Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-9prln Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T07:27:10.444Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Penelope's EEΔNA Again*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

I. N. Perysinakis
I. N. Perysinakis
Affiliation:
University of Ioannina
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

M. Finley in a well-known and influential article, established the theory that the bridegroom (or the potential suitors) offered gifts to the bride's father, which had their recompense in a counter-gift or dowry to the groom and the bride; these gifts must be equal in value.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 41 , Issue 2 , December 1991 , pp. 297 - 302
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 Finley, M. I., ‘Marriage, Sale and Gift in the Homeric World’, Revue Internationale des Droits de l'Antiquité iii vol. 2 (1955), 167–94Google Scholar; repr. in Economy and Society in Ancient Greece, ed. Shaw, B. D. and Sailer, R. P. (Harmondsworth, 1983), 233–45.Google Scholar

2 Lacey, W. K., ‘Homeric Eδνα and Penelope's Kριος’, JHS 86 (1966), 55–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Snodgrass, A. M., ‘An Historical Homeric Society’, JHS 94 (1974), 114–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Ian, Morris, ‘The Use and Abuse of Homer’, Classical Antiquity 5 (1986), 81–138, p. 106.Google Scholar

5 art. cit., p. 56.

6 art. cit., p. 182 (or 239).

7 Page, D. L., The Homeric Odyssey (Oxford, 1955, repr. 1976), pp. 63–4Google Scholar (with note 9 on pp. 76–7; Page's italics).

8 Heubeck, A., West, S., Hainsworth, J. B., A Commentary on Homer's Odyssey, vol. I Books i–viii (Oxford, 1988).Google Scholar

9 M. Schmidt in the Lexikon des frühgriehichen Epos accepts the same view: Od. 1.277 (= 2.196) is classified under Mitgift, dowry, given by the bride's father (s.v. ἕδνα 2) and the verb δνω, δνόοµαι (s.v.) in Od. 2.53–4 as referring to the dowry.

10 Cf. Perysinakis, I. N., Wealth and Society in Early Greek Literature (Univ. of London, Ph.D. 1982), pp. 95ff.Google Scholar

11 Morris, p. 109, cf. Lacey, art. cit., p. 66.

12 art. cit., p. 61.

13 Tsitsicles, M. I., ‘'Eεδνοµαι–εδνωτής’, Hellenika 17 (1962), 24–39, pp. 33, 39.Google Scholar

14 Jannaris, A. N., An Historical Greek Grammar (London 1897, repr. Georg Olms, Hildesheim, 1968)Google Scholar, § 1470. Cf. Smyth, H. W.–Messing, G. M., Greek Grammar (Cambridge, Mass., 1974)Google Scholar, §§1713, 1721–2, 1728, 1731.

15 Finley, M. I., The World of Odysseus2 (London, 1977)Google Scholar; Adkins, A. W. H., Merit and Responsibility, A Study in Greek Values (Oxford, 1960, repr. 1975).Google Scholar

16 Adkins, A. W. H., ‘Eὔχοµαι, εὐχωλ, and εὖχος in Homer’, CQ 19 (1969), 20–33, p. 32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17 ‘“Honour” and “Punishment” in the Homeric Poems’, BICS 7 (1960), 23–32, p. 28.Google Scholar

18 Cf. also 15. 16–18, 20.326ff., 341–4, 6.158–9 (on Nausicaa); 2.87ff., 113ff., 132ff., 13.375ff.; 18.285ff. and on suitors in general 1.245–51, 16.122–8, 19.130–5; etc. Cf. A Commentary on Homer's Odyssey, pp. 58–9.Google Scholar

19 An additional note may be given regarding the adjective πολδωρος, used of Andromache (Il. 6.394, 22.472) and Penelope (Od. 24.294), since it has been used to support the existence of two contrasting marriage practices in the same case. For Finley ἄλοχος πολδωρος is the ‘wife who brought many gifts’, to her husband even though he won her ‘having given numerous gifts of wooing (hedna)’; he treats the adj. as an antonym of λφεσβοια (art. cit., p. 185 and note 41 (= p. 240 in the repr.)). Snodgrass is rather ‘inclined to believe that we have here an instance of the commonly-attested combination of dowry and indirect dowry, than that this passage alone should be proof of the exchange of gifts on the same marriage-occasion’ (art. cit., p. 117; cf. Morris, art. cit., p. 110). First, one must notice that in the adjective we have δρα, not ἔεδνα. Second, gifts from the bride's side to the groom are not excluded, according to the main function of gift-giving; they should be seen as evidence that the bride's father thinks highly both of himself and of his prospective son-in-law, and shows his good-will and quality by the abundance of these additional gifts. Third, the meaning of the adjective seems to depend on the speaker's focus, and I think it refers mainly to the bride herself. It seems to me that in these cases we have the passive possessive meaning of the word: wife who has been granted many qualifications, of many gifts, much-gifted, bountiful, i.e. gifts here are used in a metaphorical sense. We must have in this case a significant ‘speaking name’ like Πολυπάµων, Πολκτωρ, or Πολδωρος, son of Priam (Il. 21.91, 20.410), and Πολμδώρη, Peleus' beautiful daughter, for whom Boros gave many ἔεδνα (Il. 16.175ff.); the denominative meaning of πολδωρος is still strong in modern Greek. One might add that in the case of πολδωρος we have the condition described for Πανδώρη (with all its ambiguity) ‘All-endowed’: because each of the gods gave her a gift (Hes. Op. 81–2).