CONCUBI´NA
CONCUBI´NA (παλλακή, παλλακίς).
Greek
The παλλακή occupied at Athens a kind of middle rank between the wife (cf. Lys. 1.31) and the ἑταίρα. The distinction between the ἑταίρα, παλλακή, and legal wife, is accurately described in [Dem.] c. Neaer. § 122, p. 1386, τὰς μὲν γὰρ ἑταίρας ἡδονῆς ἕνεκ᾽ ἔχομεν, τὰς δὲ παλλακὰς τῆς καθ᾽ ἡμέραν θεραπείας τοῦ σώματος, τὰς δὲ γυναῖκας τοῦ παιδοποιεῖσθαι γνησίως καὶ τῶν ἔνδον φύλακα πιστὴν ἔχειν. Thus Antiphon (1.17 ff.) speaks of the παλλακὴ of Philoneos as following him to the sacrifice, and also waiting upon him and his guest at table. If her person were violated by force, the same penalty was exigible from the ravisher as if the offence had been committed upon an Attic matron; and a man surprised by the quasi-husband in the act of criminal intercourse with his παλλακὴ might be slain by him on the spot, as in the parallel case (Dem. in Aristocr. § 55, p. 637, ἢ ἐπὶ δάμαρτι . . . ἢ ἐπὶ παλλακῆ ἣν ἂν ἐπ᾽ ἐλευθέροις παισὶν ἔχῃ, and Lys. 1.31; cf. also the decree said to have been passed during the time of the Peloponnesian War, γαμεῖν μὲν ἀστὴν μίαν, παιδοποιεῖσθαι δὲ καὶ ἐξ ἑτέρας, D. L. 2.26. See Ath. 13.556 a, and Gell. Noct. Attic. 15.20). The concubine of Philoneos was a slave woman (after his death she undergoes servile punishment, Antiph. 1.20); but from Isaeus (3.39) we learn that also Athenian women, probably of the poorer families, became sometimes concubines, and that their κύριος stipulated a sum of money to be paid to the woman in case her quasi-husband died or dismissed her. From this it would appear that a kind of concubinatus was recognised by law, and scarcely proscribed by public opinion (Philoneos is called ἀνὴρ καλός τε κἀγαθός, Antiph. 1.14: see, however, Isae. 6.18; Dem. c. Boeot. de Dot. § 5, p. 1009, etc.); but Buermann (Supplem. Jahrb. f. cl. Phil. 1878, p. 569 ff.) goes too far in thinking that such a παλλακὴ was duly betrothed by her κύριος (the δάμαρ, in addition to being betrothed, was introduced to the phrateres of her husband [GAMELIA]), and that the children of a παλλακὴ of civic birth were γνήσιοι. He draws these conclusions from the case of Mantias and Plangon (Dem. in Boeot. de nom. and de dot.), the case of Euctemon and the sister of Democrates (Isae. 6.22 ff.), and the reports of Socrates' bigamy. Mantias was compelled by Plangon's oath (that he was the father of her children, de nom. § 4, p. 995: cf. Arist. Rhetor. 2.23, 11, p. 1398 B) to introduce forthwith her two sons into his phratry. On this occasion he had to swear that the children were ἐξ ἀστῆς καὶ ἐγγυητῆς γυναικός: hence, B. concludes, Plangon must have been betrothed to him. Lipsius (Att. Proc. p. 543, n. 166; see also Gilbert in Jahrb. f. cl. Phil. 1887, p. 24), however, shows that this oath was not necessary in all the phratries; and Philippi (Jahrb. f. cl. Phil. 1879, p. 417) points out that the distinction between ἐγγυᾶσθαι and γαμεῖν, as indicated by B., is not borne out by the use made of these words by the orators (cf. Isae. 6.24, ἐγάμει, in what B. considers an instance of concubinatus; ἐπέγημε, Andoc. 1.128, 124; and especially Isae. 3.39, where ἐπὶ παλλακίᾳ διδόναι is contrasted with ἐγγυᾶν). The connexion of Mantias and Plangon was probably of a different nature; it would seem that Mantias married her (her son Boeotus claimed the name of the paternal grandfather as being the eldest grandchild, de nom. § 27, p. 1002), but divorced her (hence her sons returned with her to the (φυλὴ Ἱπποθωντίς, de nom. § 23, p. 1001), before marrying the daughter of Polyaratus (de dot. § 6, p. 1009), without, however, breaking off intercourse with her (de dot. § 27, p. 1016). If one of the characteristics of the legitimate concubinatus had been, as B. says, that no dowry was brought, and if Plangon had been a παλλακή, Mantitheus would no doubt have met Boeotus' claim to his mother's dowry in a different way from what he does (de dot. § 20 foll., p. 1014). As regards Euctemon, he too, as Luzac suggests (Lect. Attic. p. 59 ff.; cf. Schoemann, ad Isae. p. 334), divorced his wife (for a time, § 40) and threatened to marry the sister of Democrates ( § § 22, 25). Luzac likewise exposes the fallacy of the view entertained by several writers of the Peripatetic school, that Socrates had two wives at once;1 and Zeller (Socr. and the Socr. Schools, transl. by Reichel, p. 57 n.) accounts thus for the origin of the story: “We gather from the remains of the treatise περὶ εὐγενείας, that this dialogue was concerned with the question, whether nobility belonged to those whose parents were virtuous. Now none were more celebrated for their spotless virtue and their voluntary poverty than Aristeides and Socrates. Accordingly the writer brought the two into connexion. Socrates was made to marry a daughter of Aristeides; and since Xanthippe was known to be his wife, Myrto was made to be his second wife and the mother of his younger children. Others, however, remembered that Xanthippe survived her husband. They thought it unlikely that Socrates should be the son-in-law of a man dead before he was born, and they tried to surmount these difficulties in various ways. As regards the first difficulty, either it was maintained that Myrto was his second wife and that the younger children were hers, in which case it was necessary to place her side by side with Xanthippe, as Hieronymus actually did, and invented a decree of the people to make it probable; or to avoid romance, this supposition was given up, and Myrto was made to be his first wife, who then can have borne him no children, since Lamprocles, his eldest son, according to Xenophon, was a child of Xanthippe. The second difficulty might be got over either by making Myrto a grand-daughter of Aristeides, or by making her father to be Aristeides the Just. The former is the usual one; the latter is the [p. 1.526]view of Athenaeus.” Buermann interprets ἐλεύθερος in the law (Dem. in Aristocr. § 55, p. 637) to mean γνήσιος. This is scarcely correct when we consider [Dem.] c. Neaer. § 118, p. 1385; the speaker meets what might be urged in defence: “They cannot say that Neaera is a woman of civic birth, for it is in evidence that she is a ἑταίρα, and has been the slave of Nicarete; perhaps they will pretend that she is not his γυνή, but that he keeps her as a παλλακή. This cannot be; for her sons, who have been introduced by Stephanus to his phrateres, and her daughter, who has been given in marriage to an Athenian citizen, clearly prove that Stephanus lived with her as his wife.” Hence it follows that the children of a concubine were not admitted to the phratry of the father; they were not γνήσιοι, for “wives are kept τοῦ παιδοποιεῖσθαι γνησίως ἕνεκα” ( § 122, p. 1386; cf. Luc. Tim. 17, ἐπ᾽ ἀρότῳ παίδων γνησίων), but they were ἐλεύθεροι, i. e. possessed civic rights, and by an act of legitimation (ποιεῖσθαι, Andoc. 1.124; Dem. in Boeot. de nom. § 29, p. 1003) the father could procure for them all the rights and privileges of children born in wedlock. If the mother was not an Athenian, the father might not adopt this course (Att. Proc. p. 529 ff).2. Roman
According to an old definition, an unmarried woman who cohabited with a man was originally called pellex (Paul. Diac. p. 222; Gel. 4.3), but afterwards by the more decent appellation of concubina (Dig. 50, 16, 144). Concubinatus is cohabitation other than marriage (i. e. without affectio maritalis) between free persons who are already unmarried, or between an unmarried free man and an ancilla. In the older times this was viewed as an offence deserving punishment (Livy, 10.31, 25.2); but when the possibility of a lasting affection between persons who had not connubium came to be recognised, the cohabitation of an unmarried man with his liberta or ancilla (Plautus, Epid. 3.4, 29, 30; Poen. prol. 102) was regarded without censure. In Cicero's time (de Orat. 1.40.183) the name of concubina would have applied to a woman who cohabited with a man who had not divorced his wife; but this was not considered lawful concubinage in aftertimes. The Lex Julia de adulteriis of Augustus imposed severe penalties on adulterium, incestus (Gaius, 1.64; Inst. 1.10, 12), and stuprum (which is defined, Inst. 4.18, 4, as “cum quis sine vi vel virginem vel viduam honeste viventem stupraverit:” cf. Dig. 25, 7,1, 1; 48, 5, 12. 13); but by the Lex Julia and Papia Poppaea concubinatus was legalised ( “per leges nomen assumpsit,” Dig. 25, 3, 1) and exempted from the penal provisions of the earlier statute (Dig. 25, 7, 3, 1), though an honesta femina who wished to become a concubina was not dispensed from them unless she made an express declaration of her intention or testatio (Dig. ib. 3, pr.). But a man who already had an uxor could not have a concubina at the same time (Paul Sent. rec. 2.20; Dig. 50, 16, 144), nor apparently could a man have more than one concubina at a time; and widowers who already had children, and did not wish to contract another legal marriage, took a concubina, as we see in the case of Vespasian (Suet. Vesp. 3), Antoninus Pius; and M. Aurelius.Concubinatus differed from lawful marriage in three especial respects: (1) In the relation of the parties, there being no affectio maritalis: “Concubina ab uxore solo dilectu separatur,” Paul. Sent. rec. 2.20. (2) In the loss of reputation to the woman if honesta: “parvi autem refert, uxori an concubinae quis leget, sane enim, nisi dignitate, nihil interest,” Ulpian in Dig. 32, 49, 4. Yet there is an inscription in Fabretti (p. 337) to the memory of Paullianus by Aemilia Prima, “concubina ejus et heres,” which seems to show that the term concubina was not one that a woman need be ashamed of. (3) In its legal effects: it was not a marriage, and therefore the rules as to dos, donatio propter nuptias, donatio inter virum et uxorem, had no application; nor were the children in patria potestas, though their paternity was recognised: they could be legitimated, and under the emperors were entitled to maintenance, even from the legitimate children after the father's death (Nov. 89, 12, 6); also they had some rights of succession on the father's dying intestate. Concubinatus between a patron and his liberta was governed by special rules (Dig. 25, 7, 1, pr.; 23, 2, 41, 1; 48, 5, 13, pr.); and others were made by Justinian relating to that between a dominus and his ancilla, e.g. as to the children becoming free and legitimate (Cod. 7, 15, 3; Nov. 78, 4).
Heineccius (Syntag. Ap. 1.39) denies that an ingenua could be a concubina, and asserts that those only could be concubinae who could not be uxores; but that this is wrong is shown by Aurelian's prohibition (Vopisc. Aur. 49) of ingenuae becoming concubinae, which however was a dead letter. By later emperors concubinatus was discouraged, but it was not made generally unlawful till the 9th century by Leo Philosophus.
Cohabitation between two slaves was called contubernium, a name also applied to that between a slave and a free person (Paul. 2.19, 6). The paternity of the children was recognised: e. g. as a justa causa manumissionis under the Lex Aelia Sentia.
[J.B.M]