Role in the oikos The
oikos (household) was the base unit for the organization of social, political, and economic life in the Ancient Greek world. The person in charge of all its affairs was the
oikonomos. The
oikos was composed of a nuclear family as well as extended family members such as grandparents or unmarried female relatives. The husband of the core nuclear family was generally the
oikonomos. The ancient Greek world was a
patrilocal society. A married woman would join her husband's
oikos. However, the woman would still remain a member of the
oikos she grew up in and would return to her original
oikos upon the end of a marriage. The
oikonomos of a household, in addition to making economic decisions for the
oikos, acted as legal guardian, or
kyrios (a word meaning 'lord' or 'controller'), for other members of the household. In this capacity, they were generally responsible for male members of the household under the age of 18, unmarried women, as well as their wife.
Marriage in the Greek world was seen as the transfer of responsibility over a woman from one
kyrios to another; in most cases, from her father to her husband. The
kyrios was understood to make decisions in the best interest of his wards about education, finances, and marriage. Although it differed between different Greek cities, an
oikonomos in
Athens would have the authority to dispose of his wife's property owing to his role as her
kyrios. In other cities, such as
Gortyn and
Sparta, it appears that married women had the right to use their property as they wished. The power of the
oikonomos to act as
kyrios was not unlimited. In Athens, an individual who had been under the care of a
kyrios would be able to seek legal recourse for damages caused by their former
kyrios. The
oikonomos in his role as
kyrios also had many responsibilities. He was expected to provide education for boys under his care, represent his wards in legal proceedings, provide for their everyday needs, as well as arrange marriages of women in his care. In addition to family members by kinship or marriage, slaves or
metics might have lived and worked within the household. Wealthy households would have had many slaves and metics working for them. The
oikonomos of the household would have played a role in directing the labour of the slaves and metics. While the
oikonomos did not have absolute power over members of his
oikos owing to his role as
kyrios, this was not the case for slaves. The Greeks did not consider him to be a
kyrios to the slaves, he was instead their
despotes, a word meaning master. In some extreme cases, slaves were seen as factors of production without any agency rather than autonomous human beings. A small
oikos would have had only a few household slaves known as
oiketai. Of the
oiketai, the men might have had the responsibility to work in the field. In a larger
oikos, many slaves would be entirely dedicated to agricultural work. This is generally considered to be less favourable than work in the house itself. The
oikos was the primary unit of economic organization within the ancient Greek world. Genuine urban commercial centers were relatively uncommon and sparse. Additionally, lack of trust between members of an
oikos and nonmembers usually prevented larger businesses not associated with an
oikos from forming. For these reasons, the
oikos remained the pillar of
ancient Greek economy. An
oikos was expected to be self-sufficient in what it produced for itself. Thinkers such as
Aristotle considered the self-sufficient
oikos to be the fundamental, indivisible constituent of the
polis. In order to be a true
oikos, it had to be entirely
self-sustaining it what it produced and consumed, as well as maintain its population over time. Most of the processing and storage facilities needed to run a farm, such as grain stores and oil presses, were found on the land owned by the
oikos. The continued existence of the
oikos was dependent on its ability to store goods for the future and the prudence of the
oikonomos in anticipating future needs. Chance weather events, warfare, sick animals, pests, and even ageing members of the
oikos could seriously threaten its existence. Households which practised a trade in addition to or instead of farming, often had their workshops located within the house in a room facing the street. In addition to his plethora of economic and social responsibilities, the
oikonomos would also be the representative of his
oikos to the outside world. He would be expected to provide funds for religious festivals, attend important events such as births and marriages, as well as fulfill his civic duties as a member of the
polis. Depending on the city, this might have included military service. The
oikonomos was also expected to maintain relationships with other households in the
polis. In the event of an emergency an
oikonomos might be able to seek help from a neighbouring
oikos. In return the
oikonomos would be expected to provide material aid to these same neighbours in their own time of need. This effectively established a credit system for a pre-bank economy.
Ancient thinkers on the concept of oikonomos Xenophon's
Oeconomicus is one of the earliest sources to extensively discuss the management of a wealthy agrarian estate. Here, the role of the
oikonomos largely concerned management of his household with the aim of accumulating and preserving wealth, rather than a relation to any modern sense of "economics".
Socrates and
Crito consider household management to be an art or science, and the former argues that the best
oikonomos is the one who makes the best use of resources; one with an abundance of material wealth which is insufficient to satisfy his needs is functionally poorer than one with little wealth which satisfies him. In this portrayal, though Socrates figures his own property to be worth a hundredfold less than Crito's, he has enough to satisfy himself and friends who would help him if he did not; the latter has social obligations of sacrifice, patronage, entertaining guests, and financing potential wars. This leads Socrates to consider himself far wealthier than Crito. Meanwhile, Ischomachus, a "fair and good" upper-class farmer, focuses his instructions on household managing on the importance of ensuring his wife's submissiveness and of close supervision of the house, as well as on a thorough understanding of agricultural techniques. In short, Xenophon characterizes the
oikonomos as holding power over children, slaves, wife, and property, along with the power to delegate authority to overseers; however, this account specifically concerns wealthy estates.
Aristotle, however, argued that the role of "master of the house" is a position of nature rather than of particular skill in household management. He disagrees with the notion that household management is synonymous with wealth acquisition, instead proposing that it is "the art which uses household stores". To the extent that there is a natural part of household management which concerns acquisition, it is limited to the provision of basic necessities. The obligation of Aristotle's
oikonomos is to use and order wealth (the most essential of which are the necessities for survival which nature provides, which are presupposed) rather than to acquire it. Nor does Aristotle believe that wealth acquisition is furthered solely by good home management, as he argues in
Rhetoric that to pontificate on growing the wealth of a country, a political speaker must understand foreign and domestic affairs. Aristotle specifically objects to the sophist
Alcidamas's use of
oikonomos in the context of a rhetorician as "dispenser of pleasure to his audience". This was part of a repudiation of Alcidamas' tendency to use excessive metaphors and "long, unseasonable, or frequent epithets". Aristotle also emphasizes the importance of the household in tragedies and comedies. In
Poetics, he writes that the tragedian
Euripides is faulty in his "
oikonomia", translated as "management" as well as (more directly) "economy", of the subject of tragedy. This is in part because the households he portrays are poorly suited to tragic plays. Meanwhile, a proper tragedy, such as those pertaining to the
House of Atreus or
Oedipus, must involve a family or household (
oikos) which elicits pity from the audience; to this end, it must be familiar to the audience but not intimately so. The poet here is an
oikonomos, responsible for the management and deliverance of his play, in addition to the presentation of the
oikos which is the subject.
Hesiod presents in
Works and Days instructions on household management, emphasizing the link between one's wealth-getting and his work ethic with respect to farming and keeping his house in order. Here he appears to consider a "house" to represent the sum total of all that the
oikonomos owns. == In the Seleucid Empire ==