not be his guardian. There are in fact several passages in Isæus, which show the contrary,' and the practice of appointing the nearest paternal relatives by will seems to indicate what the law was. If there were no relatives, or none fit, or perhaps none who chose, to undertake the office, then it fell upon the Archon to select one from the whole body of Athenian citizens.

The duties of the guardian were, to take care of the person of his ward, and provide for his maintenance and education; also to manage and improve his estate, so long as he remained in a state of pupillage. Towards third parties and towards the state he was the ward's legal representative for example, in actions by or against the ward, he acted as his kúpios, prochein amy, or next friend; (see Volume III. Appendix IX. page 373:) and we have learned from the speech against Aphobus (ante, page 94,) that he made returns on his behalf for the property-tax assessment, the only public charge from which a minor was not exempt, and made the necessary payments in his name to the state. If the mother remained with the orphan, the guardian was bound to make provision for her maintenance also.

With respect to the administration of the ward's estate, as well as

(1) De Dicæog. Hered. 18. Ed. Bekker. Aikaιoyevns ¿yyvtáτw ŵv YévoVS ÉTETPÓTEVEV. De Cleon. Hered. 10-13. The heirs of Cleonymus, claiming his estate, allege that Dinias, their paternal uncle, was their guardian, and that Cleonymus made a will excluding them from the inheritance, because he had quarrelled with Dinias, and did not wish that his property should be under the control of Dinias after his death. Compare also the argument to the oration De Arist. Hered.

(2) The common law of England took the precaution of excluding from guardianship in socage (as it was called) those relatives to whom the inheritance would descend, giving it to the next of kin, to whom the inheritance could not possibly descend; therefore, if the land descended to the heir on the part of the father, the mother, or other next relation on the part of the mother, had the wardship; so, if the land descended to the heir on the mother's side, the father, or his next of kin, had the wardship.

The Roman law as to this point was like the Athenian; and therefore the Satirist says

Pupillum utinam, quem proximus heres
Impello, expungam.

Persius, ii 12.

There was a law of Charondas by which the management of the minor's property was given to the nearest paternal relative, while his education was entrusted to the next of kin by the mother's side. The same middle course was adopted by the Scotch and the ancient French law, committing the pupil's estate to the person who was entitled to the legal succession, because he is most interested in preserving it from waste, but excluding him from the custody of the pupil's person.

Kent in his Commentaries (II. 223) has the following remarks upon this: "The English, Scotch, and French laws, proceeded on too great distrust of the ordinary integrity of mankind. They might with equal propriety have deprived children of the custody and maintenance of their aged and impotent parents. It is equally a mistake in politics and law, to consider mankind degraded to the lowest depths of vice, or to suppose them acting under the uniform government of virtue. Man has a mixed character, and practical wisdom does not admit of such extreme conclusions. The old rule against committing the custody of the person and estate of a lunatic to the heir at law has been overruled as unreasonable. If a presumption must be indulged, it would be in favour of kinder treatment and more patient fortitude from a daughter, as committee of the person and estate of an aged and afflicted mother, than from the collateral kindred. The fears and precautions of the lawgivers on this subject imply, according to Montesquieu, a melancholy consciousness of the corruption of public morals."

other matters, a testamentary guardian was bound to execute the trusts of the will. A guardian appointed by law had a discretionary power, but not an unlimited one. It seems that it was not lawful for him to carry on a trade for his ward, or to risk his estate in dangerous speculations, such as adventures at sea. It was his duty however to increase it, if possible; and the most approved courses are said to have been, either to purchase lands, or to lend out the whole property on good security during the whole term of the ward's minority.'

The property might be lent out either to a single person, or in parcels to several. The former method appears to have been the most profitable; and therefore, in the case of a safe borrower, the most eligible. We have read how Theogenes, having borrowed three talents and thirty minas, the property of Antidorus, paid back upwards of six talents to him at the end of six years: (ante, page 108). It may be thought strange, that such large interest should be paid on loans by persons who were obliged to give good security for repayment. We can only conclude that very considerable profits could be made in those times by mercantile speculations. Compound interest appears to have been unknown.

It was competent for the guardian to lend the estate in this way by private contract. But the better course, if he wished to relieve himself from responsibility, was, to apply to the Archon, and act under his authority. The Archon then held a court, of which public notice was given, and the estate was lent to the highest bidder, approved of by a jury.2

If the guardian violated his duty, by neglecting the maintenance or education of his ward, by ill-treatment of his person, or by mismanaging his property, or by any kind of fraud or injury, he was liable to a criminal prosecution, which any Athenian might bring against him during the term of the ward's pupillage. Of the different forms of procedure, and the punishment which attended any misconduct of this kind, I have already spoken: (see Volume III. Appendix viii. pages 351, 352, 360, 364). One consequence of conviction was the removal of the guardian; which indeed, if accomplished early enough, would be the most efficient remedy; for a fraudulent guardian might in the course of a long minority do irreparable mischief. Demosthenes says in the first speech against Onetor, (ante, page 136,) that the frauds of his guardians had at an early period become notorious, and that many meetings were held on the subject before the Archon. This was probably with a view to get up a criminal prosecution.3

(1) μobov Toν oikov. See Lysias, cont. Diog. 35. Ed. Bekker.

(2) Isæus, de Philoct. Hered. 44, 45. ἐπειδὴ τὰ δικαστήρια ἐπληρώθη, ὁ μὲν ἄρχων προεκήρυττεν, οἱ δ ̓ ἐμισθοῦντο.

(3) In the oration against Nausimachus and Xenopithes, which is translated in this volume, it is mentioned that on a páois against the guardian for not having let the estate, the uncle of the wards persuaded the jury to let him administer the estate. The expression of an opinion by the jury would very likely guide the discretion of the Archon. (See ante, page 250: origin. page 991.)

Upon the ward's attaining his majority, i.e. on the completion of his seventeenth year, it was the guardian's duty to introduce him to his fellow-townsmen, and have his name registered. He was then bound to put him in possession of his estate, and to render him an account of his own administration of it. If he failed to render an account, or if he rendered a false one, or if he refused to give possession, or if he had committed any breach of trust, the ward might bring an action,' to recover compensation for the injury sustained; or, in case the guardian had died, he might bring an action for compensation2 against the guardian's representatives. The case of Nausimachus and Xenopithes is an example of such an action. These men, after the death of their guardian, commenced actions against his sons, who plead, (as we have seen,) that their father settled the claim against him in his lifetime for three talents.

The right to sue a guardian for breach of duty was, like most other personal causes of action, barred by the lapse of five years. This was the term prescribed by the Athenian statute of limitations.3

I have hitherto spoken of a single guardian only, for the sake of convenience; but it must be understood, that a father had power to appoint any number of guardians that he pleased by his will; and probably a similar discretion was vested in the Archon. Meier infers from the case of Demosthenes, that, where there were several guardians, they incurred a several and not a joint liability. The inference however is not conclusive. It may be that, when the breach of trust was the joint act of all, the ward might have the option of suing them jointly; otherwise, where they had not acted together; for it would be unjust to make them responsible for one another's misconduct. But we have too little information to determine such a point. Demosthenes made separate charges against each of his guardians. Though their negligence might be considered a joint offence, their pecuniary frauds or defalcations were distinct. (See ante, page 96.) From the speech against Nausimachus we learn, that each of the two wards sued each of the four sons of the guardians, making eight actions out of a single cause of action; which may be thought to indicate, that it was the policy of the Athenian law to favour the severance of actions.

No legal recompense was allowed to guardians for the performance of their duty; but, as in our own country it is very common for testators to give legacies to their executors and trustees, so we may reasonably suppose, that the father of Demosthenes, in bequeathing large gifts to the three persons whom he left protectors of his family, only did that which was frequently done by his countrymen. Meier suggests, that the general dishonesty of the Athenian character rendered it necessary thus to bribe guardians to be honest. If we (2) δίκη βλαβης.

(1) δίκη επιτροπής.

(3) See the Archæological Dictionary, title po@eoμia. (4) Bei dem grossem Mangel an Redlichkeit und Gewissenhaftigkeit, den wir im Character der Athener überhaupt wahrnehmen,

can trust the statements made in the few speeches which have come down to us upon this subject, they certainly make out frightful cases of violated trust. The case in Lysias is far worse than that of Demosthenes. Diogiton, who was both grandfather and uncle of his wards, (for he had given his daughter in marriage to his brother,) had received from the parent, or collected after his death, upwards of fourteen talents; of the whole of which (nearly) he defrauded the children, and, when they came of age, turned them into beggary out of his house.

See on this subject Meier & Schömann, Att. Proc. 293-296, 442-455.

APPENDIX III.

HUSBAND AND WIFE.

THE condition of women at Athens and in the other parts of Greece, their general treatment, and the position which they held in relation to the other sex; all these matters have been fully and ably discussed by Becker in his Charicles, and I shall only briefly advert to them here.

It may be gathered from the Homeric poems and the Attic tragedy, that in the earlier times of Greece women held a more elevated position than we find them holding in the historic period. They had more freedom, a more honourable place in the household, and greater influence both at home and abroad. It has been particularly observed, that, while in early times the husband is described as purchasing his bride from her parents, in later times he expected a suitable dowry to be given with his wife by the father or next of kin.

It is to the usages of Athens, in regard to the female sex, that I am principally directing the reader's attention; though these did not materially differ from the usages of other Greek states, except Sparta, where the manners of the women were as singular and remarkable, as the institutions of their countrymen in general.

The main object of the Athenians, in their treatment of women, seems to have been, to keep them in a state of retirement and seclusion, to maintain a reserve and modesty in their conduct and deportment, and, by confining them wholly to what were deemed feminine occupations, to hold them (socially and intellectually) in subjection to their husbands and guardians. Although this system led to many evils, it is said that the Athenian women were distinguished above most others for modesty and decorum in their dress and behaviour.

Their early training was such as to prepare them for a life of this sort. Athens, with all ber literary tastes, had no educational institution for women; and not only that, but there were no private schools for them, nor any mental tuition at home. The education of the Athenian girl was left entirely to her mother and her nurse. From them she got a smattering of letters, learned perhaps to read and write, and, what was considered still more important, to weave and spin, and to cook. She dwelt entirely in the Gynæconitis, or that part of the house which was appropriated to females; never went into any general society; lived, in short, very much the life of a Turkish lady, seeing only her female relations and domestics, and rarely even leaving the house, except on special occasions, as when she had to walk in a religious procession, or to join some festival from which men were excluded.

The married life was in accordance with what the single had been; though, as might be expected, the wife had more freedom and more power in the domestic establishment than had been entrusted to the daughter. She was in some respects the mistress of the house; the keys of the apartments were delivered to her; she had the custody of the furniture and stores, the superintendence of female slaves, and general management of household affairs and duties, such as cooking, nursing, &c.

Yet, though mistress of the house, the Athenian wife was not her own mistress. She lived, as she had done before marriage, in the female apartments, and was excluded from all male society. If her husband had company, she did not sit at table with them, not even with her own relations of the male sex. It was expected that she should not leave the house without her husband's knowledge; it was not respectable to go out without a slave; and to be seen at an open window was considered indecorous. Hence it is that, when the news of the disaster of Charonea had reached Athens, the women, anxious as they must have been to get intelligence of their husbands and relatives who had been in the battle, are represented as coming no farther than to the doors; and even this is mentioned as being unseemly, and a sign of their great distress. (See Volume II. Appendix IX. page 392.)

We read of legal restrictions against the women going abroad. Plutarch in the life of Solon (21) says, that he passed a law forbidding them to go out at night except in a chariot with a torch before them; and Athenæus (XII. 521) mentions a similar law at Syracuse, which forbade free women to go out at all after sunset. The tendency of Solon's legislation apparently was, to curtail the liberty of the female sex. He passed measures to check their extravagance in dress, and their disorderly conduct at festivals, sacrifices, and mournings. There are said to have been officers called Gynæconomi, whose business it was to see that Solon's regulations were observed, and to punish improper excesses and breaches of