, that we know for certainty that daughters in Sparta had originally no dower, but were married with a gift of clothes only; afterwards they were at least provided with money, and other personal property (Pint. Lys. 30): but in the time of Aristotle (Polit. ii. 6. § 10)» eo &reat were t*16 d°wers given (8i« t& irpoiKas Sfi&vai /^cUas), and so large the number ofjir'iKXypoi, or female representatives of families (el/cot), that nearly two fifths of the whole territory of Sparta had come into the possession of
females. The regulations of Solon were, according to Plutarch, somewhat similar in respect of dower to the old regulations at Sparta: for the Athenian legislator, as he tells us, did not allow a woman, unless she were an eTn/cATjpos, to have any tyepvf] or dower, except a few clothes and articles of household furniture. It is plain, however, that such an interference with private rights could not be permanent; and, accordingly, we find that in after times the dowers of women formed, according to the account in Bb'ckh (Pith. Econ. of Athens, p. 514, 2nd ed.), a considerable part of the moveable property of the state: " even with poor people they varied in amount from ten to a hundred and twenty ininae. The daughter of Hipponicus -received ten talents at her marriage, and ten others were promised her." This, however, was a very large portion, for Demosthenes (c. Stepli. p. 1112. 19, and p. 1124. 2) informs us that even five talents was more than was usually given ; and Lucian (Died. Meret. 7. p. 298, ed. Reitz) also speaks of the same sum as a large dowry. The daughters of Aiisteides received from the state, as a portion, only thirty minae each. (Plut. Arist. 27 ; Aesch. c. Ctes. p. 90.) We may observe too, that one of the chief distinctions between a wife and a TraAAa/ci], consisted in the former having a portion, whereas the latter had not ; hence, persons who married wives without portions appear to have given them or their guardians an 6/jioXoyia trpoiKoc (Isaeus, De Pyr. Hered. p. 41), or acknowledgment in writing by which the receipt of a portion was admitted. [concubina.] Moreover, poor heiresses (t&v eirucXripcaj/ offai &r)riKbv TzXovffiv) were either married or portioned by their next of kin [An-chon], according to a law which fixed the amount of portion to be given at five minae by a Pentacosiomedimnus, three by a Horseman, and one and a half by a Zeugites. (Dem. c. Macar. p. 1068.) In illustration of this law, and the amount of portion, the reader is referred to Terence, who says (Pliorm. ii. L 75),
" Lex est ut orbae, qui sint genere proximi I is nubant:"
and again (ii. 2. 62),
" Itidem ut cognata si sit, id quod lex jubet, Dotem dare, abduce hanc: minas quinque accipe."
It remains to state some of the conditions and obligations attached to the receipt of a portion, or Trpoi'4, in the time of the Athenian orators. The most important of these was the obligation under which the husband lay to give a security for ifc, either by way of settlement on the wife, or as a provision for repayment in case circumstances should arise to require it. With regard to this, we are told that whenever relatives or guardians gave a woman a portion on her marriage, they took from the husband, by way of security, something equivalent to it, as a house or piece of land. The person who gave this equivalent (rb airo-T/yUTj/za) was said airoTi/JLav: the person who received it a.irori}jLa<rOat. (Harpocrat. s. v. ; Dem. c. Onet. p. 866.) The word cbroTijuojyta is also used generally for a security. (Pollux, viii. 142.) The necessity for this security will appear from the fact that the portion was not considered the property of the husband himself, but rather of his wife and children. Thus, if a husband died9 and