6
Or is it that, since it is not the custom for men to marry blood relations,Hatzidakis objects to the formσυγγενίδας; but the very fact that Polux, iii. 30, characterizes it asἐσχάτως βάρβαρον proves (as do inscriptions also) that it was in use. affection proceeded only so far as a kiss, and this alone remained as a token of kinship and a participation therein? For formerly men did not marry women related to them by ties of blood, just as even now they do not marry their aunts or their sisters Cf. Tacitus, Annals, xii. 5-7.; but after a long time they made the concession of allowing wedlock with cousins for the following reason: a man possessed of no property, but otherwise of excellent character and more satisfactory to the people than other public men, had as wife his cousin, an heiress, and was thought to be growing rich from her estate. He was accused on this ground, but the people would not even try the case and dismissed the charge, enacting a decree that ali might marry cousins or more distant relatives: but marriage with nearer kin was prohibited.
7
Why is it forbidden for a man to receive a gift from his wife or a wife to receive a gift from her husband? Cf.Moralia, 143 a.
7
Is it that, Solon having promulgated a law Cf. Life of Solon, chap. xxi. (90 a); [Demosthenes] xlvi. 14; Hypereides, Against Athenogenes, 17, 18. that the bequests of the deceased should be valid unless a man were constrained by force or persuaded by his wife, whereby he excepted force as overriding the free will, and pleasure as misleading the judgement, in this way the bequests of wives and husbands became suspect?
7
Or did they regard giving as an utterly worthless token of aifection (for even strangers and persons with no kindly feelings give gifts), and so deprived the marriage relationship of this mode of giving pleasure, that mutual affection might be unbought and free, existing for its own sake and for no other reason?
