고르틴 법을 통해 본 고대 그리스 여성의 재산권 -크레타 섬과 그리스 본토의 사회체제 비교에 관한 일고- = The Women`s Property Ownership of Ancient Greece Shown in the Law of Gortyn

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

According to the Law of Gortyn (VIII 21ff.), the `daughter-heiress in the state of no son heir (patroiokos=epikleros)` has the right of inheritance but is to marry the privileged in-law of the same tribe. This essay discusses the woman who gets to the status of `daughter-heiress` after her father or brother has already made her marry someone. It is said in the Law of Gortyn that, even if her husband would like to maintain the marriage against her wishes, despite having offspring from their marriage, she can take her share according to provisions and marry someone from her tribe (pyla=phyle). But if there is no offspring, she is to take all things and marry `the privileged in-law (epiballontes).` Zietelmann suggested that, when `daughter-heiress` in the state of no son heir wants to maintain the existing marriage, the right of succession of the privileged in-law is to be revoked. And Willets insisted that, in case she leaves the husband but there is her offspring begotten from him, the person with whom the `daughter-heiress` should `share according to provisions` could not be the former or new husband, but her offspring from him. That is, according to Willets, she should divide the property of her native family with her children begotten from her former husband. In Gortyn or anywhere else in Greece, however, there were no laws which proved that the children had some preferential right of succession for the property of their mother`s family, with the exception of their mother`s dowry. On the contrary, the succession right of the privileged in-law of her native tribe was too absolute to be revoked in any case. Even when the daughter-heiress or her husband who has become adopted son succeeds property, and it is never transferred to her husband`s other family. It should be noted here, in my opinion, that in case the daughter-heiress leaves her existing husband, to marry the privileged in-law or someone else from her native tribe, no matter if her former husband is alive or dead, and if there are children from him or not, she has the right to take her dowry as well as a portion of her work such as woven clothes via her own labor from her former husband`s. In Gortyn as well as in the general Greek world such as Athens and Sparta, the common property of family and the private ownership of women seem to exist respectively as an independent category. For example, the dowry the woman brought to the husband was excluded from the common ownership of her native family as well as that of the husband. Furthermore, in Gortyn, the woman`s ownership of property was independent not only from that of her husband, but also that of her children. In Sparta, the situation was the same. Anyway, however, no matter who had the ownership of property, the community of a family could enjoy the products from every kind of estate including the woman`s dowry. On the other hand, in Athens, even if the father who had no son to inherit could bequeath at liberal will, property ownership still remained in his family. In the case of an adopted son, he did not have the right of bequeathing at will. Especially, in order to understand properly the succession laws of the ancient Greece, it should be noted that private ownership used to exist in the undivided state where numerous members were concerned, and that it could revert again back to the wider category of familial community. In the preference of order or the quantity of inheritance, the male is preferred to female, but neither of both gender, it seems, has the preference over the common ownership of a family or tribe. In Athens the man who marries `daughter-heiress` does not necessarily have to be one of the same tribes, and in Sparta, too, one could bequeath to whomever he wants. In Gortyn, however, the privileged in-law of the same tribe has the preference of marriage with the `daughter-heiress,` and just when none from the same tribe wants to marry her, the `daughter-heiress`, having all the right of ownership, is permitted to marry one out of the tribe. This difference concerning daughter-heiress between Athens and Sparta on the one hand, and Gortyn on the other, proves that Athens and Sparta were of a more open and active society than Gortyn in the 5th C. B.C. when the laws of Gortyn were applicable. It seems, however, that even in the ancient Athens, the common ownership of family still steadfastly was maintained.

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 최자영, "고대 그리스 법제사" 아카넷 409-, 2007
• 2 Bekker, Anecdota Graeca, "enepiskēmma kai enepiskēpsasthai"
• 3 R. Sealey, "Women and Law in Classical Greece"
• 4 R.F. Willetts, "The Law Code of Gortyn"
• 5 D. Asheri, "Sulla legge di Epitadeo"
• 6 S. Hodkinson, "Spartiate Landownership and Inheritance" Edinburgh 88-, 2002
• 7 S. Hodkinson, "Property and Wealth in Classical Sparta"
• 8 T.E. Page, "Isaios" Cambridge, Mass 384-, 1927
• 9 Margherita Guarducci, "Inscriptiones Creticae"
• 10 "Demosthenes, 43, 54; Aristophanes Byzantios, Lexeis, F.39N; Diodoros Sikeliotes, 12,18"
• 11 F. Bücheler Zitelmann, "Das Recht von Gortyn"
• 12 F. Bücheler Zitelmann, "Das Recht von Gortyn"