ON THE STRUCTURE

                                    OF

                           GREEK TRIBAL SOCIETY

                                 AN ESSAY

                                    by

                             Hugh E. Seebohm

                                  London

                            MacMillan And Co.

                               And New York

                                  1895.





CONTENTS


Preface
Chapter I. Introductory.
Chapter II. The Meaning Of The Bond Of Kinship.
   § 1. The Duty Of Maintenance Of Parents During Life, And After Death At
   Their Tomb.
   § 2. The Duty Of Providing Male Succession.
   § 3. The Position Of The Widow Without Child And The Duties Of An Only
   Daughter.
   § 4. Succession Through A Married Daughter: Growth Of Adoption:
   Introduction Of New Member To Kinsmen.
   § 5. The Liability For Bloodshed.
Chapter III. The Extent Of The Bond Of Kinship.
   § 1. Degrees Of Blood-Relationship; The Ἀγχιστεία.
   § 2. Limitations In Respect Of Succession Outside The Direct Line Of
   Descent.
   § 3. Division Amongst Heirs.
   § 4. Qualifications For The Recognition Of Tribal Blood.
   § 5. Limitations Of Liability For Bloodshed.
Chapter IV. The Relation Of The Family To The Land.
   § 1. The Κλῆρος And Its Form.
   § 2. The Relation Of The Κλῆρος To The Οἶκος.
   § 3. The Householder In India: The Guest.
   § 4. Tenure Of Land In Homer: The Κλῆρος And The Τέμενος.
   § 5. Early Evidence _continued_: The Κλῆρος And The Maintenance Of The
   οἶκος.
   § 6. Early Evidence _continued_: The Τέμενος And The Maintenance Of The
   Chieftain.
   § 7. Summary Of The Early Evidence.
   § 8. Hesiod And His Κλήρος.
   § 9. Survivals Of Family Land In Later Times.
   § 10. The Idea Of Family Land Applied Also To Leasehold And
   Semi-Servile Tenure.
Chapter V. Conclusion.
Index.
Footnotes






PREFACE


These notes, brief as they are, owe more than can be told to my father’s
researches into the structure and methods of the Tribal System. They owe
their existence to his inspiration and encouragement. A suitable place for
them might possibly be found in an Appendix to his recently published
volume on the Structure of the Tribal System in Wales.

In ascribing to the structure of Athenian Society a direct parentage
amongst tribal institutions, I am dealing with a subject which I feel to
be open to considerable criticism. And I am anxious that the matters
considered in this essay should be judged on their own merits, even
though, in pursuing the method adopted herein, I may have quite
inadequately laid the case before the reader.

My thanks are due, for their ready help, to Professor W. Ridgeway, Mr.
James W. Headlam, and Mr. Henry Lee Warner, by means of whose kind
suggestions the following pages have been weeded of several of their
faults.

It is impossible to say how much I have consciously or unconsciously
absorbed from the works of the late M. Fustel de Coulanges. His _La Cité
Antique_ and his _Nouvelles Recherches sur quelques Problèmes d’Histoire_
(1891) are stores of suggestive material for the student of Greek and
Roman customs. They are rendered all the more instructive by the charm of
his style and method. I have merely dipped a bucket into his well.

In quoting from Homer, I have made free use of the translations of Messrs.
Lang, Leaf, and Myers of the _Iliad_, and of Messrs. Butcher and Lang of
the _Odyssey_; and I wish to make full acknowledgment here of the debt
that I owe to them.

Some explanation seems to be needful of the method pursued in this essay
with regard to the comparison of Greek customs with those of other
countries. The selection for comparison has been entirely arbitrary.

Wales has been chosen to bear the brunt of illustration, partly, as I have
said, because of my father’s work on the Welsh Tribal System, partly
because the _Ancient Laws of Wales_ afford a peculiarly vivid glimpse into
the inner organisation of a tribal people, such as cannot be obtained
elsewhere.

The _Ordinances of Manu_, on the other hand, are constantly quoted by
writers on Greek institutions; and, I suppose, in spite of the uncertainty
of their date, they can be taken as affording a very fair account of the
customs of a highly developed Eastern people. It would be hard, moreover,
to say where the connection of the Greeks with the East began or ended.

The use made of the _Old Testament_ in these notes hardly needs further
remark. Of no people, in their true tribal condition before their
settlement, have we a more graphic account than of the Israelites. Their
proximity geographically to the Phœnicians, and the accounts of the
widespread fame of Solomon and the range of his commerce, at once suggest
comparison with the parallel and contemporaneous period of Achaian
history, immediately preceding the Dorian invasion, when, if we may trust
the accounts of Homer, the intercourse between the shores of the
Mediterranean must have been considerable.

All reference to records of Roman customs has been omitted, not because
they are not related or analogous to the Greek, but because they could not
reasonably be brought within the scope of this essay. The ancestor-worship
among the Romans was so complete, and the organisation of their kindreds
so highly developed, that they deserve treatment on their own basis, and
are sufficient to form the subject of a separate volume.

H. E. S.

THE HERMITAGE, HITCHIN.
_July, 1895._

[Transcriber’s Note: This e-book contains much Greek text which is often
relevant to the point of the book.  In the ASCII versions of the e-book,
the Greek is transliterated into Roman letters, which do not perfectly
represent the Greek original; especially, accent and breathing marks do
not transliterate. The HTML and PDF versions contain the true Greek text
of the original book. In the ASCII e-book, the markings such as (M1)
indicate marginal notes, which were printed in the margins of the original
book, but in the e-book are transcribed at the end with the footnotes.]





CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTORY.


(M1) In trying to ascertain the course of social development among the
Greeks, the inquirer is met by an initial difficulty. The Greeks were not
one great people like the Israelites, migrating into and settling in a new
country, flowing with milk and honey. Their movements were erratic and
various, and took place at very different times. Several partial
migrations are described in Homer, and others are referred to as having
taken place only a few generations back. The continuation of unsettled
life must have had the effect of giving cohesion to the individual
sections into which the Greeks were divided, in proportion as the process
of settlement was protracted and difficult.

But in spite of divergencies caused by natural surroundings, by the
hostility or subservience of previous occupants of the soil, there are
some features of the tribal system, wherever it is examined, so inherent
in its structure as to seem almost indelible. A new civilisation was not
formed to fit into the angles of city walls. Even modification could take
place only of those customs whose roots did not strike too deeply into the
essence of the composition of tribal society.

(M2) It is the object of these notes to try to put back in their true
setting some of the conditions prevailing, sometimes incongruously with
city life, among the Greeks in historical times, and by comparison with
analogous survivals in known tribal communities, of whose condition we
have fuller records, to establish their real historical continuity from an
earlier stage of habit and belief.

(M3) There were three important public places necessary to every Greek
community and symbolical to the Greek mind of the very foundations of
their institutions. These were:—the _Agora_ or place of assembly, the
place of justice, and the place of religious sacrifice. From these three
sacred precincts the man who stirred up civil strife, who was at war with
his own people, cut himself off. Such an one is described in Homer as
being, by his very act, “clanless” (ἀφρήτωρ), “out-law” (ἀθέμιστος), and
“hearthless” (ἀνέστιος).(1) In the camp of the Greeks before Troy the
ships and huts of his followers were congregated by the hut of their chief
or leader. Each sacrificed or poured libation to his favourite or familiar
god at his own hut door.(2) But in front of Odysseus’ ships, which, we are
told, were drawn up at the very centre of the camp, stood the great altar
of Zeus Panomphaios—lord of _all_ oracles—“exceeding fair.”(3) “Here,”
says the poet, “were _Agora_, _Themis_, and the altars of the gods.”

The Trojans held _agora_ at Priam’s doors,(4) and it is noticeable that
the space in front of the chief’s hut or palace was generally considered
available for such purposes as assembly, games, and so forth, just as it
was with the ancient Irish.

(M4) In the centre of most towns of Greece(5) stood the Prytaneum or
magistrates’ hall, and in the Prytaneum was the sacred hearth to which
attached such reverence that in the most solemn oaths the name of Hestia
was invoked even before that of Zeus.(6) Thucydides states that each κώμη
or village of Attica had its hearth or Prytaneum of its own, but looked up
to the Hestia and Prytaneum in the city of Athens as the great centre of
their larger polity. In just the same way the lesser kindreds of a tribe
would have their sacred hearths and rites, but would look to the hearth
and person of their chief as symbolical of their tribal unity. Thucydides
also mentions how great a wrench it seemed to the Athenians to be
compelled to leave their “sacred” homes, to take refuge within the walls
of Athens from the impending invasion by the Spartans.(7)

The word _Prytanis_ means “chieftain.” It is probable that, as the duties
sacred and magisterial of the chief became disseminated among the other
officers of later civilisation, the chief’s dwelling, called the
Prytaneum, acquiring vitality from the indelible superstition attaching to
the hearth within its precincts, maintained thereby its political
importance, when nothing but certain religious functions remained to its
lord and master in the office of Archon Basileus.

(M5) Mr. Frazer, in his article in the _Journal of Philology_(8) upon the
resemblance of the Prytaneum in Greece to the Temple of Vesta in Rome,
shows that both had a direct connection with, if not an absolute origin in
the domestic hearth of the chieftain. The Lares and Penates worshipped in
the Temple of Vesta, he says, were originally the Lares and Penates of the
king, and were worshipped at his hearth, the only difference between the
hearth in the temple and the hearth in the king’s house being the absence
of the royal householder.(9)

Mr. Frazer also maintains that the reverence for the hearth and the
concentration of such reverence on the hearth of the chieftain was the
result of the difficulty of kindling a fire from rubbing sticks together,
and of the responsibility thus devolving upon the chieftain unfailingly to
provide fire for his people. Whether this was the origin or not, before
the times that come within the scope of this inquiry, the hearth had
acquired a real sanctity which had become involved in the larger idea of
it as the centre of a kindred, including on occasion the mysterious
presence also of long dead ancestors.

(M6) The basis of tribal coherence was community of blood, actual or
supposed; the visible evidence of the possession of tribal blood was the
undisputed participation, as _one of a kindred_, in the common religious
ceremonies, from which the blood-polluted and the stranger-in-blood were
so strictly shut out.(10) It is therefore in the incidence of religious
duties, and in the qualifications of the participants, that it is
reasonable to seek survivals of true tribal sentiment.

Although the religious life of the Greeks was always complex, there is not
to be found in Homer the broad distinction drawn afterwards between public
and private gods. It is noticeable that the later Greeks sought to draw
into their homes the beneficent influence of one or other of the greater
gods, whose protection and guidance were claimed in times of need by all
members of the household. Secondary influences, though none the less
strongly felt, were those of the past heroes of the house, sometimes only
just dead, to be propitiated at the family tombs or hearth. Anxiety on
this head, and the deeply-rooted belief in the real need to the dead of
attentions from the living, were, it will be seen, most powerful factors
in the development of Greek society.

(M7) The worship of ancestors or household gods as such is not evident in
the visible religious exercises of the Homeric poems. But this can hardly
be a matter of surprise. The Greek chieftains mentioned in the poems are
so nearly descended from the gods themselves, are in such immediate
relation each with his guardian deity, and are so indefatigable in their
attentions thereto, that it would surely be extremely irrelevant if any of
the libations or hecatombs were perverted to any intermediate, however
heroic, ancestor from the all-powerful and ever ready divinity who was so
often also himself the boasted founder of the family.(11)

(M8) The libations and hecatombs themselves, however, seem to serve much
the same purpose as the offerings to the _manes_ or household gods, and
relieved the luxurious craving for sustenance in the immortals, left
unsatisfied by their ethereal diet of nectar and ambrosia.(12)

(M9) Yet it is strange that if libations and sacrifices were paid to the
dead _periodically_ at their tombs, no mention of the occurrence is to be
found in Homer. That the dead were believed to appreciate such attentions
may be gathered from the directions given by Circe to Odysseus.


    “Then pour a drink-offering to all the dead, first with mead
    (μελικρήτῳ), and thereafter with sweet wine, and for the third
    time with water, and sprinkle white meal thereon.... and promise
    thou wilt offer _in thy halls_(13) a barren heifer, the best thou
    hast, and fill the pyre with treasure, and wilt sacrifice apart to
    Teiresias alone a black sheep without spot, the fairest of your
    flock.”


(M10) This done, the ghosts flock up to drink of the blood of the victim.
But the ghost of Elpenor, who met his death at the house of Circe by
falling from the roof in his drunken haste to join his already departed
comrades, and who had therefore received no burial at their hands, demands
no libations or sacrifices for the refreshment of his thirsty soul, but
merely burial with tears and a barrow upon the shore of the gray sea, that
his name may be remembered by men to come.

Nestor’s son elsewhere is made to remark that one must not grudge the dead
their meed of tears; for the times are so out of joint, “this is now the
only due we pay to miserable men, to cut the hair and let the tear fall
from the cheek.”(14)

Is the right conclusion then that the Homeric Greeks did not sacrifice at
the tombs of their fathers, and that the so-called ancestor-worship
prevalent later was introduced or revived under their successors? Or is it
that the aristocratic tone of the poet did not permit him to bear witness
to the intercourse with any deity besides the one great family of Olympic
gods, less venerable than a river or other personification of nature?(15)

There exists such close family relationship amongst Homer’s gods, extended
as it is also to most of his chieftains, that taking into account the
conspicuous reverence displayed towards the hearth and the respect for
seniority in age, it may perhaps be justifiable to suppose that domestic
religious observances, other than those directed to the Olympic gods, were
thought by the poet to be as much beneath his notice as the swarms of
common tribesmen who shrink and shudder in the background of the poems.

(M11) Ancestor-worship would be as much out of place in the Old Testament;
and yet there are references in the Bible to offerings to the dead which,
unless they are held to refer only to importations from outside religions
and not to relapses in the Israelites themselves to former superstitions
of their own people, imply that the great tribal religion of the
Israelites had superseded pre-existing ceremonies of ancestor-worship.


    Deut. xxvi. 13. “And thou shalt say before the Lord thy God, I
    have brought away the hallowed things out of mine house, and also
    have given them unto the Levite and the stranger, to the
    fatherless and to the widow, according to all thy commandments
    which thou hast commanded me: I have not transgressed thy
    commandments, neither have I forgotten them: I have not eaten
    thereof in my mourning, neither have I taken away ought thereof
    for any unclean use, nor _given ought thereof for the dead_.”


The transgressions of the Israelites in the wilderness are described in
the Psalms:—“They joined themselves also unto Baalpeor and _ate the
sacrifices of the dead_.”(16)

It was not necessary for an ancestor to become a god to be worthy of
worship, or to need the attentions of the living. If he was thought to
haunt tomb or hearth, and to keep his connection thus with his family in
the upper world, he required nourishment on his visits. He was also
considered to keep a jealous watch on the continuance of his fair fame
among the living.

(M12) A close resemblance in this point lies between the Homeric poems and
the Old Testament. Though actual food and drink is not provided for the
dead, yet the stress laid on the permanence of the family, _lest the name
of the dead be cut off from his place_, is quite in keeping with the
request of Elpenor to Odysseus to insure the continuance of his name in
the memory of living men.

It is quite possible that, as the story of the interview of Odysseus with
the dead reveals that the idea of the dead enjoying sacrifices of food and
drink was familiar at that time, even though the periodical supply of such
is not mentioned, so the existence of Laban’s household gods and the
gathering of the kindred of Jesse to their family ceremony(17) may bear
witness to the presence of a survival of ancestor-worship in some
equivalent form, underlying the all-absorbing religion of the Israelites.
At this day the spirits of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are considered by the
Mohammedans of Hebron actually to inhabit the cave of Machpelah, and, in
the case of Isaac at any rate, to be extremely angered by any negligence
shown to their altars, either by omission of the customary ceremonies or
by admission within the sacred precinct of any stranger of alien faith.

It must not therefore be inferred altogether that the regular
ancestor-worship so-called was of later origin amongst the Greeks, but
rather that the constitution of society did not afford it the same
prominence to the mind of Homer and perhaps his contemporaries, as it
acquired later.

(M13) M. Fustel de Coulanges, in _La Cité Antique_, has so well
established the prevalence of ancestor-worship among the Greeks, drawing
illustration both from Indian and Roman sources, that no further instances
of its existence are needed here.

The ceremonies however and offerings at the tombs of their fathers did not
supersede, amongst the Athenians at any rate, their worship of the Olympic
gods. The Olympic gods themselves moreover were clearly connected with
their family life. The protection of Zeus was specially claimed under the
title of γενέθλιος or even σύναιμος(18) and as ἑρκεῖος he received worship
upon the altar that stood in the court-yard of nearly every house in
Attica.(19) The permanent place of these gods in the homes of the people
is further denoted by the use of such epithets as ἐγγενεῖς(20) and
πατρῷοι.(21)

(M14) The tombs, on the other hand, were not approached with the purpose
of invoking powerful aid, but rather with the intent of soothing a
troubled spirit with care and attention, and of providing it with such
nourishing refreshment as could not be procured in the regions of the
starving dead.


    “I come, bringing to my son’s sire propitiating libations, such as
    are soothing to the dead, from hallowed cow white milk, sweet to
    drink; the flower distiller’s dew—clear honey; the virgin spring’s
    refreshing draught; and undefiled from its wild mother, the liquid
    gladness of the time-honoured vine; also from the ever-leafy
    growth of the pale green olive fragrant fruit is here, and twined
    flowers, children of the teeming earth.”(22)


(M15) The same idea of nourishment of the dead, though shared with the
other gods, determines the offerings in the Egyptian _Book of the
Dead_.(23)


    “I live upon loaves, white wheat, beer, red wheat.... Place me
    with vases of milk and wine, with cakes and loaves, and plenty of
    meat in the dwelling of Anubis.”(24)


    “Grant to me the funereal food, the drinks, the oxen, the geese,
    the fabrics, the incense, the oil, and all the good and pure
    things upon which the gods live.”(25)


There is one passage that almost implies that the dead retained in idea a
claim upon the produce of the land which nourished them whilst alive, or
that they had a special allotment even in the other world:—


    “I sit down among the very great gods of Nut. A field extends for
    me; the products of the ground are for me. I eat them; I am
    favoured with them; I live in plenty by them.... I am given corn
    and wheat for my mouth.”(26)


Chapter cxliv. of the _Book of the Dead_ is to be said,


    “at the gate of every room while offering to each of them thighs
    and heads of red cows, the value of seven vases; while offering
    blood extracted from the heart, the value of a hundred vases;
    sixteen loaves of white bread, eight round cakes, eight oval
    cakes, eight broad thin cakes, eight measures of beer, and eight
    of wheat, a perfumed oil-basin full of milk from a white cow,
    green grass, green figs, mestem and beads of incense to be burnt.”


Chapter cxlviii. ordains that there


    “shall be placed offerings before them of loaves, beer, meat,
    incense, funereal dishes, bringing into favour with Râ and making
    that the _deceased is fed in the netherworld_.”


(M16) In the next chapters frequent reference will be made to the
offerings to ancestors, or _manes_, among the ancient Hindoos. With them
the cake-offering to the dead became a most important symbol, uniting in a
common duty all descendants from certain ancestors within fixed degrees,
and marking them off in the matter of responsibility thereto from more
distant relations, who owed similar duty elsewhere.

(M17) Being thus surrounded by nations that believed intensely in the need
in the dead of nourishment at the hands of their relatives on earth, it
would indeed be surprising if the Greeks were found not to share in the
belief. But the fact remains that in the earliest Greek literature it is
least conspicuous, and the gulf seems widest between the living and the
dead. Can this be laid to the charge of the artificial superstitions of a
philosophical class of poets? Or is it due to the true evolution of such
beliefs, that as long as our search touches upon the unsettled periods of
semi-migratory life, the tombs of individual members of a family being
scattered here or there wherever they meet their deaths, the offering to
the dead takes a special form, inasmuch as the solidarity of the tribe
eclipses the importance of the family as a unit, and the religious
ceremonies of the chieftain absorb the attention of the lesser members of
the tribe?

M. de Coulanges points out that the meaning of the Latin word _Lar_ is
lord, prince or master, and that _Hestia_ was sometimes designated by the
Greeks with the similar title of mistress of the house, or princess.(27)

If, as long as the tribe was felt to be a real unit, the religious
instincts of the tribesmen were concentrated upon the worship of their
tribal deities—the great ancestors of the tribe, and more emphatically and
directly the ancestors of their chieftain—it would be quite natural, in
the weakening of the central worship, for the titles of honour and respect
to be used equally towards those meaner ancestors who henceforth occupied
the religious energies of the head of each family or household. In
fulfilment of a similar sentiment, the later Greeks commonly used the word
ἥρως in speaking of a dead friend, deeming that any one who departed this
life passed to the ranks of those princes of the community from whom all
were proud to trace descent.

(M18) M. de Coulanges considers that the sacred rites of the family at the
hearth formed a more real tie than the belief in a common blood; and that
upon this religious basis was built up the greater hearth of the Prytaneum
as the centre of city life, to bind together the several families
composing the community. But without pretending to come to a final
decision on this the main tendency of social development, surely something
may yet be said in favour of the contrary theory; that the reverence that
centred in the hearth was in effect the expression of the sanctity of the
tie of blood, as felt by all members of the house, and that this feeling
drew its real importance for the community, not from the founding of the
city by the amalgamation of several families, but as a survival from an
earlier stage of life, when society circled round what was then in more
than name the Prytaneum of the tribal chieftain.

Facts are wanting to justify a conclusion as to which of these theories
bears the closest resemblance to the truth, but it is easy to imagine what
might be the line of development if the latter hypothesis be maintained.

(M19) During the wanderings and migrations of peoples in the search for
greener pastures or broader lands, each community or tribe would be
constantly under arms and subject to attack from the enemies they were
passing through or subjugating. This constant sojourning in a strange
land, surrounded by foes, would be a source of much solidarity to the
tribe itself, drawing its members closely together for mutual defence and
subsistence.

But when once the tribe had found a country to its taste, and had made a
settlement with borders comparatively permanently established, emphasis
would be transferred to the petty quarrels and internal dissensions
arising between different sections within the community itself. The tie of
common blood, uniting all members of the tribe, would be gradually
disregarded and displaced by the less homely and more political relation
of fellow-citizenship, which, though retaining many of the characteristics
of the tribal bond, would necessarily be felt in a very different manner.

In this disintegration of the larger unit, the existence of kinship by
blood would be acknowledged only where the relationship was obvious and
well known. And it would no longer be sufficient merely to prove
membership of a kindred; as those outside certain limits would claim
exemption from the responsibilities entailed by closer relationship.

(M20) So, too, in the matter of religious observance: the reverence of the
individual for the Prytaneum and common hearth of the state would undergo
a change into a less personal sentiment; the rites connected therewith
would be delegated to an official priest; and it is with the head of each
family, surrounded by those who are really conscious of their connection
by blood in common descent from much more immediate ancestors, that the
true tribal feeling would longest survive, though, of course, on much
narrower lines.

The privileges of citizenship were, it will be seen, as carefully guarded
as those of the tribe, but in a more perfunctory and arbitrary manner;
whilst the intimate connection of the members of the family with the
hearth and the graves of their ancestors stands out in strong relief.

By the time of Hesiod, besides the violation of the universal sanctity of
a guest or suppliant, the chief sins are against members of the same
household, defrauding orphans, or insulting an aged parent.(28) Behaviour
to other than blood-relations is regulated by expediency, by what you may
expect in return from your neighbours.(29)

Whether the family is to be regarded as the chief factor in the
composition of the city, or how much of its composition the city owes to
direct inheritance from the tribal system, must, as has been said, be left
unsolved. Some small light may perhaps be shed upon the problem as this
inquiry proceeds.

(M21) At any rate, if the true basis of the organisation of the family and
the kindred, as found in historic times in Greece, could once be
established, material assistance ought to have been gained for rightly
understanding the structure of that earlier society, whatever it was, from
which the rules, that govern those within the bond of kinship, were
survivals.





CHAPTER II. THE MEANING OF THE BOND OF KINSHIP.


παῖδες γὰρ ἀνδρὶ κληδόνες σωτήριοι
θανόντι: φελλοὶ δ᾽ ὥς ἄγουσι δίκτυον,
τὸν ἐκ βυθοῦ κλωστῆρα σώζοντες λίνου.
          _Aeschylus._




§ 1. The Duty Of Maintenance Of Parents During Life, And After Death At
Their Tomb.


(M22) As the hearth was the centre of the sanctity and reverence of the
family, so the word οἶκος was the customary term to signify the smaller
group of the composite γένος, consisting of a man and his immediate
descendants. In the first place, the individual was absolutely committed
to sacrifice all his personal feelings for the sake of the continuity of
his οἶκος, and this was his supreme duty. But whereas several οἶκοι traced
their descent from a common ancestor, a group of gradually diverging lines
of descent were formed, sharing mutually the responsibility of the
maintenance of continuity, and the privilege of inheritance and
protection.

Before examining how far these parallel lines remained within the reach of
claims of kinship, or how soon the reverence for the more immediate
predecessors absorbed the memory of the more remote ancestor, it will be
well to have a clear understanding of what the claims of kindred were, and
how they affected the member of the οἶκος, in respect of his duties
thereto.

(M23) Plato(30) declares that honour should be given to:—

1. Olympian Gods.

2. Gods of the State.

3. Gods below.

4. Demons and Spirits.

5. Heroes.

6. Ancestral Gods.

7. _Living Parents_, “to whom we have to pay the greatest and oldest of
all debts: in property, in person, in soul; paying the debts due to them
for the care and travail which they bestowed on us of old in the days of
our infancy, and which we are now to pay back to them when they are old
and in the extremity of their need.”

(M24) The candidates for the archonship were asked, among other things,
whether they treated their parents properly.(31) It was only in case of
some indelible stain, such as wife-murder, that the debt of maintenance of
the parent was cancelled.(32) Yet even when the father had lost his right
of maintenance by crime or foul treatment, the son was still bound to bury
him when he died and to perform all the customary rites at his tomb.(33)

“Is it not,” says Isaeus, “a most unholy thing, if a man, without having
done any of the customary rites due to the dead, yet expects to take the
inheritance of the dead man’s property?”(34)

(M25) The duty of maintenance of the parent thus extended even beyond the
tomb, and this retrospective attitude of the individual gives us the clue
to his position of responsibility also with regard to posterity.

The strongest representation possible of this attitude is given in the
_Ordinances of Manu_, where it is stated that a man “goes to hell” who has
no son to offer at his death the funeral cake.

(M26) “No world of heaven exists for one not possessed of a son.” The
debt, owed by the living member of a family to his _manes_, was to provide
a successor to perform the rites necessary to them after his own death.


    “By means of the eldest son, as soon as he is born, a man becomes
    possessed of a son and is thus cleared of his debt to the _manes_”


    “A husband is born again on earth in his son.”


    “If among many brothers born of one father, _one_ should have a
    son, Manu said all those brothers would be possessed of sons by
    means of that son.”


_i.e._ one representative was sufficient as regards the duties to the
_manes_ in the house of the grandfather.


    “Thro’ a son one conquers worlds, thro’ a son’s son one attains
    endlessness, and through the son’s son of a son one attains the
    world of the Sun.”


    “The sort of reward one gets on crossing the water by means of bad
    boats is the sort of reward one gets on crossing the darkness (to
    the next world) by means of bad sons.”(35)


(M27) Plato expresses the same feeling in the _Laws_:(36)


    “After a sort the human race naturally partakes of immortality, of
    which all men have the greatest desire implanted in them; for the
    desire of every man that he may become famous, and not lie in the
    grave without a name, is only the love of continuance ... In this
    way they are immortal leaving [children’s] children behind them,
    with whom they are one in the unity of generation. And for a man
    voluntarily to deprive himself of this gift of immortality, as he
    deliberately does who will not have a wife and children, is
    _impiety_.”


The functions and duties of the individual towards his family and
relations thus find their explanation in his position as link, between the
past and the future, in the transmission to eternity of his family blood.

His duties to his ancestors began with the death of his father. He had at
Athens to carry out the corpse, provide for the cremation, gather the
remains of the burnt bones, with the assistance of the rest of the
kindred,(37) and show respect to the dead by the usual form of shaving the
head, wearing mourning clothes, and so on. Nine days after the funeral he
must perform certain sacrifices and periodically after that visit the
tombs and altars of his family in the family burying-place.(38) If he had
occasion to perform military service, he must serve in the tribe and the
deme of his parent (στρατεύειν ἐν τῇ φυλῇ καὶ ἐν τῷ δήμῳ).(39) Before he
can enter into his inheritance he must fulfil all the ordinances incumbent
on one in his position, and in the Gortyn Laws it is stated that an
adopted heir cannot partake of the property of his adoptive father unless
he undertakes the sacred duties of the house of the deceased.(40) Thus the
right of ownership of the family estate rested always with the possession
of the blood of the former owners; and such a representative demonstrated
his right by stepping into his predecessor’s shoes and by taking upon
himself all responsibility for the fulfilment of the rites, thereafter to
be performed to him also when he shall have been gathered to the majority
of his family.




§ 2. The Duty Of Providing Male Succession.


But however piously and carefully he performed his many duties to his
ancestors, his work was only transitory and incomplete, unless he provided
a successor to continue them after him into further generations.

(M28) The procreation of children was held to be of such importance at
Sparta(41) that if a wife had no children, with the full knowledge of her
husband she admitted some other citizen to her, and children born from
such a union were reckoned as born to the continuation of her husband’s
family, without breach of the former relations of husband and wife.(42)
This is the exact custom stated in the _Ordinances of Manu_ (ix. 59),
where it is laid down that a wife can be “commissioned” by her husband to
bear him a son, but she must only take a kinsman within certain degrees,
whose connection with her ceases on the birth of one son.(43) Otherwise it
was a man’s duty to divorce a barren wife and take another. But he must
divorce the first, and could not have two hearths or two wives.(44)

A curious instance of how this sentiment worked in practice in directly
the opposite direction to our modern ideas, is mentioned in Herodotus.
Leaders of forlorn hopes nowadays would be inclined to pick out as
comrades the unmarried men, as having least to sacrifice and fewest duties
to forego. Whereas Leonidas, in choosing the 300 men to make their famous
and fatal stand at Thermopylae, is stated to have selected all _fathers
with sons living_.(45)

Hector is made to use this idea in somewhat similar manner. He encourages
his soldiers with:—


    “If a man fall fighting for his fatherland, it is no dishonourable
    thing: and his wife and his children left behind, and his οἶκος
    and κλῆρος are unharmed, if the Achaians go but back to their own
    country.”(46)


If the enemy are driven out, though he be killed himself, yet if he leave
children behind, his household and their property will remain unharmed.

All about to die, says Isaeus, take thought not to leave their οἶκος
desolate (ἔρημος),(47) but that there shall be some one to carry the name
of their house down to posterity, who shall perform all the customary
rites at the tomb due to them also when they shall have joined the ranks
of ancestors.(48)

Where children were reckoned of the tribe of their father and not of their
mother, and where a woman was incapable of performing sacred rites, a male
heir was necessary for the direct transmission of blood and property. Sons
entered upon their inheritance immediately on the death of their father,
nor had he the power to dispossess them in favour of others, whilst
brothers, cousins, legatees, had always to prove their title and procure
judgment from the court in their favour.(49)

(M29) Failing sons however, the next descent lay through a daughter. Nor
were her qualifications in herself complete or sufficient in theory to
form the necessary link in the chain of succession. The next of kin male
had to marry her with the property of which she was ἐπίκληρος;(50) but
neither she nor he really possessed the property, and the sons born from
the marriage succeeded thereto directly on attaining a certain age. The
next of kin had in the meantime of course to represent his wife’s father
in all the religious observances, and was said to have power to live with
the woman (κύριος συνοικῆσαι τῇ γυναικί), but not to dispose of the
property (κύριος τῶν χρημάτων);(51) the sons becoming κύριοι τῶν χρημάτων
at sixteen years old, and owing thence only maintenance (τρέφειν) to their
mother from the property.(52) The heiress was compelled to marry at a
certain age and was adjudicated by law to the proper kinsman.(53)

Again an exact parallel is to be found in the _Ordinances of Manu_:—


    “One who is without a son should, by the following rule, make his
    daughter provide him a son:—‘The offspring which may be hers shall
    be for me the giver of offerings to the _manes_.’ ”


The whole property of a man is taken by this daughter’s son,(54) and, by
her bearing a son, _her father_ “becomes possessed of a son, who should
give the funeral cake and take the property.”(55)

If she die without a son, her husband would take (presumably by a sort of
adoption).(56) But this would be perfectly natural, if, as in Greece, her
husband was bound to be the next of kin and therefore heir failing issue
from her.

(M30) At Athens it was part of the office of the archon to see that no
οἶκος failed for want of representatives, to constrain a reluctant heiress
to marry or to compel the next of kin to perform his duty. Plato(57) asks
pardon for his imaginary legislator, if he shall be found to give the
daughter of a man in marriage having regard only to the two
conditions—nearness of kin, and the preservation of the property;
disregarding, in his zeal for these, the further considerations, which the
father himself might be expected to have had, with regard to the
suitability of the match.(58)

(M31) A certain leniency was however allowed to the heiress who was
unwilling to marry an obnoxious kinsman, and to the kinsman who had
counterclaims upon him in his own house. Nevertheless the rules remained
very strict. Isaeus states emphatically,(59) “Often have men been
compelled by law to give up their properly wedded wives, owing to their
becoming ἐπίκληροι through the death of their brother to their father’s
property and having to marry the next of kin (τοῖς ἐγγυτάτα γένους),” to
prevent the extinction of their father’s house.

Manu warns those about to marry to be careful that their children shall
not be required to continue their wives’ father’s family, to the
desolation of their own.


    “She who has not a brother ... let not a wise man marry her,
    through fear of the law about a daughter’s son.”(60)


Again Isaeus:—


    “We, because of our nearness of kin, would have been compelled to
    maintain (γηροτροφεῖν) our aged grandfather and either ourselves
    marry Cleonymos’ (our uncle’s) daughters or give them away with
    their portions to others and all this our kinship, the laws, and
    _our shame_ would have compelled us to perform or incur the
    greatest penalties and the _utmost disgrace_.”(61)


(M32) In the laws of Gortyn very clear rules are laid down to be followed
where there were difficulties in the way of the heiress marrying the next
of kin.


    “The heiress shall marry the eldest brother of her father that is
    alive. If there are more heiresses and uncles, they shall ever
    marry the eldest. If there are no uncles but sons of uncles, she
    shall marry the son of her father’s eldest brother. If there are
    more than one heiress and sons of uncles, they shall ever marry
    the son of the eldest in order: but a man shall not marry more
    than one heiress”(62)


There is also a statement made by Demosthenes(63) that sounds as if it
might have come from the _Ordinances of Manu_. It is there stated that if
there were more than one heiress, _only one_ need be dealt with in respect
to _providing succession_, though all shared in the property.

The law of Gortyn goes on:—


    “If the man will not marry her, though of age and wishing to
    marry, the guardians of the heiress shall sue, and the judge shall
    condemn him to marry her in two months. If he will not marry her,
    according to the law, she shall have all the property and shall
    marry the next of kin (after him) if there is one....


    “If she is of age and does not wish to marry the next of kin or if
    he is a minor and she does not wish to wait, she ... can marry
    whom she will of those who claim her of the tribe. But she shall
    apportion off his share of the property to the first of kin.


    “If there are no kin to her, she shall have all the property and
    marry whom she will of the tribe.


    “If no one of the tribe will marry her, her guardians shall ask
    throughout the tribe, ‘ Will any marry her?’ And if any one then
    marries her, he shall do it in thirty days after the ‘asking.’ But
    if there is still no one, she shall marry any one else she can.”


Such pains were taken to find a representative for the deceased in his
family, or at any rate in his _tribe_.(64)

(M33) The same questions seem to have arisen amongst the Israelites in the
time of Moses.


    Numbers xxxvi. 8. “And every daughter that possesseth an
    inheritance (LXX. ἀγχιστεύουσα κληρονομίαν) in any tribe of the
    children of Israel, shall be wife unto one of the family of the
    tribe of her father (ἐνὶ τῶν ἐκ τοῦ δήμου τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτῆς), that
    the children of Israel may enjoy (ἀγχιστεύειν) every man the
    inheritance of his fathers.


    “Even as the Lord commanded Moses, so did the daughters of
    Zelophehad.


    “For Mahlah, Tirzah and Hoglah, and Milcah, and Noah, the
    daughters of Zelophehad, were married unto their father’s
    brother’s sons (LXX. τοῖς ἀνεψιοῖς αὐτῶν).”




§ 3. The Position Of The Widow Without Child And The Duties Of An Only
Daughter.


(M34) The _levirate_, or marriage with deceased husband’s brother, seems
to have had no place in Greek family law. The wife was of no _kin_
necessarily to the husband; and so it would not tend to strengthen the
transmission of blood if the next of kin married the widow on taking the
inheritance of his relative deceased without issue. The wife in Greek law
could not inherit from her husband, whose property went to his father’s or
mother’s relations; and only when it became a question of finding an heir
to her _son_, and failing all near paternal kinsmen, could the inheritance
pass through her, and then as the mother of her dead son, not as widow of
her dead husband. Even then, being a woman, she had no right of enjoyment,
only of transmission. She could only inherit on behalf of her issue by a
second husband, and failing her issue the inheritance would pass to her
brothers and so on. In Greece the claim upon the δαήρ (Latin _levir_) for
marriage seems to have begun with his brother’s daughter, not his
brother’s widow.

(M35) The childless widow on the death of her husband had to return to her
own family or whoever of her kindred was guardian (κύριος) of her, and if
she wished, be given again in marriage by him.(65)

The woman at Athens even after marriage always retained her κύριος or
guardian,(66) who was at once her protector and trustee. He was probably
the head of the οἶκος to which she originally belonged—her next of kin—and
had great power over her.(67)

A case there is(68) where the heir to the property also takes the wife of
the previous owner; but in this case the husband may have been κύριος of
his own wife, and so could bequeath, or give her away to whomever he
liked.(69)

In the _Ordinances of Manu_, the limitations of the levirate are very
strictly defined.(70) In the case of a man leaving a widow, she must not
marry again, or she lost her place in heaven by his side.

But if she was childless, the next of kin of her husband must beget one
son by her; he did not _marry_ her, and his connection with her _ceased on
the birth of a son_.

(M36) The laws of Manu otherwise are strict against the marriage of close
relations; a restriction not found in Greece.

Isaeus(71) mentions that it was thought quite natural for a man to marry
his first cousin in order to concentrate the family blood, and prevent her
dowry or whatever property might come to her from going outside his οἶκος,
and we know that even marriage with a half-sister (not born of the same
mother) was not forbidden.

There are more instances than one in Homer of a man marrying his aunt, or
niece.

The nearest resemblance to the levirate in Greece is the occasional custom
at Sparta, mentioned already, of a wife being “commissioned” to bear
children by another man into the family of her husband. But this exists in
Manu, side by side with the above-mentioned custom of levirate proper.

(M37) Among the Israelites, the levirate was in full force; the craving
for continuance was the same as among the followers of Manu and the
Greeks; and the custom with regard to heiresses is so vividly told that it
is worth quoting at some length.


    Deut. xxv. 5. “If brethren dwell together and one of them die and
    have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a
    stranger: her husband’s brother [_i.e._ next of kin] shall go in
    unto her and take her to him to wife and perform the duty of an
    husband’s brother to her.


    “And it shall be that the firstborn which she beareth shall
    _succeed in the name of his brother that is dead_, that his name
    be not put out of Israel.


    “And if the man like not to take his brother’s wife, then let his
    brother’s wife go up to the gate unto the elders and say, ‘My
    husband’s brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in
    Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband’s brother.’


    “Then the elders of his city shall call him and speak unto him:
    and if he stand to it and say, ‘I like not to take her,’ then
    shall his brother’s wife come unto him in the presence of the
    elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his
    face, and shall answer and say: ‘So shall it be done unto that man
    that will not build up his brother’s house (LXX. οἶκος).’


    “And his name shall be called in Israel, ‘The house (οἶκος) of him
    that hath his shoe loosed.’ ”


(M38) Such was the scorn felt for the man who refused to perform the
duties of nearest kinsman. In the thirty-eighth chapter of Genesis is told
the story of Tamar, the wife of Judah’s eldest son who died childless. The
second son’s refusal to raise up seed to his brother because he knows that
_his own name will not be perpetuated thereby, but his brother’s_, meets
with summary punishment. “And the thing that he did was evil in the sight
of the Lord, and He slew him also.”(72) Afterwards, when it was reported
to her father-in-law that Tamar had a child by some one not of his family,
he was exceedingly wroth, and said, “Bring her forth and let her be
burnt.” Accordingly, after he had received his own “tokens” from her hand,
his approval of her action, in her desire to perpetuate the name of her
dead husband, is all the more striking, and shows how real such a claim as
Tamar’s was in the practice of those days, extreme though her action was
felt to be. And Judah acknowledged his tokens and said, “She hath been
more righteous than I: because that I gave her not to Shelah my [youngest]
son.”

(M39) The statement of the customary procedure in Deuteronomy is very
picturesquely illustrated and fulfilled in detail in the story of Ruth,
who though only a daughter-in-law takes the position of heiress through a
sort of adoption by her mother-in-law Naomi, on her refusal to go back to
her own people. “Where thou goest, I will go: where thou lodgest, I will
lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God, my God. Where thou
diest will I die, and there will I be buried.” She accepts Naomi’s hearth
her kin, her religion, and finally her tomb.

Elimelech and his two sons dying in Moab, Naomi and both her
daughters-in-law are left widows in a strange land. If Naomi had other
sons, upon them would have devolved the duty of taking Orpah and Ruth to
wife. But Naomi declares herself(73) too old to marry again and be the
mother of sons, and implores her daughters-in-law to return to their own
people in Moab, where she hopes they will start afresh with new husbands,
a course which seems always to have been open to wives in tribal
communities. Orpah does so, but Ruth elects to remain with Naomi, and
returning with her to Bethlehem takes her chance among the kindred of
Elimelech. Happening to arrive at Bethlehem at the beginning of the barley
harvest, it so chances that Ruth goes forth to glean upon that part of the
open field which belonged to Boaz—a rich man of the συγγενία of Elimelech,
who, having heard of her devotion to Naomi and the house of his late
kinsmen, protects her from possible insult from strangers and treats her
richly. On her return home Naomi informs her that Boaz is of their next of
kin (τῶν ἀγχιστευόντων)(74) whose place it was to redeem property sold or
lost by a kinsman. This duty is thus set forth in Leviticus:—


    (M40) Lev. xxv. 25. “And if thy brother be waxen poor and sell
    some of his possession, then shall his kinsman (ἀγχιστεύων) that
    is next to him come and shall redeem that which his brother hath
    sold.”


An instance of it in practice is given in Jeremiah.


    Jerem. xxxii. 8. “So Hanameel mine uncle’s son came to me in the
    court of the guard according to the word of the Lord and said unto
    me, ‘Buy my field, I pray thee, that is in Anathoth which is in
    the land of Bethlehem: for the right of inheritance is thine, and
    the redemption is thine: buy it for thyself.’ ”


But on Ruth’s applying to Boaz, he informs her that though he is
ἀγχιστεύς, _i.e._ within the reach of the claim on the next of kin, yet is
there one ἀγχιστεύς who is nearer than he, and who must first be asked.


    “Now Boaz went up to the gate and sat down there, and behold the
    near kinsman of whom Boaz spake came by, unto whom he said, ‘Ho,
    such an one! turn, aside, sit down here,’ and he turned aside and
    sat down. And he took ten men of the elders of the city and said,
    ‘Sit ye down here,’ and they sat down. And he said unto the near
    kinsman, ‘Naomi that is come again out of the country of Moab
    selleth the parcel of land which was our brother Ehmelech’s: and I
    thought to disclose it to thee, saying, “Buy it before them that
    sit here and before the elders of my people.” If thou wilt redeem
    it, redeem it; but if thou wilt not redeem it, tell me that I may
    know; for there is none to redeem it beside thee, and I am after
    thee.’ And he said, ‘I will redeem it.’ Then said Boaz, ‘What day
    thou buyest the field of the hand of Naomi thou must buy it also
    of Ruth the Moabitess, _the wife of the dead, to raise up the name
    of the dead upon his inheritance_.’ And the near kinsman said, ‘I
    cannot redeem it for myself _lest I mar my own inheritance_; take
    thou my right of redemption on thee; for I cannot redeem it.’ ”


The rendering of the Vulgate of the kinsman’s reply is more easily
understood:—“I yield up my right of near kinship: for neither ought I to
blot out the continuance (_posteritas_) of my family: do thou use my
privilege, which I declare that I freely renounce.”


    “And he drew off his shoe. And Boaz said unto the elders and unto
    all the people, ‘Ye are witnesses this day that I have bought all
    that was Elimelech’s ... Chilion’s and Mahlon’s of the hand of
    Naomi. Moreover Ruth, the wife of Mahlon, have I purchased to be
    my wife to _raise up the name of the dead_ upon his inheritance,
    that the name of the dead be not cut off from among his brethren
    and from the gate of his place: ye are witnesses this day.’ And
    all the people that were in the gate and the elders said, ‘We are
    witnesses ... May thy house be like the house of Perez whom Tamar
    bare unto Judah’ &c.”


Now Boaz was sixth in descent from this Perez whose mother Tamar, as
quoted above, had been in much the same position as Ruth.

It is interesting to read further that the son born of this marriage of
Ruth and Boaz is taken by the women of Bethlehem to Naomi, saying, “_There
is a son born to Naomi_,” emphasising the duty of the heiress to bear a
son, not into her husband’s family, but to that of her father.

The story of Ruth is not, therefore, an exact example of the custom of
levirate. But it illustrates incidentally the unity of the family. The
sons of Elimelech died before the family division had taken place, and the
house of Elimelech their father was thus in jeopardy of extinction. If
Naomi had come within the proper operation of the levirate, the next of
kin ought to have married _her_, but by her adoption of Ruth as her
daughter, she gave Ruth the position of heiress or ἐπίκληρος, whilst the
heir born to Ruth was called son, not of Ruth’s former or present husband,
but of Elimelech and (by courtesy) of Naomi, Elimelech’s widow, through
whom the issue ought otherwise to have been found.




§ 4. Succession Through A Married Daughter: Growth Of Adoption:
Introduction Of New Member To Kinsmen.


(M41) But if the heiress was already married and had sons, she need not be
divorced and marry the next of kin, though that still lay in her power. It
was considered sufficient if she set apart one of her sons to be heir to
her father’s house. But she must do this absolutely: her son must entirely
leave her husband’s house and be enfranchised into the house of her
father. If she did not do this with all the necessary ceremonies, the
house of her father would become extinct, which would be a lasting shame
upon her.

Isaeus(75) mentions a case where a wife inherits from her deceased brother
a farm and persuades her husband to emancipate their second son in order
that he may carry on the family of her brother and take the property.

(M42) In another passage(76) the conduct of married sisters in not
appointing one of their own sons to take his place as son in the house of
their deceased brother, and in absorbing the property into that of their
husbands, whereby the οἶκος of their brother became ἔρημος, is described
as shameful (αἰσχρῶς).

In Demosthenes(77) a man behaving in similar wise is stigmatised as
ὑβριστής.

(M43) Herein lay the reason that adoption became so favourite a means in
classical times of securing an heir. It became almost a habit among the
Athenians who had no sons, to adopt an heir—often even the next of kin who
would naturally have succeeded to the inheritance.(78)

The transfer of the adopted son from the οἶκος of his father to the οἶκος
he was chosen to represent was so real that he lost all claim to
inheritance in his original family, and henceforth based his relationship
and rights of kinship from his new position as son of his adoptive father.
This absolutely insured the childless man that his successor would not
merge the inheritance in that of another οἶκος, and made it extremely
unlikely that he would neglect his religious duties as they would be
henceforth his own ancestral rites.

Sometimes, it seems,(79) sons of an unfortunate father were adopted into
another οἶκος so as not to share in the disgrace brought upon their
family. In such a case presumably their father’s house would be allowed to
become extinct.

(M44) The inheritance of property being only an accessory to the
heirship,(80) the ceremony of adoption consisted of an introduction to the
kindred and to the ancestral altars, and an assumption of the
responsibilities connected therewith.

(M45) The process was the same as for the proclamation of the true blood
of a son, and was exactly in accordance with tribal instincts.

Whatever the history of the φρατρία at Athens, in it seems to have been
accumulated a great number of the survivals of tribal sentiment.

(M46) The adoption at Athens took place at the gathering of the phratores
in order that all the kin might be present (παρόντων τῶν συγγενῶν).(81)
The adopter must lead his son to the sacrifices on the altars(82) and must
show him to the kinsmen (συγγενεῖς or γεννῆται) and phratores: he must
give assurance on the sacrifices that the young man was born in lawful
wedlock from free citizens. This done, and no one questioning his rights,
the assembly proceeded to vote(83) and if the vote was in his favour, then
and not till then he was enrolled in the common register (εἰς τὸ κοινὸν
γραμματεῖον) of the phratria in the name of son of his adopted father. As
a father could not without reason disinherit his true-born sons, so the
phratores could not without reason refuse to accept them to the
kinship.(84)

If any of the phratores objected to the admission of the new kinsman, he
must stop the sacrifices and remove the victim from the altar.(85) He
would have to state the grounds of his objection, and if he could not
produce good reasons, he incurred a fine. If there was no objection, the
unsacrificial parts of the victim were divided up and each member took
home with him his share,(86) or joined in a feast provided by the father
of the admitted son.(87)

(M47) The ceremonial given in the Gortyn laws is similar:—


    x. 33. “The adoption shall take place in the agora when all the
    citizens have assembled, from the stone from which speeches are
    made. And the adopter shall give to his own brotherhood (ἑταιρεία)
    a victim-for-sacrifice and a vessel of wine (πρόκοος).”


The adopted son gets all the property and shall fulfil the divine and
human duties of his adoptive father(88) and shall inherit as in the law
for true-born sons. But if he does not fulfil them according to law, the
next of kin shall take the property. He can only renounce his adoption by
paying a fine.

The adopted son thus introduced was considered to have become of the blood
of his adoptive father, and was unable to leave his new family and return
to his original home unless he left in the adoptive house a son to carry
on the name to posterity. As long as he remained in the other οἶκος,
_i.e._ had not provided for his succession and by certain legal ceremonies
been readmitted to his former family, he was considered of no relationship
to them and had no right of inheritance in their goods.(89)

An adopted son could not adopt or devise by will, and if he did not
provide for the succession by leaving a son to follow him, the property
went back into the family and to the next of kin of his adopted
father.(90)

If he did return to his former οἶκος, leaving a son in his place and that
son died, he could not return and take the property thus left without heir
direct.(91)

(M48) Adoption amongst the Hindoos took place in like manner before the
convened kindred. The adopting father offered a burnt-offering, and with
recitation of holy words in the middle of his dwelling completed the
adoption with these words:—


    “I take thee for the fulfilment of my religious duties; I take
    thee to continue the line of my ancestors.”(92)


The adopted son should be as near a relation as possible, and when once
the ceremony had taken place, was considered to have as completely lost
his position in his former family as if he had never been born
therein.(93)

(M49) The introduction into the deme which took place at the age of
eighteen at Athens, including the enrolment in the ληξιαρχικόν
γραμματεῖον, seems to have been a registration of rights of property and
an assumption of the full status of citizen. The word ληξιαρχικός is
defined by Harpocration as meaning “capable of managing the ancestral
estate (τὰ πατρῷα οἰκονομεῖν).” The word λῆξις is used by Isaeus for the
application, by others than direct descendants, to the Archon for the
necessary powers to take their property.

It appears to have been at this period that the young man left the ranks
of boyhood and dedicated himself to the responsibilities of his life.

(M50) Plutarch(94) states that it was the custom at coming of age to
tonsure the head and offer the hair to some god, and describes the young
Theseus as adopting what we know as the Celtic tonsure, thenceforth called
after his name.


    “The custom still being in existence at that time for those
    quitting childhood to go to Delphi and dedicate(95) their hair to
    the god, Theseus also went to Delphi (and the place is still
    called after him the Theseia, so they say) and _shaved the hair of
    his head in front only_ (ἐκείρατο τὰ πρόσθεν μόνον) Homer says the
    Abantes do:(96) and this kind of tonsure (κουρά) is called
    ‘Theseis’ because of him. Now the Abantes first shaved themselves
    in this manner, not in imitation of the Arabs(97) as some have it,
    nor even in emulation of the Mysians, but being a warlike people
    and fighting hand to hand, ... as Archilochos testifies. For this
    reason Alexander is said to have ordered his Macedonians to shave
    their beards....”


This cutting the hair as token of dedication to any particular object or
deity was of common occurrence. Achilles’ hair was dedicated as an
offering to the river Spercheios in case of his safe return.(98) Knowing
that this is impossible, in his grief at the death of Patroklos, with
apologies to the god he cuts his flowing locks and lays them in the hand
of his dead friend.

Pausanias declares that it was the custom with all the Greeks to dedicate
their hair to rivers.(99)

Theophrastus(100) mentions as a characteristic of the man of Petty
Ambition that he will “take his son away to Delphi to have his hair cut
(ἀποκεῖραι),” showing that this venerable custom had by that time become
pedantic and an object of ridicule.

According to Athenaeus,(101) when the young men cut their hair they
brought a large cup of wine to Herakles and, pouring a libation, offered
it to the assembled people to drink.

The age at which the hair was cut seems to have varied. The _Ordinances of
Manu_(102) give the following instructions:—


    “The Keçanta (tonsure-rite) is ordered in the sixteenth year(103)
    of a Brahman, in the twenty-second of a Ksatriya, and in two years
    more after that for a Vaiçya.”


But whenever the actual tonsure was performed, it seems to have been a
very widely spread custom, symbolical in some way of devotion to a deity
or kindred, or to some particular course of life.

Its importance in this place, however, lies in its being one of the
special acts relating to the admission to tribal status, and to the
devotion, so to speak, of the services of the individual to the corporate
needs of his tribe or kindred.

The public introduction to the kindred, combined with publicity of
marriage and of the birth of children would, it is obvious, be a very
important protection for the preservation of the jealously guarded purity
of the tribal blood. Isaeus(104) says that all relations (προσήκοντες),
all the phratores, and most (οἱ πολλοί) of the demesmen would know whom a
man married, and what children he had. This, in addition to the oath
(πίστις) of the father or of the mother(105) of the legitimacy of the son
introduced to his kin, would seem a very sufficient safeguard.(106)

If a child was not introduced to the phratores, it was considered
illegitimate,(107) and could have no share in the rites of kindred and
property.(108)




§ 5. The Liability For Bloodshed.


(M51) A notable feature of the tribal system all over the world was the
_blood-feud_, wiped out only by the death of the manslayer or by the
payment of a sufficient recompense. The incidence of the responsibility
for murder and for payment of the recompense upon a group instead of only
on the guilty individual was of remarkable tenacity, and survived to
comparatively late days.

In Arabia the whole tribe of the murderer subscribed to the blood-money,
which went to all the males in the tribe of the murdered man.(109)

But in Greece the responsibility fell upon the next of kin, with the help
and under the supervision of the rest of the immediate kindred. He had to
see that a spear was carried in front of the funeral of the slain man and
planted in his grave, which must be watched for three days.(110) He must
make proclamation of the foul deed at the tomb, and must undergo
purificatory rites, himself and his whole house (οἰκία). If the dead body
be found in the country and no cause of death known, the demarch must
compel the relatives to bury the corpse and to purify the deme on the same
day.(111)

The subject is a familiar one in Homer. The wanderer (μετανάστης) is said
to have no value (he is ἀτίμητος), no fine is exacted for his death.


    _Il._ xiv. 483. “That my brother’s price (κασιγνήτοιο ποινή) be
    not unpaid: even for this it is that a man may well pray to have
    some kinsman in his halls (γνωτὸν ἐνὶ μεγάροισιν) to avenge
    (ἀλκτήρ) his fall.”


    _Il._ ix. 634. “Yet doth a man accept recompense of his brother’s
    murderer: or for his dead son: and so the manslayer for a great
    price abideth in his own land (ἐν δήμῳ) and the other’s heart is
    appeased and his proud soul, when he hath taken the
    recompense.”(112)


(M52) There are many men told of in the _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_ who were in
the position of refugees at the court of some chief. As many of them were
wealthy—chiefs’ sons or even chiefs—and well able to pay large
recompenses, it seems probable that (as is definitely stated in some
instances), if the murder was committed on a member of the same family or
tribe as the murderer, the only way to wipe out the stain was by death or
perpetual exile, as in the case of the typical fratricide Cain. The
blood-price was then only between tribe and tribe or city and city. Within
the kindred there would be no ransom allowed.(113)

Medon had slain the brother of his step-mother and was a fugitive from his
country.(114)

Epeigeus _ruled_ (ἤνασσε) fairest Boudeion of old, but having slain a good
man of his kin (ανεψιόν), to Peleus fled, a suppliant.(115)

Tlepolemos slew his own father’s maternal uncle, gathered much folk
together and fled across the sea, because the other sons and grandsons of
his father threatened him.(116)


    _Il._ xxiv. 479. “And as when a grievous curse cometh upon a man
    who in his own country (ἐνὶ πάτρη) hath slain another and escapeth
    to a land of other folk (δῆμον ἄλλων) to the house of some rich
    man, and wonder possesseth them that look on him....”(117)


    _Od._ xv. 272. “Having slain a man of my tribe (ἔμφυλον): and many
    are his relations (κασίγνητοι) and kinsmen (ἔται) in Argos: at
    their hands do I shun death and black fate and am in exile.”


    _Od._ xxiii. 118. “For whoso hath slain but one man in his country
    (ἐνὶ δήμῳ) for whom there be not many avengers (ἀοσσητῆρες)
    behind, he fleeth leaving his kin (πηούς) and his fatherland, how
    then we who have slain the pillar of the state!”


(M53) If ransom there was none for the murderer within the tribe, there
was equally none for murders between citizen and citizen,—in this point
also the inheritors of the sentiments of tribesmen. In the law of
Solon(118) it was forbidden to take payment in compensation from the
murderer:—


    “The murderer can be slain in our land, not tortured, not held to
    ransom (μηδὲ ἀποινᾷν).”


Plato(119) describes the soul of the deceased as troubled with a great
anger against the murderer, so that even the innocent and unintentional
homicide must needs flee at any rate for a year. The presence too of a man
thus denied with bloodshed at the sacred altars was held to be a gross
impiety and source of divine anger. Plato(120) says:—


    “The murderer shall be slain, but not buried in the country (χώρα)
    of the deceased, which would be a disgrace and impiety.”(121)


In the case of a suicide, the hand that committed the crime was to be cut
off and buried separately.

In Isacus(122) it is related how Euthukrates in a quarrel over a
boundary-stone was so flogged by his _brother_ Thoudippos that, dying some
days after, he charged his friends (οἱκεῖοι) not to allow any of
Thoudippos’ people (τῶν Θουδίππου) to approach his tomb. But if the
murdered man before his death forgave his murderer, the relatives could
not proceed against him.

If the murderer escaped fleeing he must go forever: if he returned he
could be killed at sight by any one and with impunity.(123) The pollution
rested on the whole kindred of the murdered man.


    “Whosoever _being related to the deceased_ on the male or female
    side of those within the cousinship shall not prosecute the
    murderer when he ought or proclaim him outlaw, he shall _take upon
    himself __ the pollution_ and the hatred of the gods ... and he
    shall be in the power of any who is willing to avenge the
    dead.”(124)


The pollution cannot be washed out until the homicidal soul has given life
for life and has laid to sleep the wrath of the whole family
(ξυγγένια).(125)

If it is a beast that has killed the man, it shall be slain to propitiate
the kin and atone for the blood shed.

If it is a lifeless thing that has caused death, it shall solemnly be cast
out before witnesses to acquit the whole family from guilt.(126)

Amongst the Israelites, treating of homicides _amongst themselves_,
compensation was forbidden in like manner.


    Numbers xxxv. 31. “Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the
    life of a murderer which is guilty of death: but he shall surely
    be put to death.


    “... The land cannot be cleansed of blood that is shed therein but
    by the blood of him that shed it.”


Let us complete this subject with the following story told by
Herodotus:(127)—Adrastus, having slain his brother, flees to the court of
Croesus. There he becomes as a son to Croesus and a brother to Atys,
Croesus’ son. This Atys Adrastus has the terrible misfortune to slay,
thereby incurring a three-fold pollution. He has brought down upon himself
the triple wrath of Zeus Katharsios, Ephestios, and Hetaireios: he has
violated his own innocence, his protector’s hearth, and the comradeship of
his friend.

In despair he commits suicide.





CHAPTER III. THE EXTENT OF THE BOND OF KINSHIP.


    Arctior vero colligatio est societatis propinquorum: ab illa enim
    immensa societate humani generis in exiguam angustumque
    concluditur.


    _Cicero_.




§ 1. Degrees Of Blood-Relationship; The Ἀγχιστεία.


(M54) Such being the character of the burden of mutual responsibility
borne by members of kindred blood, it remains, if possible, to obtain some
idea of how this responsibility became narrowed and limited to the nearest
relations, and what was the meaning underlying the distinction drawn
between certain degrees of relationship.

When examining the more detailed structure of the organisation of the
kindred, considerable light seems to be thrown upon survivals in Athens by
comparison with the customs of other communities, which were undergoing
earlier stages of the same process of crystallisation from the condition
of semi-nomadic tribes into that of settled provinces or kingdoms.

(M55) In the Gortyn Laws we read:—


    iv. 24. “The father shall have power over the children and the
    property to divide it amongst them.... As long as they (the
    parents) are alive, _there is no necessity for division_.... If a
    man or woman die their children, or grandchildren, or
    great-grandchildren, shall have the property....”


The headship of the οἶκος and the ownership of the property vested in the
parent as long as he lived and wished to maintain his power. Even after
his death, unless they wished it, the sons need not divide up amongst
themselves, but could live on with joint ownership in the one οἶκος of
their deceased father. The eldest son would probably take the house
itself, _i.e._ the hearth, with the duties to the family altars which
devolved upon him as head of the family.(128)

An example of this joint ownership occurs in the speech of Demosthenes
against Leochares.(129) The two sons of Euthumachos after his death gave
their sister in marriage (no doubt with her proper portion), and lived
separately but _without dividing_ their inheritance (τὴν οὐσίαν ἀνέμητον).
Even after the marriage of one brother, they still left the property
undivided, each living on his share of the income, one in Athens, the
other in Salamis.

The possibility of thus living in one οἶκος and on an undivided patrimony
is implied in another passage in Demosthenes, where, however, the exact
opposite is described as actually having taken place.(130)

Bouselos had five sons. He divided (διένειμεν τὴν οὐσίαν) his substance
amongst them all as was fair and right, and they married wives and begat
children and children’s children. Thus _five_ οἶκοι sprang up out of the
one of Bouselos, and _each brother dwelt apart_, having his own οἶκος and
bringing up his own offspring (ἔκγονοι) himself (χωρὶς ἕκαστος ᾤκει).

Whilst the parents were alive the family naturally held very closely
together, and often probably lived in one patriarchal household like
Priam’s at Troy.

Isaeus declares:—The law commands that we maintain (τρέφειν) our parents
(γονεῖς): these are—parents, grandparents and _their parents_, if they are
still alive:


    “For they are the beginning (ἀρχή) of the family (γένος) and their
    estate descends to their offspring (ἔκγονοι): wherefore it is
    necessary to maintain them even if they leave nothing.”(131)


The duty of maintenance (τρέφειν) owed to the ancestor would follow the
same relationship as the right of inheritance from him, and this common
debt towards their living forebears could not help further consolidating
the group of descendants already bound together by common rites at the
tombs of the dead.

But granted this community of rights and debts, is it possible to
formulate for the Greeks anything of the same limitations in the incidence
of responsibility amongst blood-relations that is to be found elsewhere?

(M56) In western Europe, owing perhaps to the influence of Christianity,
the rites of ancestor-worship have no prominence. Ecclesiastical influence
however was unable to prevent an exceedingly complex subdivision of the
kindred existing in Wales and elsewhere. Whether this subdivision finds
its _raison d’être_ in the worship of ancestors or not, the groups thus
formed serve as units for sustaining the responsibilities incident to
tribal life, and being, as will be seen, governed by similar
considerations to those existing among the Greeks, they afford very
suitable material for comparison, and throw considerable light upon one
another.

(M57) As the various departments affected by blood-relationship or purity
of descent come under notice, it will be seen that the position of
_great-grandson_ as at once limiting the immediate family of his parents
and heading a new family of descendants is marked with peculiar emphasis.

(M58) In the ancient laws of Wales it rests with great-grandsons to make
the final division of their inheritance and start new households.

Second cousins may demand redivision of the heritage descending (and
perhaps already divided up in each generation between) from their
great-grandfather. After second cousins no redivision or co-equation can
be claimed.(132)

In the meanwhile the oldest living parents maintained their influence in
family matters. In the story of Kilhwch and Olwen, in the _Mabinogion_,
the father of Olwen, before betrothing her to Kilhwch, declares that “her
four great-grandmothers and her four great-grandsires are yet alive; it is
needful that I take counsel of them.”(133)

(M59) Even when feudalism refused to acknowledge other than an individual
responsibility for a fief, it was unable to overcome the tribal theory of
the indivisibility of the family, which maintained its unity in some
places even under a feudal exterior. But as generations proceeded, and the
relationships within the family diverged beyond the degree of second
cousin, a natural breaking up seems to have taken place, though in the
direction of subinfeudation under the feudal enforcement of the rule of
primogeniture, instead of the practice, more in accordance with tribal
instincts, of equal division and enfranchisement. It may however be
surmised that the subdivision and subinfeudation of a holding in the
occupation of such a group of kinsmen would be carried out by the
formation of further similar groups.

(M60) In the _Coustumes du Pais de Normandie_ mention is made of such a
method of land-holding, called _parage_. It consists of an undivided
tenure of brothers and relations _within the degree of second cousins_.

The eldest does homage to the capital lord for all the _paragers_. The
younger and their descendants hold of the eldest without homage, until the
relationship comes to the _sixth degree inclusive_ (_i.e._ second
cousins). When the lineage is beyond the sixth degree, the heirs of the
cadets have to do homage to the heirs of the eldest or to whomsoever has
acquired the fief. Then _parage_ ceases.(134)

The tenure then becomes one of subinfeudation. As long as the _parage_
continued, the share of a deceased _parager_ would be dealt with by
redivision of rights, and no question would arise of finding heirs. But
when it became a question of finding an heir to the group, failing heirs
in the seventh degree inclusive, that is, son of second cousins—looked
upon as son to the group—failing such an heir, the estate escheated to the
lord.

(M61) There is an interesting passage in the Ancient Laws of Wales
ordaining that the next-of-kin shall not inherit as heir to his deceased
kinsman, but as heir to the ancestor, who, apart from himself, would be
without direct heir, _i.e._ presumably their common ancestor.


    “No person is to obtain the land of a _co-heir_, as of a brother,
    or of a cousin, or of a second cousin, by claiming it as heir to
    that one co-heir who shall have died without leaving an heir of
    his body: but by claiming it as heir _to one of his own parents_,
    who had been owner of that land until his death without heir,
    whether a father, or grandfather, or great-grandfather: that land
    he is to have, if he be the nearest of kin to the deceased.”(135)


This of course refers to inheritance within the group of co-heirs, the
members of which held their position by virtue of their common
relationship within certain degrees to the founder. And we may infer that
emphasis was thus laid on the proof of relationship by _direct descent_,
in order to prevent shares in the inheritance passing from hand to hand
unnoticed, beyond the strict limit where subdivision could be claimed _per
capita_ by the individual representatives of the diverging _stirpes_.

(M62) The kindred in the _Ordinances of Manu_ is divided into two groups:—

1. Sapindas, who owe the _funeral cake_ at the tomb.

2. Samānodakas, who pour the _water libation_ at the tomb.


    “To _three ancestors_ the water libation must be made; for _three
    ancestors_ the funeral cake is prepared; the fourth (descendant or
    generation) is the giver (of the water and the cake); the _fifth
    has properly nothing to do_ (with either gift).”(136)


This may be put in tabular form:—

Receivers of water.

1. Great-grandfather’s great-grandfather.
2. Great-grandfather’s grandfather.
3. Great-grandfather’s father.

Receivers of cake.

1. Great-grandfather.
2. Grandfather.
3. Father.
4. Giver of cake and water
5. Excluded

Or inversely:—

Givers of cake or _Sapindas_.

Householder
Brothers
1st cousins
2nd cousins

Pourers of water or _Samānodakas_.

3rd cousins
4th cousins
5th cousins

Within the _Sapinda_-ship of his mother, a “twice-born” man may not
marry.(137) Outside the _Sapinda_-ship, a wife or widow, “commissioned” to
bear children to the name of her husband, must not go.


    “Now _Sapinda_-ship ceases with the seventh person, but the
    relationship of a Samānodaka (ends) with the ignorance of birth
    and name.”(138)


All are Sapindas who offer the cake to the same ancestors.

(M63) The head of the family would himself offer or share with all his
descendants in the offering of the one cake to his great-grandfather, his
grandfather, and his father. And if this passage is taken in conjunction
with the one quoted just above, the number sharing in the cake-offering,
limited as in the text at the seventh person from the first ancestor who
receives the cake, is just sufficient to include the great-grandson of the
head of the family, supposed to be making the offering.

The group, thus sharing the same cake-offering, would in the natural
course be moving continually downwards, generation by generation as the
head of the family died, thereby causing the great-grandfather to pass
from the receivers of the cake-offering to the receivers of the water
libation, and admitting the great-grandson’s son into the number of
Sapindas who shared the cake-offering. And at no time would more than four
generations have a share in the same cake offered to the three nearest
ancestors of the head of the family.

(M64) The Samānodakas, or pourers of the water libation appear to have
been similarly grouped.

“Ignorance of birth and name” was in Wales considered to be equivalent to
_beyond fifth cousins_. According to the Gwentian Code, “there is no
proper name in kin further than that”—_i.e._ fifth cousins.(139) And this
tallies exactly with the previous quotation from Manu limiting the water
libation to three generations of ancestors beyond those to whom the cake
is due, which, as has been seen, includes fifth cousins.

And it must be borne in mind that fifth cousins are great-grandsons of the
great-grandsons of their common ancestor, or two generations of groups of
second cousins.

(M65) It was extremely improbable that a man would see further than his
great-grandchildren born to him before his death. And it might also
occasionally occur in times of war or invasion that a man’s sons and
grandsons might go out to serve as soldiers, leaving the old man and his
young great-grandchildren at home.

If the fighting members of the family were killed, the great-grandsons
(who would be second cousins or nearer to each other) would have to
inherit directly from their great-grandfather: and thus, especially in
cases where the property was held undivided after the father’s death, we
can easily see that second cousins (_i.e._ all who traced back to the
common great-grandfather) might be looked upon as forming a natural limit
to the immediate descendants in any one οἶκος, and as the furthest removed
who could claim shares of the ancestral inheritance.

After the death of the great-grandfather or head of the house, his
descendants would probably wish to divide up the estate and start new
houses of their own. The eldest son was generally named after his father’s
father,(140) and would carry on the name of the eldest branch of his
great-grandfather’s house, and would be responsible for the proper
maintenance of the rites on that ancestor’s tomb. He would also be
guardian of any brotherless woman or minor amongst his cousins, each of
whom would be equally responsible to him and to each other for all the
duties and privileges entailed upon blood-relationship.

Thus seems naturally to spring up an inner group of blood-relations
closely drawn together by ties which only indirectly reached other and
outside members of the γένος.

(M66) In the fourth century B.C. this compact group limited to second
cousins still survived at Athens, responsible to each other for
succession, by inheritance or by marriage of a daughter; for vengeance and
purification after injury received by any member, and for all duties
shared by kindred blood.

This close relation was called ἀγχιστεία, and all its members were called
ἀγχιστεῖς _i.e._ any one upon whom the claim upon the next-of-kin might at
any time fall.

The speech of Demosthenes against Makartatos affords considerable
information as to the constitution of the family-group or οἶκος. The five
sons of Bouselos,(141) we are told, on his death divided his substance
amongst them, and each started a new οἶκος and begat children and
children’s children.(142) The action, which was the occasion of the
speech, lay between the great-grandsons of two of these five founders of
οἶκοι, Stratios and Hagnias, and had reference to the disposal of the
estate of the grandson of the latter, which had come into the hands of the
great-grandson of Stratios.

One might have supposed that the descendants of Bouselos, with their
common burial ground(143) and so forth, would have ranked as all in the
same οἶκος under their title of Bouselidai. But it is clear from this
speech of Demosthenes, that too many generations had already passed to
admit of Bouselos being considered as still head of an unbroken οἶκος, and
that his _great_-great-grandsons were subdivided into separate οἶκοι under
the names of their respective great-grandfathers, Stratios, Hagnias, &c.
(οἵ εἰσιν ἐκ τοῦ Στρατίου οἴκου, ἐκ δὲ τοῦ Ἁγνίου οὐδεπώποτ᾽
ἐγένοντο).(144)




§ 2. Limitations In Respect Of Succession Outside The Direct Line Of
Descent.


(M67) The Gortyn law quoted above in the previous section goes on:—


    v. “If (a man or woman die and) they have no children, the
    deceased’s brothers and brother’s children or _grandchildren_
    shall have the property. If there are none of these, the
    deceased’s sisters, their children or _grandchildren_. If there
    are none of these, to whom it descends of whatever grade they be,
    they shall inherit the property.”


This clause takes the evidence one step further, and it is noticeable how
the right of inheritance is determined by the great-grandchild of the
common ancestor. In the direct line, a man’s descendants down to his
great-grandchildren inherited his estate. In dealing with inheritance
through a brother of the deceased the heirship terminates with the
_grandchild_ of the brother, who would be great-grandchild of the nearest
common ancestor with the previous owner of the estate. If there is no
brother, the child of the cousin limits the next branch, as will be seen.

(M68) Isaeus(145) describes the working of the then-existing (c. 350 B.C.)
law of inheritance at Athens as follows:—

The law gives “brothers’ property” (i.e. property without lineal
succession) to


    1. _Brothers_ by the same father, or brother’s children, for these
    are related to the deceased in the nearest degree;


    2. _Sisters_ by the same father, or sister’s children;


    3. _First cousins_ by the father’s side as far as _cousin’s
    children_ (δίδωσι τὴν ἀγχιστείαν ἀνεψιοῖς πρὸς πατρὸς μέχρι
    _ἀνεψιῶν παίδων_).


    Failing these, recourse is had back again into the family (εἰς τὸ
    γένος πάλιν ἐπανέρχεται) and the law makes those related through
    the _mother_ of the deceased, masters (κύριοι) of the family (and
    inheritance) in the same order as on the father’s side from the
    beginning.


That is to say, failing first cousins once removed, the inheritance goes
back and begins again at the mother of the deceased, who however, being a
woman, can only inherit on behalf of her issue, present or
prospective.(146) If she has married again and has a son (half-brother to
her deceased son) he would inherit. Failing her issue, her brother and so
on to first cousin’s children of the deceased, through his mother, would
have the inheritance.

Failing these, the nearest kinsman to be found on the father’s side, of
whatsoever degree, is to inherit.

(M69) The law as stated by Demosthenes(147) coincides with this:—


    “If there are no sons, brothers by the same father (shall
    inherit): and their true born children, if there are any, shall
    have the share of their father: if there are no brothers or
    brother’s children the issue of the latter in the same way shall
    partake: males and children of males shall have preference (over
    females) if they are born of the same (parents), even if they are
    further off by birth (γένει) [_i.e._ are a generation lower down].
    If there are none on the father’s side as far as _cousin’s
    children_ (μέχρι ἀνεψιῶν παίδων), the relations on the mother’s
    side in the same way shall have possession (κυρίους εἶναι). But if
    there are none on either side _within these degrees_, the nearest
    of kin on the father’s side shall have possession.”


Whenever this law is quoted the limit of relationship laid down therein
for the immediate ἀγχιστεία is always that of ἀνεψιῶν παῖδες, or sons of
first cousins, who inherit from their first cousins once removed (_oncle à
la Brétagne_, or Welsh uncle as this relation has been called).
Occasionally the patronymic form ἀνεψιαδοῖ is used, apparently with the
same signification, though properly ἀνεψιαδοῖ would mean sons of two first
cousins, _i.e._ second cousins.(148)

(M70) It appears from the evidence reviewed hitherto, that any
great-grandson could inherit from any grandson of a common ancestor, and
the conclusion also seems to be justified, that the group of
great-grandsons were considered to divide up their right to inherit once
for all, and that having done so, with respect to that inheritance they
were considered to have begun a new succession. To put it differently, in
case of the death of one of these second cousins, after the final division
of their inheritance had taken place, the rest of the second cousins would
have no right to a share in his portion; an heir would have to be found
within his nearer relations. Thus, they share responsibilities towards any
of their relations within the group and higher up in their families, and
also stand shoulder to shoulder in sharing such burdens as pollution and
so on, but are outside the immediate ἀγχιστεία with respect to each
other’s succession. The reason for this will perhaps be more apparent as
the argument proceeds.

That the grandson of a first cousin was outside the ἀγχιστεία is clear
from the speech of Demosthenes already mentioned,(149) where the
plaintiff, who originally stands in that relationship to the deceased
whose inheritance is in dispute, is adopted as son of his grandfather
(first cousin of the deceased), in order to come within the legal
definition of ἀνεψιοῦ παῖς.

That the son of a second cousin was also without the pale is directly
stated in several passages in Isaeus.

(M71) It must be remembered that by “inheritance” is meant the assumption
of all the duties incumbent on the ἀγχιστεύς, and that the man who
“inherited” took his place for the future as son of the deceased in the
family pedigree, and reckoned his relationship to the rest of the γένος
thenceforth from his new position, in the house into which he had
come.(150)

(M72) Now if it is true that to the great-grandson was the lowest in
degree to which property could directly descend without entering a new
οἶκος, and if that great-grandson was also looked upon as beginning with
his acquired property a new portion of the continuous line of descent; any
one, who “inherited” from him and ranked in the scale of relationship as
HIS SON, would necessarily fall outside the former group and would be
considered as forming the nearest relative in the next succeeding group.
This, it seems, is the meaning of the language of the law which limits the
ἀγχιστεία to the children of first cousins who could inherit from their
parent’s first cousins, and still _retain their relationship as
great-grandsons_ of the same ancestor. Whereas any one taking the place of
son to his second cousin would be one degree lower down in descent, and
pass outside the limit of the four generations. The law makes the kinsmen
therefore exhaust all possible relationships _within the group_ by
reverting to the mother’s kindred with the same limitation before allowing
the inheritance to pass outside or lower down.

(M73) In confirmation of this view the following passage may be quoted
from _Plato’s Laws_:—


    “He who in the sad disorder of his soul has a mind, justly or
    unjustly, to expel from his family a son whom he has begotten and
    brought up, shall not lightly or at once execute his purpose; but
    first of all he shall collect together his own kinsmen, extending
    to (_first_) _cousins_ (μέχρι ἀνεψιῶν), and in like manner his
    son’s kinsmen by the mother’s side,(151) and in their presence he
    shall accuse his son, setting forth that he deserves at the hands
    of them all to be dismissed from the family (γένος).”(152)


Before dishonouring one of the family and so bereaving it of a member
owing duties which, by his disinheritance, may fall into abeyance or be
neglected, the parent calls together all to whom his son might perhaps
ultimately become the only living representative and heir, and who might
at some future time be dependent on him for the performance of ancestral
rites. That this was in Plato’s mind when he wrote is shown by the next
sentence, in which he provides for the possibility of some relation
already having need of the young man and being desirous to adopt him as
his son, in which case he shall by no means be prevented. The concurrence
of all relations in such a position was therefore necessary.

In other cases where Plato mentions similar gatherings of the kin but for
different purposes, he extends the summons to _cousin’s children_. But
here it can be seen they would have no place. They would be second cousins
to the disgraced youth; they might have to share privilege or pollution
with him, but had no claim on him for duties towards themselves. He would
be “cousin’s son” to his father’s first cousins—the limit of such a claim
in the ἀγχιστεία.

(M74) In the speech of Isaeus concerning the estate of Hagnias, a real
second cousin is in possession of the estate. He won the case at the time
and died in possession, and an action against his son Makartatos for the
same property is the occasion of one of the speeches of Demosthenes. To
fully understand the relationships referred to in these cases, the
accompanying genealogical tree of the descendants of Bouselos may be of
assistance. It will also serve as an example of how a kindred hung
together, and how by intermarriage and adoption the name of the head of an
οἶκος was carried on down a long line of male descendants.

[Illustration: Family tree of Bouselos.]

Theopompos, in the speech of Isaeus, had taken possession of the estate of
his second cousin Hagnias, as his next of kin and heir. Throughout the
speech he is styled ἀνεψιοῦ παῖς so as to bring him within the phraseology
of the law, and he successfully defends himself from the claims of the
next generation below—viz., his brother’s son. But in the speech of
Demosthenes against his son Makartatos, who had taken possession at his
father’s death of the disputed property, it is represented that his father
had got possession only by defeating another claimant, Phylomache II., by
“surprise,” as it was called, by stating that her grandmother through whom
she traced her claim was only half-sister to Hagnias’ father. But
Phylomache’s husband, having caused their son Euboulides III. to be
adopted as the son of Euboulides II.—his wife’s father and Hagnias’ first
cousin, a quite regular course for the grandson inheriting through his
heiress mother—proved that his wife’s grandmother was whole sister to
Hagnias father, and brought the action under the guidance of Demosthenes
against Makartatos. This Euboulides III. sued as true ἀνεψιοῦ παῖς and
οἰκεῖος ἐκ τοῦ οἴκου of Hagnias.(153) He is described as having “one of
the titles mentioned in the law _as far as which_ the law bids the
ἀγχιστεία go, for he is _cousin’s son_ to Hagnias.”

On the other hand, Theopompos, father of Makartatos and second cousin of
Hagnias, is mentioned(154) as “being of a different οἶκος altogether,” and
not at all related in such a way as to be heir of Hagnias (μηδὲν
προσηκόντων ὤστε κληρονομεῖν τῶν Ἁγνίου, ἀλλὰ γένει _ἀπωτέρω_ ὄντων),
being too far off in the family (or by birth).

That the title of Theopompos (viz., second cousinship) was not valid, may
be inferred partly by the ruses he adopted to get possession, but more
especially by the fact(155) that none of the other second cousins on a par
with him, and with whom he ought to have shared, seem to have believed in
the validity of their titles, or at any rate taken the trouble to sue for
part of the estate.

However this may be, there does not seem anything in these speeches other
than confirmatory of the view stated above of the composition and
limitation of the ἀγχιστεία.




§ 3. Division Amongst Heirs.


(M75) Succession to the inheritance of an estate was ordained by law in
strict accordance with the ancient conception of the unity of the family.
On the death of the head of a family, unless the paternal οἶκος was
voluntarily continued unbroken by his descendants, the natural course was
for each son ultimately to live apart and found a separate οἶκος
consisting of himself and his offspring. Equal division amongst heirs was
therefore the rule in Greece; equal division, that is to say, between all
of equal grade.

(M76) The Gortyn Laws have already been referred to as enforcing the
principle.(156) If a man died, his heirs were either his sons, or his
grandsons, or his greatgrandsons. If he had no children, his brothers, and
their children, or their grandchildren succeeded.

The Athenian law was conceived in the same spirit, but mentions a further
point—viz., that in the division amongst sons, the οἶκος of any one of
their number who had died before the division, could be represented by his
sons or grandsons, who thus received their father’s share.

This system of representation probably existed also among the Gortynians,
though no mention of it is made in their laws, for it is inconceivable
that any of the grandsons could be deprived of all share in their
grandfather’s estate by the mere death of the intermediate generation.

But the division _per stirpes_ was not maintained throughout. It is
probable from the words of the Attic orators that equal division amongst
all of the same grade, such as nephews or cousins, took place _per
capita_, any deceased member of that grade being represented by his sons.
Representation, of course, could not take place in the case of a division
amongst cousins’ sons, owing to the strict limitation of the ἀγχιστεία to
four generations from the common ancestor; any deceased relation in that
degree therefore simply dropped out of the succession.

(M77) It has generally been assumed that grandsons inheriting directly
from their grandfather, all the intermediate generation being already
dead, inherited none the less the shares of their respective fathers _per
stirpes_. But if the foregoing account of the unity of the οἶκος and its
resemblance in its composition to the household of the Welsh tribal system
be correct, it seems more reasonable to suppose that, all the intermediate
generation being dead, the grandsons, in virtue of being all equally
related to their grandfather, would inherit in equal shares _per capita_.
Any dead grandson would of course be represented, as before, by his son or
sons.

(M78) The evidence is not sufficient to justify more than a suggestion on
either side with regard to divisions amongst lineal descendants. With
regard to successions by relations outside of the direct line of descent,
such as nephews or cousins, it is almost certain that all of the same
degree took equal shares _per capita_.

Following the law for daughters, quoted by Demosthenes(157)—viz., that
though all shared the inheritance of the property, only one need be dealt
with in view of securing the succession—the assumption can be made that,
when there were several heirs related in the same degree to the former
owner of the estate, one of their number would be set apart to continue
the household of their kinsman as his son, whilst the others merely took
their shares of the property divided to continue their own οἶκοι
respectively.

The equal division of inheritance amongst kinsmen of equal degree _per
capita_, in combination with the system of representation above described,
is entirely consistent with the tribal conception of the household as
hanging closely together, its members always looking up to their venerable
head, in whom the ownership of the property vested, until by the death of
older generations and the consequent subdivision, each in his turn became
head of an οἶκος and owner of its share in the ancestral property.




§ 4. Qualifications For The Recognition Of Tribal Blood.


(M79) It has been remarked above with what jealousy the purity of the
blood of the community was guarded. No child was admitted into the kindred
of its father until all concerned were fully convinced of the
blamelessness of its pedigree. In such circumstances it was no easy matter
to acquire the privileges attached to the possession of tribal or citizen
blood. It seems to have been considered that however great otherwise the
claims of a stranger might be, time alone could really render the
qualifications of his family complete.

(M80) Under the ancient Laws of Wales no stranger’s family could acquire
the full privileges of a Welsh tribesman or Cymro, as regards location on
land, until after many generations. But if they married Welshwomen, and
held land from generation to generation, the _greatgrandsons_ became fully
privileged tribesmen.(158) Similarly if a stranger voluntarily assumed the
position of serf to a Welshman, and his descendants did not choose to
depart, but remained in that position to the descendants of the Welshman,
the _greatgrandsons_ of the Welshman became proprietors of the
greatgrandsons of the stranger.(159)

(M81) But for the stranger who merely resided in Wales and did not marry
into any Welsh tribe the period of probation was _three times as
long_—viz., the greatgrandson of the greatgrandson of his greatgrandson
was the first to attain to full tribal privilege—


    “Strangers and their progeny are adjudged to be aillts; also a
    reputed son who shall be denied and his progeny, and evildoers of
    federate country and their progeny, _unto the end of the ninth
    descent_.”(160)


_i.e._, the tenth man would no longer be reckoned an _aillt_ but a free
Cymro.

The issue of a stranger obtains the privilege of a tribesman _in the
fourth person_ by legitimate marriages.(161) But the aillt or stranger,
who dwells in Cymru, does not attain until the _end of the ninth descent_.

So too inversely:—

The title to inherit by kin and descent in the tribal land and rights of
his ancestors does not become extinct _till the ninth man_. The ninth man
in descent from a banished tribesman coming home and finding his title as
representative of his family seemingly extinguished, is to raise an outcry
that from a proprietor he is becoming a nonproprietor, and the law will
shelter him and adjudge him an equal share with the occupants he finds on
the land. This is called the “outcry across the abyss.” The tenth man’s
outcry cannot be heard. “Others say” that the ninth man is too late to
raise the cry.(162)

This is exactly parallel to the case of the stranger resident in Cymru.
For _nine_ generations he is a stranger, and in _the tenth_ a Cymro. Here
for _nine_ generations is the Cymro abroad a tribesman, and in _the tenth_
he is a stranger.

(M82) From a passage in Deuteronomy it would appear that the
qualifications for admission as a full tribesman amongst the Israelites
were identical with those just mentioned.

The Israelites had purified themselves of the ancestor worship, that so
long survived in Greece, and had, if one may say so, amalgamated all their
minor deities and tribal superstitions in their one great monotheistic
religion. Even then their tribal minds could not carry back their theology
behind the known history of their own ancestors. Their God was the God of
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and was in their conception the greatest of
Gods—_i.e._, greater than the Gods of other peoples, the existence of
which their own beliefs did not preclude. Thus where in Attic writers we
have mention of the religious rites of the family (which a stranger or
polluted man might not approach), and of the partaking therein as proof of
the whole admission and pure blood of those present, so in Deuteronomy the
expression “the Congregation of the Lord,” is used to denote that sacred
precinct, forbidden to all save pure tribesmen of Israel.

It may be inferred from the following passage that if a stranger resided
in Israel, and his family continued to do so for nine generations, the
tenth generation would in any ordinary case be admitted to the
Congregation of the Lord as full Israelites.


    Deut. xxiii. 2 and 3. “A bastard, or an Ammonite, or Moabite shall
    not enter into the congregation of the Lord _even to their tenth
    generation_, for ever.”


(M83) In special cases (exactly as was the rule in Wales)—such as the
Edomite who was partly akin already, and the Egyptian who was united to
the Israelites by the mysterious bonds of hospitality—a shorter sojourn in
the land was held to qualify for full tribal privilege.


    Deut. xxiii. 7 and 8. “Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite, for he is
    thy brother: thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian, because thou wast a
    stranger in his land. The _children_ that are begotten of them
    shall enter into the congregation of the Lord _in their third
    generation_.”


The third generation of _children_ would be the _greatgrandchildren_ of
the original settler, and this is just one third of the length of time
implied as required from the ordinary stranger, who only attained the
tribal privilege in the third succession of greatgrandchildren.

It is worth notice in this connection that the land of Canaan was divided
up in the names of the _greatgrandchildren_ of Abraham, to whom the
promise was made; Ephraim and Manasseh, the sons of Joseph, taking their
place amongst the others by adoption as sons by their grandfather Jacob,
on an equality with his other sons.(163)

(M84) These rules are not to be found with the same distinctness surviving
at Athens, but there is a good deal of evidence showing how jealously the
introduction of strangers to citizenship—which retained much that made it
the later equivalent of the tribal bond—was regarded.

Strangers made citizens (formally, ceremoniously, and by public vote) by
the Athenian people cannot hold office as archon or partake of a holy
office (ἱεροσύνη); but their _children can_, if they are born from a
citizen wife duly and lawfully betrothed.(164) That is to say, that the
Athenians considered it necessary that there should be actually citizen
blood in the veins of all who held office amongst them.(165)

(M85) The abhorrence in which the introduction of alien blood was held is
illustrated by the Athenian law concerning marriage with aliens, quoted by
Demosthenes in his speech against Neaera.


    _Law_: “If an alien shall live as husband with an Athenian woman
    by any device or contrivance whatever, it shall be lawful for any
    of the Athenians who are possessed of such right, to indict him
    before the judges. And if he is convicted, he shall be sold for a
    slave and his property confiscated, and the third part shall
    belong to the person who has convicted him. And the like
    proceedings shall be taken if an alien woman live as wife with an
    Athenian citizen, and the citizen who lives as husband with an
    alien woman so convicted shall incur the penalty of 1,000
    drachmæ.”


(M86) Citizenship was considered the highest of privileges, and was
conferred only on persons worthy of great honour. Any citizen could bring
an action against the newly-admitted stranger to test his real merits, and
even after formal acceptance by the people of Athens, if he failed to
justify his claims at such a trial, his new honours were stripped from him
and he remained an alien. This being so, it cannot be expected in the
comparison that he should rank with the ordinary resident in Cymru in the
Welsh Laws, but rather as the chieftain whom the people wished to honour
by admission to their tribe.

It is stated in the Welsh Laws that the _son_ of a stranger chief, to whom
honour was to be given, entered the whole privilege of the tribe.

(M87) According to Aristotle,(166) candidates for archonship at Athens
were asked their father’s name and his deme, their grandfather’s name and
his deme, their mother’s and her father’s name and his deme;(167) whether
the candidate had an Apollo Patroïos and Zeus Herkeios, and where these
shrines were: also if he treated his parents well and paid his taxes.

In order to be perfectly sure that the candidate was of full and pure
blood, they investigated the condition of both his grandparents, and, as
further proof, assured themselves that he had a house and property of his
own, and that too inherited from his ancestors. Furthermore, he must be
guilty of no impiety towards his parents or the State.

If it were the case at Athens that the fourth generation from a stranger
was considered as having attained to the rights of a citizen, it mattered
little what a man’s _greatgrand_father was. He might have been an alien,
yet if the intermediate ancestors were “in order,” the candidate would
have acquired the full blood.(168)

(M88) In the _Oedipus Tyrannus_,(169) Sophocles apparently uses the
expression “slave from the _third_ mother” as implying that three descents
were considered to confirm the position of the fourth generation as slave
or citizen, or whatever the case might be. Oedipus assures Jokasta that
_her_ pedigree and status will remain unimpugned, even though the enquiry
he is prosecuting establish him thrice-born a slave from slave mother,
slave grandmother, and slave greatgrandmother.

In elections for sacred offices, which appear to have been about the last
things laid open to the new citizen, the possession of three generations
of privileged ancestors was in some places insisted on. There is an
inscription to this effect belonging to Halikarnassos;(170) and some
similar rule seems to have held good among the Jews.


    “These sought their register among those that were reckoned by
    genealogy, but it was not found; therefore were they, as polluted,
    put from the priesthood (_ἠγχιστεύθησαν_ ἀπὸ τῆς ἱερατείας).”(171)


The book of Nehemiah closes with the triumphant verse: “Thus I cleansed
them from all strangers.”

(M89) The rule in the _Ordinances of Manu_ for the recovery of Brahman
caste is just halfway between the tenth and the fourth generations—namely,
the seventh, or _greatgrandson of the greatgrandson_ of the first
halfcaste. This is only the case when each generation marries a Brahman
wife.


    “If (the caste) produced from a Brahman by a Çudra woman keeps
    reproducing itself by nobler (marriage) this ignoble attains a
    noble family _at the seventh union_ (Yuga).”(172)


Thus:—


    If (1) the halfcaste marries a Brahman woman and
    (2) his son do.
    (3) his grandson do.
    (4) his _greatgrandson_ do.
    (5) _his_ son do.
    (6) his grandson do.
    (7) his _greatgrandson_ do.—at last his family is restored to
    their lost high caste.




§ 5. Limitations Of Liability For Bloodshed.


(M90) The ἀγχιστεία, limited to relations within the same degrees as for
other purposes, seems to be the unit in the case of pollution of the
kindred by the death—violent or natural—of one of their number.


    “Whosoever(173) being related to the deceased on the male or
    female side of those _within the cousinship_ (ἐντὸς ἀνεψιότητος),
    shall not prosecute the murderer when he ought and proclaim him
    outlaw, he shall take _upon himself_ the pollution and the hatred
    of the gods ... and he shall be in the power of any who is willing
    to avenge the dead....”(174)


    “The pollution cannot be washed out until the homicidal soul which
    did the deed has given life for life and has propitiated and laid
    to sleep the wrath of the whole family” (ξυγγένεια).(175)


    “If a brother wound a brother (ὁμόγονος) the parents (γεννῆται)
    and the kinsmen (συγγενεῖς) to _cousins’ children_ on male and
    female side shall meet and judge the case.”(176)


Ransom was forbidden; citizen was bound to citizen with ties that had
inherited too much of the tribal sanctity to admit of any extenuation of
the extreme penalty.

It was no doubt a wise policy on the part of the legislators, with the
view to the preservation of respect for life and property, to make the
responsibility for murder rest as widely as possible, and include as many
relations and connections on both sides as might be. In order also that
the wife, in case her husband was killed, and the daughter, in case her
father was killed, might be fully protected and represented among the
prosecuting kindred, the law of Draco seems to lay the necessity for
action also on the father-in-law and the son-in-law. The _phratria_, being
such a compact organisation and exacting such formal admission of its
members, would naturally be concerned to see that justice was dealt to any
of its number. Though we cannot include the _phratores_ amongst those
directly responsible equally with the near kinsmen for crimes committed by
one of their number, they would always have to take a certain part in
whatever was necessary to bring him to justice, besides being generally
concerned in all matters relating to kinship, which affected any member of
their _phratria_.

(M91) “Proclamation shall be made against the murderer in the agora within
[? his] cousinship and (the degree) of a first cousin, and prosecution
shall be made jointly by cousins and _cousins’ children and descendants of
cousins_, and sons-in-law and fathers-in-law and _phratores_.”

That Demosthenes here quotes a genuine law of Draco is proved by an
inscription found at Athens belonging to the year 409 B.C., recording this
sentence as part of the law of Draco about murder.(177)

In another place Demosthenes thus refers to the action of this law:—

“The law commands the relations to go forth and prosecute as far as
descendants of cousins; and in the oath it is defined what the
relationship actually is, etc.”(178)

The use of ἀνεψιαδοῖ in addition to ἀνεψιῶν παῖδες in Draco’s law above is
emphatic as implying that as regards pollution the group of relations to
second cousins were treated _en masse_ as under the stain; they had not
yet, so to speak, reached the point where they could divide up their
responsibility.

(M92) If the murder was committed within the narrow limits of the
ἀγχιστεία itself, the double pollution of the bloodspilling and the blood
spilled rested upon the whole group with overwhelming force.

Plato(179) treats of such a calamity and prescribes the remedy. If a man
slay his wife, or she her husband, his children are orphans; their debt of
maintenance to their parent is cancelled; he must flee; they possess his
goods. If he is childless, his relations shall meet _to the children of
his cousins_ on the male and female side (_i.e._ all his possible heirs)
and shall elect not one of themselves, but a younger son of some other and
pious family to bring in new blood with better fortune to counteract the
curse, as heir to the house (κληρονόμος εἰς τὸν οἶκον), introducing him to
the father of the banished (or deceased) man and to those further back in
the family (τοῖς ἄνω τοῦ γένους), calling him their _son_, the continuer
of their family (γεννήτωρ), their hearth-keeper (ἑστιοῦχος), and minister
of their sacred rites.... But the guilty man they shall “let lie,”
nameless, childless, portionless for ever.(180)

(M93) In the ancient Laws of Wales the blood-fine takes a very important
position. But whereas all the relations of the murderer are liable to be
called upon to pay the “Spearpenny,” as it is called, only the inner
kindred within fixed degrees contribute proportionally to the payment of
the price. The group upon which this responsibility falls is twice as
large in the Welsh Laws as at Athens, and includes _fifth_ cousins, or the
greatgrandchildren of greatgrandchildren of a common ancestor.

The Dimetian Code describes the relations who pay galanas as follows.(181)
Those beyond only pay “spearpenny.”

      Father and mother.
      Grandfather.
      Greatgrandfather.
      Brother and sister.
      First cousins.
      Second cousins.
      Third cousins.
      Fourth cousins.
      Fifth cousins.

According to the Gwentian Code, _fifth_ cousins share. “There is no proper
share, no proper name in kin further than that.”(182)

The Venedotian Code states that galanas is paid by the kindred: two parts
by the relations of the father, one part by the relations of the mother,
to _sixth cousins_. All kindred after sixth cousins pay spearpenny.(183)

The sixth cousin is also called “kinsman son of a fifth cousin, and then
_the father (i.e. the fifth cousin) pays it_, because his relationship can
be fixed, _but the relationship of his son to the murderer cannot_.”

(M94) The defilement of carrying out a corpse and assisting at a funeral
also covered the same area of relationship at Athens—_i.e._ the ἀγχιστεία.
The house of the dead man was only to be entered by those naturally
polluted.


    “After the funeral no woman to enter the house save only _those
    defiled_; to wit—mother, wife, sisters, and daughters; beside
    these not more than five women and two girls, _daughters of first
    cousins_: beyond these, none.”(184)


Demosthenes quotes the law of Solon to the effect that—


    “No woman under sixty years old to enter the house or follow the
    corpse except those within ἀνεψιαδοῖ (πλὴν ὅσαι ἐντὸς ἀνεψιαδῶν
    εἰσιν): no woman _at all_ may enter the house after the carrying
    out of the corpse except _those within_ ἀνεψιαδοῖ.”(185)


All those near of kin assist in the funeral.

The payment of the blood-fine by the whole family of the murderer was
considered necessary to allay the vengeance and anger of the family of the
murdered man within the same area of relationship. In Wales the members of
the family who received the galanas, did so in proportion to the
importance of their position in the transmission of the kindred blood,
according to a classification identical with their proximity in
relationship to the dead man, and their expectation of inheritance from
him or succession to his place.

(M95) The inclusion of the mother’s relatives and their liability in these
circumstances, in addition to the paternal relations, follow naturally
enough in Wales as in Greece when once the transmission of inheritance
through a woman, in default of male heirs, had become a recognised
possibility. A woman’s sons might always be called upon under certain
circumstances to take inheritance from _her_ father or next of kin. They
therefore quite fairly shared in the claims as well as the privileges of
their position. And _vice versa_, in exchange for the priceless guarantee
of continuity provided by a woman’s offspring to her relations, they too
would be prepared to undergo a part of the penalties incurred by any of
those who might rank some day as their next of kin, or as their sons.

This view of the source of their recognition as members of the kindred
responsible for the blood-fine in Wales is confirmed by a statement in the
Venedotian Code.(186) Those women and clerks who can swear that they will
never have children, and so are useless for the preservation of continuity
in the families to which they belong, are specially exempted from
contribution to the galanas, inasmuch as they have forsworn the privilege
of attaining through posterity a share in the immortality on earth of
their kindred.





CHAPTER IV. THE RELATION OF THE FAMILY TO THE LAND.


Γαῖαν παμμήτειραν ἀείσομαι, ἠυθέμεθλον,
πρεσβίστην, ἣ φέρβει ἐπὶ χθονὶ πάνθ᾽, ὁπός᾽ ἐστὶν, ...
ἐκ σέο δ᾽ εὔπαιδές τε καὶ εὔκαρποι τελέθουσι,
πότνια, σεῦ δ᾽ ἔχεται δοῦναι βίον ἠδ᾽ ἀφελέσθαι
θνητοῖς ἀνθρώποισιν.

Homeric Hymn.




§ 1. The Κλῆρος And Its Form.


In trying to realise the methods of land tenure amongst the Greeks, we are
baffled by the indirectness of the evidence available.

(M96) We know that the estate which descended from father to son, and was
in theory inalienable from the family of its original possessors, was
called a κλῆρος or “lot,” but the familiarity with which the poets,
historians, and orators use the word does not afford information as to
what the κλῆρος really was and how it was made use of in practice. The law
concerning these family holdings, says Aristotle,(187) and concerning
their possible transmission through daughters was not written. It was a
typical example of customary law. This statement gives a hint as to the
usual treatment of questions arising under this head. Methods of land
tenure were not of rapid growth, nor were they easily changed; they had
their source with the slow devotion to agriculture of pastoral tribes, and
were dependent on a class unaffected by the growth of education and the
arts.

(M97) The intricate connection of the system of land tenure with the
composition of the family removed the consideration of questions of
ownership from the sphere of written law, and delegated them to the most
conservative department of customary procedure, ranking them on a par with
questions of family religious observances.(188) The deposit of some
ancestor’s bones in a certain field was occasionally a valuable link in
the title to possession of that piece of land as private property;(189)
and the possession of land at all was in part a guarantee of the pure
native blood in the veins of the possessor.(190) It is a striking
illustration of the truth of this that, throughout all the extant speeches
of Isaeus dealing with the disposal of κλῆροι of dead citizens, not a
single case turns upon evidence for or against a sale or transfer of
property. The speeches all deal exclusively with family matters; the line
of argument always leads to the proof of near kinship by blood or adoption
to the previous owner; and the right of possession of the inheritance
seems taken for granted as following incontrovertibly the establishment of
the required relationship.(191)


    “It seems to me that all those who contend for the right of
    succession to estates, when like us they have shown themselves to
    be both nearest in blood to the person deceased, and most
    connected with him in friendship (φιλίᾳ), are dispensed from
    adding a superfluity of other arguments.”(192)


(M98) In the early settlements, as Thucydides tells us, necessity was the
ruling motive. Each man devoted his attention to providing the necessaries
of life. There was superfluity neither of chattels nor of tilth. Men
hesitate to sow when the harvest is to be reaped by their enemies.(193)
The flocks and herds of the pastoral tribes could be driven for safety
into the mountain strongholds; yet even they were liable to frequent
losses. On one occasion Odysseus had to go to Messene “to recover a debt;
which, to wit, the whole people owed him (πᾶς δῆμος): for the Messenians
had lifted 300 sheep with their shepherds from Ithaka.”(194) As the
newcomers increased in numbers and gained a reputation for ability to
defend their own, sufficient to discourage the attacks of their
neighbours, they would have leisure to devote some of their energies to
the cultivation of the plains around them. Troy was founded first up in
the hills,(195) and afterwards was moved down to a good position on the
lower ground for the sake no doubt of the better pasture in the river
meadows, and of the agriculture which had long been carried on over the
“wheat-bearing plain” around the city,(196) before the ravages of the ten
years’ war.

It is not proposed to enter in detail into the _methods_ of cultivation of
the soil in vogue at various times in Greece; but inasmuch as whilst
studying the kernel, assistance may often be obtained from knowledge of
the shell, mention may be made in passing of such few points of interest
in the physical features of agriculture as may be available.

(M99) In the Consular Reports on Land Tenure in Europe made in 1869,
descriptions are given of the existing methods of tenure and cultivation
in Greece and the Islands.

In Greece the usual holding of a small proprietor is said to be of fifteen
to twenty-five acres (or sometimes double that area), and is called a
_zeugarion_.(197) Many have only a couple of acres.


    “The greatest inconvenience and frequent lawsuits arise from the
    manner in which these properties intersect each other. Moreover
    none of the usual precautions are adopted to mark the limits of
    the different properties, which, in the absence of any reliable
    land survey, are often very vaguely described in the title
    deeds.”(198)


In cases of intestacy real property is divided equally among the children
or nearest relatives. When there is a will the testator can only reserve
for his disposal a share of the estate equivalent to that which, after an
equal division, descends by right to each of the direct heirs.

(M100) Professor Ansted, in his book on the Ionian Islands in the year
1863, thus describes the management of an estate on the Island of Santa
Maura:—(199)


    “According to Ionian law, all the members of a family share
    equally in the family property after the death of the father; but
    it does not follow as a matter of course that the property is
    divided. It is much more usual that the brothers and sisters, if
    young, continue to live together till they either marry or
    undertake some employment or business at a distance. If a sister
    marries, she is dowered with a sum equivalent to her share. If a
    brother however earns a separate income, from whatever source,
    whether he be married or remain single, and whether he live in the
    same or a different house, or even remove to another town or
    island, he pays in all his income to a joint fund, _the foundation
    of which is the income obtained from the paternal estate_. Those
    who do nothing else manage the estate. One brother, perhaps,
    remains in the village as cultivator, another lives in the town
    acting as factor, or merchant to the estate, receiving and selling
    the produce and managing the proceeds, whatever the case may be;
    and in addition selling, exporting, and otherwise conducting a
    general business in the same department. A third may perhaps
    receive and sell the goods in a foreign country. A fourth may be a
    member of the legislature, and a fifth a judge. Some marry and
    have families, others remain single: but the incomes of all are
    united, each draws out a reasonable share, according to his needs,
    and a very close account is kept of all transactions. If one
    brother dies, his children come into the partnership; and as time
    goes on, these again will grow up and marry, the daughters
    receiving a proportional and often large dower out of the joint
    fund, entirely without reference to the special property of their
    parents. This may go on indefinitely: but as family quarrels will
    arise, _there are always means of terminating the arrangement_,
    and closing accounts, either entirely as regards all, or partially
    as with reference to a _mauvais sujet_, or troublesome member of
    the partnership.... This curious patriarchal system, though
    obtaining more perfectly and frequently in Santa Maura than in the
    other islands, exists in Cephalonia and is said to be not quite
    unknown in Zante, where the state of society approximates far more
    to that common in the western countries of Europe. Santa Maura,
    being the most isolated of all the islands and that which retains
    all ancient customs most tenaciously, is naturally that in which
    this sort of communism can exist with smallest risk of
    interference.”


According to the Consular Reports, the relations between landlord and
tenant are governed more by local usage than by law, and the landlord
generally takes on an average about 15 per cent. of the produce in kind on
the threshing-floor, as rent, in cases where he does not supply more than
the bare use of the land.(200)

(M101) There is little manuring; the light plough barely turns the surface
of the land. Land is usually allowed to lie fallow every other year,
sometimes two years out of three. Sheep and goats are the chief stock;
they of course graze in summer on the mountains; villages sometimes own
forests and waste lands in common.

(M102) In the islands of the Archipelago,(201) the holdings are frequently
divided into separate plots consisting of a quarter or half acre apiece or
even less, intersected by those belonging to other parties. Cattle are
pastured on the fallow, roadsides, &c., near the village.

In Cephalonia,(202) holdings consist of from five to twenty-five acres,
seldom in a continuous piece, but “cut up into patches and intersected by
other properties.”

In Corfu,(203) the holdings are similar—infinitesimally small and
intermixed pieces of land, especially in the olive groves, where however
there are no divisions on the land and the “oldest inhabitant” has to be
asked for evidence of ownership in disputed cases.

Throughout the Greek nation, the peasants live in their houses in villages
and not on separate estates. They help one another to avoid the expense of
hired labour, and themselves work for hire on the estates of the large
proprietors.

(M103) Professor Ridgeway has drawn attention to the knowledge of this
open field system in the _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_;(204) and indeed the
division of the land tilled by occupants of villages into small pieces or
strips, in such a way that the holding of each consists of a number of
isolated pieces lying promiscuously amongst the strips of others, over the
whole area under plough, is a world-wide custom and is the habit alike of
the east as of the west.

Though the assertion cannot yet be made that the κλῆρος was thus arranged
on the soil, it can do no harm at any rate to bear in mind this ancient
and still used method of dividing land, whilst considering the question of
the relation of the ownership of the soil to the rank and status of the
tribesman.




§ 2. The Relation Of The Κλῆρος To The Οἶκος.


(M104) The connection of the possession of land with the headship of the
family finds its counterpart in the right of maintenance of those who had
the true blood of that family. And in those countries where the sons
remained until their father’s death under his _patria potestas_ they had
to look to him for maintenance derived from the κλῆρος which descended to
him as the means of sustenance for himself and his family. Where the head
of the family alone was responsible for the rites to the dead at the
family altars, the position of a son would always be incomplete if he
tried to establish during his father’s lifetime a hearth and household of
his own. And it has been already mentioned that it was necessary to
emancipate a son from the family of his own father, before he could take
property, passing on the death of his mother’s relations to her issue, and
assume his rightful position as their representative and the living head
of their household.(205)

According to Harpocration, the initiation into the mysteries of the hearth
only took place on the actual assumption of the inheritance.(206)

(M105) Occasionally a father feeling the weight of years would be glad to
pass on to his son during his lifetime some of his burden of
responsibility by making him master of his estate (κύριος τῆς
οὐσίας).(207) In this case, the son would be responsible for the
maintenance of his parent, a duty much insisted on by Plato and Isaeus. In
fact the conclusion is justified that the family, until final subdivision
into separate οἶκοι, drew its supplies from the common inheritance, and
that the subdivision of the means of subsistence was contemporaneous and
co-extensive with the differentiation of the various branches of the
original οἶκος along the lines of the rising generations.

The same may be inferred from the words of Demosthenes describing the
division of the property of Bouselos amongst his sons and the foundation
of their several οἶκοι.


    “And all these sons of Bouselos became men, and their father
    divided his substance amongst them all, with perfect justice. And
    they having shared the substance, each of them married a wife
    according to your laws, and there were born children to them all,
    and children’s children, and there grew up five οἶκοι from the one
    οἶκος of Bouselos, and each dwelt apart, having his own house and
    his own offspring.”(208)


In the meanwhile, before division, all sons had equal right to participate
in the family goods after the father’s death, and dowries had to be paid
therefrom to the daughters. The eldest brother was guardian (κύριος) of
his sisters and those of his brothers who were minors, inasmuch as he
succeeded to his father’s position of head of his kindred at the altars of
their ancestors. But in Greece at any rate his authority over his brothers
when once a division had taken place seems to have been slight if it
existed at all.

(M106) Amongst the Gods, the three brothers Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades,
sons of Rhea, shared their inheritance from their father Kronos. They
divided everything in three, shaking lots thereover (παλλομένων). Each
took equal share of honour (ἔμμορε τιμῆς), but earth and Olympos were
common (ξυνή) to all.(209) But Zeus was the first-born and “knew more
things”—Ἀλλὰ Ζεὺς πρότερος γεγόνει καὶ πμείονα ᾒδη(210)—and Poseidon
therefore avoided open strife with him, however unwillingly. Though Zeus
be the stronger, grumbles the Sea-god, let him keep to his third share and
not interfere with his brothers’ pleasure on their common ground, the
earth. Let him threaten his sons and daughters who needs _must_ listen to
him (ἀκούσονται καὶ ἀνάγκῃ). Yet because the Erinnyes ever take the side
of the eldest born—ὡς πρεσβυτέροισιν Ἐριννύες αἰὲν ἕπονται—it were good
counsel to knock under, even though the division was made in perfect
equality (ἰσόμορον καὶ ὁμῇ πεπρωμένον αἴσῃ).(211)

(M107) This passage contrasts the recognised autocracy of the head of the
family over his own household with the courteous deference of the younger
brothers towards the eldest; and it is evidence, so far as it goes, that
the eldest brother did not succeed to his father’s power over his grown-up
brothers, but owed what influence he did not obtain from the superior
advantages of his age and experience, to a superstitious feeling that
something was due to him in his position of head of the eldest branch of
the family.

In the _Odyssey_,(212) Zeus gives Poseidon the title of “eldest and
best”—πρεσβύτατον καὶ ἄριστον—and elsewhere Hera lays claim to the same
birthright.(213)

The power of the head of a household must have been something much more
real. Telemachos declares that he is willing that some other _basileus_ in
Ithaka should take the kingship, but he will be master over his own
house—ἄναξ οὄκοιο ἡμετέροιο—“and over the slaves that the divine Odysseus
won for me.”(214)

In the Homeric Hymn to _Hestia_, that deity receives the title of honour
of firstborn: the poet, by a fanciful blending of ideas, implying that the
honour paid to the sacred hearth by the eldest of the family, fell to her
share as the eldest born of the children of Kronos.(215)

Aristotle says that every household is ruled (βασιλεύεται) by its oldest
member,(216) and gives this prerogative of the household-_basileus_ as the
type and origin of the kingship in the village and the State. Reference
has already been made, in the section on the limitations of the ἀγχιστεία,
to the passage in the Gortyn law, viz.—


    “The father shall have power over the children and the property to
    divide it amongst them.... As long as they (the parents) are alive
    there is no necessity for division.”(217)


(M108) But it must be borne in mind that though the κλῆρος was set apart
in theory for the use and sustenance of a head of a family with all his
descendants, and was supposed to be inalienable therefrom, there is no
reason to suppose that there existed among the Greeks a system of joint
holding between father and son. The ownership and management of the
property vested in the head of the family. It is true that brothers did
not always divide their inheritance on the death of their father, but
their undivided right to their respective equal shares remained to each
one and his descendants as an individual property, and they always seem to
have had the expectation of an ultimate subdivision amongst the separate
οἶκοι that had sprung into being.(218)

(M109) The Gortyn Laws throw some light on the subject.

As long as the father is alive, no man shall buy or receive in pledge from
the son any of the father’s property. But what the son himself has earned,
or inherited, he may sell if he like.

So too the father may not dispose of the goods of the children which they
have earned or inherited.

Yet may a son’s prospective share in his paternal inheritance be sold to
pay any legal fine he has incurred.(219)

(M110) There is no joint holding here between father and son. The father
is in undisputed possession, and nothing the son can do by private
contract can affect his father’s occupation. But if the son had a right of
maintenance from his father during the lifetime of both, his expectation
of succession to an equal share with his brothers would give him, so to
speak, a value in the public eye. In the event of his incurring a
blood-fine, his father would presumably be obliged to pay it out of the
patrimony; and when exaction of such penalties passed into the hands of a
court, exception would hardly be made for long on behalf of the fine for
murder over penalties for other crimes coming before the court. Although
therefore for all ordinary purposes a son had no claim on the paternal
estate beyond his maintenance, his right of succession might easily grow
up in the eye of the law as an available asset capable of forfeiture with
the theoretical assumption that the scapegrace was unfit to hold his
position in the family.(220) His future portion, thus becoming deprived of
a representative, might be wholly or in part confiscated to the State.
There are many inscriptions confiscating to the State the goods of
criminals who transgressed the laws therein; but Plato evidently
contemplated the possibility of wiping out the individual without
depriving his descendants of their inheritance.(221) In such a case as
wife-murder, he says, the husband’s right of maintenance is extinguished
from amongst his family, he should be banished and his name wiped out for
ever, whilst his sons or relations enter upon the inheritance of his
property _immediately_. No distinction is made by Plato, or in the Gortyn
Laws in such a case between chattels and land. But inasmuch as all fines
would be levied in the first instance upon the property of the guilty
individual, it may be assumed that his own earnings went first, and that
only in extreme cases would the ancestral land of the family be sold. Even
then, in Israelite law, it was expected that the land would be _redeemed_
by the nearest relative,(222) so that the result would be that the land
would go out of the family only when no relative could be found rich
enough to pay the fine out of his chattels.

(M111) It is interesting to find analogous provisions in the customs of
Gavelkind of ancient Kent. Under the system of Gavelkind equal division of
property amongst sons obstinately held its own against the incursions of
the right of primogeniture; and the connection of the family with their
land seems to have been regarded as especially privileged in spite of the
growth of Feudalism.


    “If any tenant in Gauelkinde be attainted of felonie, for which he
    suffereth execution of death, the king shall have all his _goods_,
    and his heire forthwith after his death shall be inheritable to
    all his _landes_ and tenements which he held in Gauelkinde in fee,
    and in inheritance: and he shall hold them by the same services
    and customes as his auncestors held them: whereupon, it is said in
    Kentish:


“The father to the boughe,
“And the sonne to the ploughe.”(223)

(M112) It had become customary to allot to a bastard son who was prevented
by his birth from ranking with his brothers, and who had no place in the
kindred, some smaller substance as a means of subsistence.

(M113) Odysseus pretends he was in this position, and relates how his
proud brothers allotted him but a small _gift_ (παῦρα δόσαν) and a house
as his portion.(224)

Isaeus mentions that, only on the acquiescence of the true son, was
admission granted to a bastard into the phratria. Even then he was not
apparently taken into his father’s family, but allotted a farm (χωρίον ἕν)
by his brother and, as it were, launched into the world to start a family
of his own, without any further claim upon the property of his
father.(225)

His introduction and admission to a phratria and deme, as a descendant of
an old family, so far removed the stigma of his birth as to give him the
title of citizen, and thus afforded him the qualification for holding
land. Yet the knowledge of his real parentage bereft him of the right of
sharing equally with the rest of his father’s sons, and compelled him to
be satisfied with the bare means of subsistence wherewith to found and
continue a house of his own.(226)

(M114) When citizenship was conferred upon a beneficent stranger, it was
the custom at the same time to assign him and his descendants a house and
some land. We hear of grants on such occasions consisting of a κλῆρος in
the plain, a house, and a garden free of taxes; a _half_-κλῆρος in the
plain, a house and a garden of half the area of the preceding grant, &c.
In the fourth century B.C. a similar grant takes the form of so many
plethra as a patrimony or ever. Sometimes, as at Sparta in the second
century B.C., the estate was allotted to the newly-made citizen only on
condition of residence within the borders of the State.(227)




§ 3. The Householder In India: The Guest.


(M115) Sir Henry S. Maine in his _Early Law and Custom_(228) quotes Narada
in illustration of the composition of the early Indian family. A son “is
of age and independent in case his parents be dead: during their lifetime
he is dependent, even though he be grown old.”

Further information on this subject is afforded by the Ordinances of Manu,
where the position of the first-born with regard to his younger brothers
is given at some length.(229)


    (M116) “After both the father and the mother (are dead), the
    brothers, having come together, should divide the paternal
    inheritance: for while the two (parents) are alive the (sons) have
    no power (over the property).


    “Now the eldest (or best) alone may take the paternal property
    without leaving anything, and the remaining (brothers) may live
    _supported by him_ just as (if he were their) father.”(230)


    (M117) “By means of the eldest (son) as soon as he is born a man
    becomes possessed of a son, and is thus cleared of his debts
    towards the manes; therefore this (eldest son) deserves the whole
    (inheritance).”


Likewise: “If among brothers born of one father, one should have a son,
Manu said _all those brothers_ would be possessed of sons by means of that
son.”(231) But this seems to apply only to the son born to the eldest, for
if a younger brother married before the eldest and performed the daily
sacrifices, he sent himself, his brother, and his wife “to Hell.”(232)

The eldest, if he performs his duty, “causes the family to flourish” and
“is most honoured among men.” He alone is “duty-born,” through him his
father “pays his debt”; other sons are only “born of desire.” As long as
his conduct is befitting, he must be honoured “like a father, like a
mother,” but if not, he only receives the respect of an ordinary
relative.(233)

The brothers may live together in this way,(234) but if they divide and
live apart, the separate ceremonies necessitated by their separate
households will multiply the performance of religious duties, to the
advantage of all.

(M118) The title of _Householder_, moreover, was more than a name.


    “As all beings depend on air, so all orders depend on the
    householder.”


    “Because men of the three (other) orders are daily supported by
    the householder alone with knowledge and with food, therefore the
    householder (is) the chief order. That order must be upheld
    strenuously by one desiring an imperishable heaven, and who here
    desires perpetual happiness....”


    “The seers, manes, gods, beings, and guests also make entreaty to
    those heads of families for support. (This duty must, therefore,)
    be done by a man of discernment.”(235)


    “As all rivers, ... go to (their) resting-place in the ocean, so
    men of all orders depend on the householder.”(236)


    Let a householder perform the household rites according to rule
    with the marriage fire and the accomplishment of the five
    sacrifices and the daily cooking. The sacrifices are:—


    Teaching the Veda is the Veda sacrifice:
    Offering cakes and water is the sacrifice to the manes:
    An offering to fire (is the sacrifice) to the gods:
    Offering of food (is the sacrifice) to all beings:
    Honour to guests is the sacrifice to men.


    “Whoever presents not food to those five, the gods, guests,
    dependents, the manes, and himself, though he breathe, lives
    not.”(237)


(M119) The guest takes a very high place, and his presence is a revered
addition to the family sacrifices; so much so that it was thought
necessary to state definitely that “if the guest appears after the
offering to all the gods is finished, one should give him food as best one
can, but should not make (another) offering.”(238)

The same virtue seems to have been considered by the Greeks also to lie in
the presence of the guest. In Euripides’ Elektra, Aigisthos, hearing from
Orestes that he and his friend are strangers, promptly invites them to
share as his ξυνέστιοι in his impending sacrifice of a bull to the nymphs,
promising to send them on their way in the morning.(239)

Earlier in the play during the plotting of Aigisthos’ death, it is taken
for granted that directly he sees them he will call them thus to join him
at the sacrifice and the feast.(240)

Alkinoos expresses the feeling of the Homeric age when he says:


    “In a brother’s place stand the stranger and the suppliant, to him
    whose wits have even a little range.”(241)


Nestor at Pylos, making sacrifice to Poseidon with his sons and company,
welcomes the unknown Telemachos and Mentor to the sacrificial feast.(242)
When the duty of feeding the guests has been satisfactorily accomplished,
he then asks them whether they are merchants or _pirates_, that “wander
over the brine at hazard of their own lives bringing bale to alien men!”

It would appear that the virtue lay in the hospitality of the host and not
in the worthiness of the guest, and that therefore it was worth while to
run the risk of having invited the presence of a polluted man whose
impiety in not refusing to partake would doubtless fall on his own head.

(M120) To return to the organisation of the Indian inheritance:—The duty
of maintenance(243) of the younger members of the family devolves upon the
eldest son at the death of his father. If the brothers are all “perfect in
their own occupations,” and they come to an equal division, “some trifle
should be given to the elder (brother) to indicate an increased respect
for him.”(244) Also if in division there remains over an odd goat or
sheep, or animal, it goes to the eldest brother.

If any brother has disgraced himself, he does not deserve a share in the
property.(245)

Sisters’ portions are allotted out of all the brothers’ shares
equally.(246)

Property is divided once only.(247) But if “on living together after being
separated, they divide (the inheritance) a second time, in that case the
division should be equal, (as) in that case no right of primogeniture
occurs.”(248)

The father’s wealth acquired during his lifetime is at his own disposal,
and need not be divided amongst his sons.(249) Likewise with any property
acquired by the sons.(250) If “any one of the brothers, being able (to
support himself) by his own occupation, does not desire (his share of the)
property,” he may be excluded from the division, but “something for his
support” should be given him to discharge his claim of maintenance from
the family at any future time.(251)




§ 4. Tenure Of Land In Homer: The Κλῆρος And The Τέμενος.


(M121) In the Homeric poems, written, as they are, from an aristocratic or
heroic point of view, a great gulf always exists between the royal or
princely class and the ordinary tribesmen.

The βασιλεύς—the lion of his people(252)—has his select estate, his
τέμενος, with orchards and gardens of considerable extent; while the
swarms of tribesmen are allotted their κλῆροι in the open field, their
share in the common pasture, and depend on each other for help in the
vintage and harvest.

(M122) The possession of large estates and of multitudinous flocks and
herds was one of the privileges of the chieftain or tribesman of princely
rank.


    “For surely his livelihood (_i.e._ Odysseus’) was great past
    telling, no lord in the dark mainland had so much, nor any in
    Ithaka itself; nay, not twenty men together have wealth so great,
    and I will tell thee the sum thereof. Twelve herds of kine upon
    the mainland, as many flocks of sheep, as many droves of swine, as
    many ranging herds of goats, that his own shepherds and strangers
    pasture. And ranging herds of goats, eleven in all, graze here by
    the extremity of the island with trusty men to watch them.”(253)


Bellerophon migrated from his own country and settled under the patronage
of the king of Lykia.(254) He married the king’s daughter, and to complete
his qualification and to confirm his princely status as a βασιλεύς of
Lykia, he was allotted by the Lykians an estate where the plain was
fattest on the banks of the river, consisting half of arable, half of
vineyard, the latter presumably on the slopes of the sides of the
valley.(255) Besides these no doubt he had flocks and herds on the
mountains, with steadings and slaves for their protection. It is
improbable that the fattest of the plain was unoccupied before, and it
must therefore be supposed that the system of agriculture was such as to
admit of such a partition and the consequent readjustment, or that the
dispossessed tribesmen had to compensate themselves with land out of the
common waste.

In somewhat similar wise Tydeus at Argos wedded one of the daughters of
Adrastos, and dwelt in a house full of livelihood; and “wheatbearing
ἄρουραι enough were his, and many were his orchards of trees apart, and
many sheep were his.”(256)

In the description of the Shield of Achilles in the _Iliad_ a vivid
contrast is drawn between the rich harvest of the βασιλεύς and the busy
toil of the tribesmen.


    “Furthermore he set therein a τέμενος deep in corn(257) where
    hinds (ἔριθοι) were reaping with sharp sickles in their hands ...
    and among them the βασιλεύς in silence was standing at the swathe
    with his staff, rejoicing in his heart.”


Meanwhile henchmen are preparing apart a great feast for himself and his
friends, and the women are strewing much white barley to be a supper for
the hinds.(258)

(M123) But in the great common field all was toil and action; many
ploughers therein drave their yokes to and fro as they wheeled about.(259)
The holding of the common tribesman was not an estate (τέμενος) cut out of
the plain, but an allotment (κλῆρος), probably of strips as in Palestine
to-day, in the open fields that lay around the town. On the wheatbearing
plain round Troy(260) lay the stones that former men, before the ten
years’ war, had used to mark the balk or boundary of their strips (οὖρον
ἀρούρης).(261) One of these Athena uses to hurl against Ares, who, falling
where he stood, covers seven of the _pelethra_ that the stones were used
to divide. A pinnacle of stones is the only boundary to be seen to this
day between the strips of cornland in Palestine. Easily dislodged as these
landmarks were, they were specially protected by a curse against their
removal, and were with the Greeks under the awful shadow of a special
deity of boundaries.(262) They seem however to have been liable to
considerable violation. The ass, according to Homer, being driven along
the field-way, if his skin was thick enough, easily disregarded the
expostulations of his attendants, and made free with the growing
crop.(263) Homer also describes a fight between two men with measuring
rods in the common field,(264) and Isaeus(265) relates how an Athenian
citizen flogged his brother in a quarrel over their boundary so that he
afterwards died, whilst the neighbours, working on their land around, were
witnesses of what took place.

Land was brought into cultivation, no doubt, as it was wanted. Achilles
contemplates that some of the rich fields of his friends may be
exceedingly remote, so that it would be a great thing to spare the
ploughman a journey to the nearest blacksmith. And no doubt the powerful
men of the community would, by means of their slaves or retainers, acquire
additional wealth by reclaiming lands out of the way and therefore
requiring a strong hand to protect them, which were profitable by reason
of their very fatness.(266) Such acquisitions would not be included in the
τέμενος of the prince, the very word τέμενος implying an area of land cut
out of the cultivated land of the community, generally described as being
in the plain (πέδιον).

(M124) Such allotments of land seem only to have been made to princes and
gods, but when once allotted, remained as far as can be seen the property
of their descendants. It was a common fancy of the Homeric prince that he
was worshipped as a god, and they often mistook each other for some deity.
The godlike Sarpedon asks his cousin Glaukos, wherefore are they two
honoured in Lykia as gods, with flesh and full cups and a great
τέμενος.(267)

As the possession of full tribal blood was necessary for the ownership of
a κλῆρος, so princely blood was the qualification for the enjoyment of a
τέμενος. The honoured individual need not be a king or overlord, but
besides his valour he must have in his veins the all-potent blood royal,
without which his privilege was no greater than that of other rich
tribesmen.

It was not till the king of Lykia had satisfied himself that Bellerophon
was “the brave offspring of a god,” that he gave him honour, and the
Lykians meted him out a τέμενος.(268) This great τέμενος on the banks of
the Xanthos, half arable and half vineyard, remained in the possession of
his grandchildren, Sarpedon and Glaukos, apparently still undivided,
though they were not brothers but first cousins.(269)

The king of the Phæakians had his τέμενος and fruitful orchard near but
apart from the fields and tilled lands of his townsfolk.(270) Odysseus it
seems had more than one τέμενος.(271)

(M125) Once in the _Iliad_ the epithet πατρώιος is applied to a chief’s
τέμενος.(272) According to Hesychius, πατρώιος means “handed down to one’s
father from his ancestors,”(273) and Homer evidently uses the word in this
sense.(274)

The kingship itself in Ithaka was considered as part of Telemachos’
patrimony: “Never may Kronion make thee king in sea-girt Ithaka, which is
πατρώιον to thee by birth (γενεῇ).”(275)

But though the τέμενος and the kingship were both equally πατρώια, they
did not together constitute an indivisible inheritance. Any one of the
blood could enjoy possession of the land, whilst the over-lordship must
necessarily descend in the eldest or the most able line.

In his answer to the malignant wish quoted above, Telemachos does not
speak as if he contemplated giving up any tangible property. The bestowal
of the kingship, though due to him by inheritance (πατρώιον) is in the
hands of the gods; he means to be master (ἄναξ) of whatsoever Odysseus his
father won for him.

(M126) It is interesting to compare this choice of Telemachos with the
exactly opposite choice made by Iason, as told by Pindar, when he came
back to claim his inheritance which had been seized in the meantime by his
second cousin, Pelias.

He has come home, he tells Pelias, to seek his father’s ancient honour
which Zeus had of old bestowed on his great-grandfather Aiolos and his
sons. It is not for them now, being of the same stock (ὁμόγονοι), to
divide the great honour of their forefathers with sword and javelin. He
will give up all the sheep and herds of kine, and all the fields of late
robbed from his sires, though they make fat beyond measure the house of
Pelias (τεὸν οἶκον πορσύνοντ᾽ ἄγαν). But the kingly sceptre and throne of
his father must be his without wrath between them. And Zeus, the ancestral
god of them both (Ζεὺς ὁ γενέθλιος ἀμφοτέροις), is witness to their
oath.(276)

(M127) Property in land could also be accumulated in the hands of
individuals not necessarily of princely station. Odysseus tells a tale of
how he took a wife of “men with many κλῆροι” (πολυκλήρων ἀνθρώπων) by
reason of his valour.(277) The κλῆρος must therefore at that time have
been at any rate roughly of some recognised area. Perhaps the tendency, so
fatal to Sparta, for the possession of the original shares or allotments
of many families to accumulate in the hands of the powerful or rich, had
already set in. In later colonisations and assignments of new land the
κλῆροι were often equally divided,(278) and the gift of citizenship, as
has been already mentioned, was sometimes accompanied by a grant of a
_half-kleros_ (ἡμικλήριον). Did the κλῆρος then represent in theory an
area of cultivated ground capable of sustaining a single household?




§ 5. Early Evidence _continued_: The Κλῆρος And The Maintenance Of The
οἶκος.


(M128) There are signs in Homer of the existence, already insisted upon
for later times, of the connection of the ownership of property with the
headship of a household. It follows that if the head of a family was the
only owner of land, the desire of establishing a family and thereby
preserving at the same time the acquired property and the name of the
possessor, made the acquisition of a wife a real necessity for the owner
of land.

Eumaios, the swineherd, says that Odysseus would have given him a property
(κτῆσις), both an οἶκος and a κλῆρος and a shapely wife.(279) And Odysseus
in one of his many autobiographies speaks of taking a wife as if it were
the necessary sequel to coming into his inheritance.(280)

Even Hesiod, the son of a poor settler, without much property to keep
together, if we can take Aristotle’s reading of the line, gives the
necessary outfit for a peasant farmer in occupation of a small κλῆρος, as
a house, a wife, and a plough-ox.(281)

Aristotle quotes this line of Hesiod, in his argument that the οἶκος was
the association formed to supply the wants of each day,(282) its members
being called by Charondas, he says, ὁμοσίπυοι (sharers in the mealbin),
and by Epimenides the Cretan ὁμόκαποι (sharers of the same plot of
ground).(283) And he might have added that Pindar uses the word ὁμόκλαροι
to mean “twins.”(284)

(M129) A household, according to Aristotle, consisted thus partly of human
beings, partly of property.(285)

So closely is the idea of livelihood bound up that of the house or οἶκος,
that Telemachos can say without incongruity that his house is being
_eaten_ by the wooers:—


    ἐσθίεταί μοι οἶκος, ὄλωλε δὲ πίονα ἔργα.(286)


The sanctity shared by the hearth and its sustenance may be illustrated by
Odysseus’ oath, which occurs three times in the _Odyssey_: “Now be Zeus my
witness before any god, and the hospitable board and the hearth of
blameless Odysseus whereunto I am come.”(287)

(M130) When once the hospitable board had laid its mysterious spell on the
relations of host and guest, the bond was not easily dissolved. Glaukos
and Diomedes meet “in the mid-space of the foes eager to do battle,”
fighting on opposite sides. Nevertheless because the grandfather of one
had entertained the grandfather of the other for twenty days and they had
parted with gifts of friendship, their grandsons refrain from battle with
each other, pledge their faith, and exchange armour as a witness to others
that they are guest-friends by inheritance (ὄφρα καὶ οἵδε γνῶσιν, ὅτι
ξεῖνοι πατρώιοι εὐχόμεθ᾽ εἶναι).(288)

If such force lay in the entertainment of a guest for a few days, some
idea can be formed of the virtue underlying the meaning of such words as
ὁμοσίπυοι and ὁμόκαποι, and binding together those habitually nourished at
the same board.

(M131) If sons married during their father’s lifetime without any
particular means of livelihood, they could live under his roof and
authority, forming a great patriarchal household like that of Priam and
his married sons and daughters at Troy. But when a household dispersed
before the marriage of the sons and the inheritance was divided amongst
them, it was deemed indispensable for them to take wives, and each provide
for the establishment of his house and succession. This necessity is the
underlying motive of the compulsion over the only daughter left as
ἐπίκληρος to marry before a certain age, exercised by the Archon at
Athens. There the idea of the need of a continuous family (as well as for
other purposes), to keep together the property, had grown up apparently as
a reflection, so to speak, of the obvious importance of the property to
the family for the maintenance of itself and its ancestral rites.

Though evidence is wanting for the _raison d’être_ of this sentiment in
Homer, the existence of the feeling can hardly be denied.

The κλῆρος, at any rate, continued to pass from father to son in the
family of the tribesman or citizen. Hector encourages his soldiers by
reminding them that though they themselves fall in the fight, their
children, their house (οἶκος), and their κλῆρος will be unharmed, provided
only that the enemy are driven back.(289)

The sentiment that a man was not really “established,” according to the
estimation of the Homeric Greeks, until the continuity of his house was
provided for, seems to explain the two references to Telemachos in the
_Iliad_. Odysseus is twice mentioned, as Mr. Leaf points out in his
_Companion to the Iliad_,(290) as the father of Telemachos, simply because
it was considered a title of honour to be named as sire of an established
house. No other mention of Telemachos occurs in the _Iliad_.

Failure of heirs was, as in later times, the great disintegrating factor
and danger to the continuity of the family holdings. As long as a direct
descendant was to be found, the property was safe.

Eurykleia comforts Penelope in her fear for the absent Telemachos,
saying:—


    “For the seed of the son of Arkeisios is not, methinks, utterly
    hated by the blessed gods, but someone will haply yet remain to
    possess these lofty halls and the _fat fields_ far away.”(291)


Is it by accident that she here chooses the name of Arkeisios to describe
the head of the family of Laertes and Odysseus? He was Laertes’ father,
and in Telemachos, if he was preserved alive, he would thus have a
_great-grandson_ to represent his line in the succession to his property.

(M132) The diversion of inheritance to any property from the direct line
is spoken of in Homer as a lamentable circumstance greatly intensifying
the natural grief at the death of the direct heir.


    “Then went he after Nanthos and Thoon, sons of Phainops,
    striplings both; but their father was outworn of grievous age, and
    begat no other son for his possessions after him. Then Diomedes
    slew them and bereft the twain of their dear life, and for their
    father left only lamentation and sore distress, seeing he welcomed
    them not alive returned from battle: _and kinsmen divided his
    substance_ (κτῆσις).”(292)


In the tumultuous times of the _Odyssey_ the right of succession must
often have been interrupted by war and violence. Possessions, not only of
land, had to be defended by the sword even during the lifetime of the
acquirer. This prompts one of the wishes of Odysseus in his prayer at the
knees of Arete:—


    “And may each one leave to his children after him his possessions
    in his halls and whatever dues of honour the people have rendered
    unto him.”(293)


The same anxiety prompts his question to his mother in Hades, to which he
obtains answer:—


    “The fair honour (γέρας) that is thine no man hath yet taken, but
    Telemachos holdeth in safety (thy) demesnes (τεμένεα
    νέμεται).”(294)


(M133) The belief in the inseparability of the ancestral holding and the
family was strong in Samaria at the time of Ahab. The King offered Naboth
another vineyard better than his own in exchange for the one at Jezreel
near the palace, or, should he prefer it, its worth in money. But Naboth
said to Ahab, “The Lord forbid it me, that I should give _the inheritance
of my fathers_ unto thee.”(295)

Both the Hebrew narrators and the Greek translators describe Ahab finally
as taking the vineyard at Naboth’s death _by inheritance_ (LXX.
κληρονομεῖν), in spite of the violence of the means of acquiring it
adopted by Jezebel.

The limited right of the prince to alienate from his family any part of
his possessions is thus alluded to by Ezekiel:—


    “Thus saith the Lord God; If the prince give a gift unto any of
    his sons, the inheritance thereof shall be his sons’; it shall be
    their possession by inheritance. But if he give a gift of his
    inheritance to one of his servants, then it shall be his to the
    year of liberty: after it shall return to the prince: but his
    inheritance shall be his sons’ for them.”(296)




§ 6. Early Evidence _continued_: The Τέμενος And The Maintenance Of The
Chieftain.


(M134) It must be borne in mind that the tribal idea of the chieftainship
sanctioned the custom that the maintenance of the chieftain and his
companions or retainers should be levied at will upon the property of the
people. This privilege is very wide spread, and had its origin in the
earliest times.

The levies were claimed under the name of _gifts_, and earned for the
princes the title of δωροφάγοι. As Telemachos declares, “it is no bad
thing to be a βασιλεύς, and quickly does his house become rich and he
himself most honoured.”(297)

The royal family and nobles(298) levied contributions on their own or
conquered peoples apparently at will in Homer. Agamemnon calls together
the Greek chiefs:—


    “Ye leaders and counsellors of the Argives ... who drink at the
    public cost (δήμια πίνουσιν) and each command an host (σημαίνουσιν
    ἕκαστος λαοῖς).”(299)


Priam chides his sons:—


    “Ye plunderers of your own people’s sheep and kids (ἀρνῶν ἠδ᾽
    ἐρίφων ἐπιδήμιοι ἁρπακτῆρες).”(300)


Telemachos declares that if the wooers eat up all his sheep and substance,
he will go through the city (κατὰ ἅστυ) claiming chattels until all be
restored.(301)

Alkinoos proposes to give gifts to Odysseus, and they themselves going
amongst the people (ἀγειρόμενοι κατὰ δῆμον) will recompense themselves:
“for hard it were for one man to give without return.”(302)


    “Then I led him to the house,” says Odysseus, “and gave him good
    entertainment ... out of the plenty in my house, and for the rest
    of his company ... I gathered and gave barley meal and dark wine
    from the people (δημόθεν) and oxen to sacrifice to his heart’s
    desire.”(303)


(M135) These passages throw light on Agamemnon’s offer to Achilles of
seven well-peopled towns, whose inhabitants would enrich him with
plenteous gifts.(304) The proposal of Menelaos to empty a city _of Argos,_
to accommodate Odysseus and his people, seems to be of quite a different
order, and betrays to us that the tyranny of the tribal chieftain, so
conspicuous in other nations, was no less a reality also amongst the
Greeks under Achaian rule.(305)

(M136) In the Indian society that was regulated in accordance with the
_Ordinances of Manu_, the king appointed a chief of a town whose duty it
was to report to the higher officials on any “evil arising in the town.”
He likewise represented the king, and had the king’s right to receive
supplies from those under his oversight.


    “What food, drink, (and) fuel are to be _daily_ given by the
    inhabitants of a town to the king let the head of a town
    take,”(306)


the line always being drawn between legitimate demands and tyrannical
extortion.


    “For those servants appointed by the king for protection (are)
    mostly takers of the property of others (and) cheats; from them he
    (_i.e._ the king) should protect these people.”(307)


(M137) Under the rule of the Persians, all Asia was parcelled out in such
a way as to supply maintenance (τροφή) for the Great King and his host
throughout the whole year.(308) The satrap of Assyria kept at one time so
great a number of Indian hounds, that four large villages of the plain
were exempted from all other charges on condition of finding them
food.(309)

(M138) Solomon’s table was provided after the same method.


    “And Solomon had twelve officers over all Israel which provided
    victuals for the king and his household; each man his month in a
    year made provision.... And Solomon’s provision for one day was
    thirty measures of fine flour and threescore measures of meal, ten
    fat oxen and twenty oxen out of the pastures and an hundred sheep,
    beside harts, and roebucks, and fallowdeer, and fatted fowl....
    And Solomon reigned over all kingdoms from the river unto the land
    of the Philistines, and unto the border of Egypt; they brought
    presents, and served Solomon all the days of his life.... And
    those officers provided victual for king Solomon, and for all that
    came unto king Solomon’s table, every man according to his
    charge.”(310)


(M139) Sesostris is said to have obtained his revenue from the holders of
κλῆροι in Egypt in proportion to the amount of land in each man’s
occupation;(311) and Pharaoh, having bought all the land at the time of
the famine in Egypt except that which supported the priests, took
one-fifth of all the produce, leaving the remainder “for seed of the
field,” and for the food of the cultivators, and their households and
little ones. “And Joseph made it a law over the land of Egypt unto this
day, that Pharaoh should have the fifth part, except the land of the
priests only, which became not Pharaoh’s.”(312)

In this case Pharaoh became proprietor by purchase of the land in Egypt.
But it must not be supposed that by exacting a payment from the occupier,
the overlord as a rule had any power over the ownership of the soil. He no
doubt had proprietary rights over his own estate, and may or may not have
had power to regulate any further distribution of the waste. But the right
of receiving dues, or of appointing another to receive them, gave him no
power over the actual tillage of the soil.

(M140) The maintenance of the prince was a first charge apparently upon
the property of his subjects; and it is easy to see how the lion’s share
would always be allotted to him, alike of booty as of acquired territory.
As long as the community was pastoral, it is also easy to imagine how the
chief both increased his own wealth and admitted favoured companions or
resident strangers to a share in the elastic area of the common pasturage.
After agriculture had assumed equal importance in the economy of the tribe
as the tending of flocks and herds, one is apt to forget that for
centuries—perhaps for thousands of years—the system of agriculture that
grew up, still possessed much of the elasticity of the old pastoral
methods. Under the open field system, such a custom as that described by
Tacitus and in the Welsh Laws, viz. of ploughing up out of the pasture or
waste sufficient to admit of each tribesman having his due allotment, and
letting it lie waste again the next year, admitted of considerable
readjustment to meet the exigencies of declining population, as well as
providing an easy means whereby any stranger prince, like Bellerophon, who
might be admitted to the tribe, could be allotted either a τέμενος apart,
or a κλῆρος in the open plain.

Pindar describes this method of cultivation when he says:—


    “Fruitful fields in turn now yield to man his yearly bread upon
    the plains, and now again they pause and gather back their
    strength.”(313)


(M141) It is noticeable that the Aetolians offered Meleagros a τέμενος in
the fattest part of the plain, wherever he might choose, as a _gift_
(δῶρον); and as the τέμενος would certainly be cultivated by slave or
hired labour, what they really gave him was the right of receiving the
produce from the 50 _guai_ composing the τέμενος. But this gift was meant
as a special honour or bribe, and took a special form in being in land as
a means of permanent enrichment.

In similar wise Ezekiel suggested the capitalisation, as it were, by a
gift of land of the contributions to the princes, which no doubt were felt
to be very irksome. In the division of the land, a portion was to be set
aside first for the use of the temple and priests, then a portion for the
prince.


    “In the land shall be his possession in Israel, and my princes
    shall no more oppress my people; and the rest of the land shall
    they give to the house of Israel according to their tribes. Thus
    saith the Lord God, Let it suffice you, O princes of Israel;
    remove violence and spoil and execute judgment and justice, and
    take away your exactions from my people, saith the Lord God.”(314)


And again:—


    “Moreover the prince shall not take of the people’s inheritance by
    oppression, to thrust them out of their possession; but he shall
    give his sons inheritance out of his own possession; that my
    people be not scattered every man from his possession.”(315)


But there can be no doubt, that although the prince may have had no power
to dislodge any of the free tribesmen of his own people from their
holdings, yet no one could gainsay him if he chose to enrich himself by
planting or reclaiming any part of his domains, as Laertes is represented
as having done.(316)

(M142) The modern usage in Boeotia and in the island of Euboea may very
well represent the procedure of ancient times, and if it can be imagined
that some method of the same sort was in vogue in Boeotia in the time of
Hesiod, it will be understood how possible it was for Hesiod’s father to
settle at Askra and gradually to acquire possession of a house and κλῆρος.


    “There is some cultivation from Plataea to Thebes, but strangely
    alternating with wilderness. We were told that the people have
    plenty of spare land, and not caring to labour for its artificial
    improvement, till a piece of ground once, and then let it lie
    fallow for a season or two. The natural richness of the Boeotian
    soil thus supplies them with ample crops. But it is strange to
    think how impossible it is, even in these rich and favoured
    plains, to induce a fuller population.”(317)


At Achmetaga, in Euboea,


    “The folk pay for their houses a nominal rental of a bushel of
    wheat per annum, in order to secure the owner’s proprietary claim,
    which would otherwise pass to the occupier by squatter’s right
    after thirty years of unmolested occupation. They are at liberty
    to cultivate pretty well as much land as they care to, paying to
    the landlord one-third in kind.... The produce here is almost
    exclusively wheat or maize, but every family maintains a plot of
    vineyard for home consumption.”(318)


(M143) Whether the free tribesman ever looked upon the contribution he
made to the maintenance of the princes, under whose protection he had the
privilege of living, as a condition of tenure of his land, is open to
doubt; but from the right to demand indiscriminate gifts, to confiscate or
eject in case of refusal, it is only one step to the exaction of a regular
food-rent as a return for the occupation of land.




§ 7. Summary Of The Early Evidence.


It may be useful here briefly to summarise the results of the inquiry of
the last three sections into the relation of the ownership of land to the
structure of society in Homer and in early times.

(M144) the princes had their compact estates divided off from the other
land of the community, so that a passer-by could point and say, “There is
the king’s τέμενος.”(319) The ordinary tribesman on the other hand had a
share in the common fields under cultivation, probably consisting of a
number of scattered pieces of land lying mixed up with those of others,
and therefore only referred to on the face of the land, under the
comprehensive terms ἀγροὶ καὶ ἔργα ἀνθρώπων.(320)

This share of the tribesman was, as in later times, called a κλῆρος, it
being possible for a man to enjoy several such holdings and deserve the
epithet πολύκληρος, whilst the lowest class of freemen consisted of those
who possessed no land, under the ignominious title of ἄκληρος.

(M145) The κλῆρος, descending from father to son, was apparently connected
with the οἶκος or household, and supplied its maintenance. The οἶκος grew
fat or was consumed in accordance with the capacity of its head, and its
continuity was regarded as a matter of the utmost importance. Its members
were bound together at their ancestral hearth by mutual ties of common
maintenance. The sanctity of thus sharing the same loaf extended also to
guests, whose relations to their hosts might last for several generations.
It is the necessity of supplying the οἶκος and its dependents with the
means of sustenance and hospitality among a pastoral people gradually
adapting themselves to agriculture, that regulates the tenure of land and
the duties of the householder.

(M146) The power of the chieftain to draw upon the resources of his people
for the entertainment of his household and his guests by exactions payable
in kind, supplemented by the power he also seems to have possessed to
transfer at will the right of receiving these “gifts” to any one he chose,
seems to contain the germs of the more complicated system of food-rents as
a condition of land tenure, which is so important a feature of the Celtic
tribal arrangements.

(M147) Inasmuch as the prince was a member of the tribe, he was entitled
to an allotment in the land under cultivation, the very word κλῆρος
implying the equal right of all members of the tribe to a share in the
soil. But inasmuch as the prince possessed blood royal and claimed his
descent from the very gods that the tribesmen worshipped, his dignity was
above partaking with his tribesmen of a κλῆρος in the common fields. He
was therefore allotted a τέμενος apart, and worthy of his divine
parentage. Besides the bare single allotment of the τέμενος, land was set
apart for him as a gift of honour by the people, from whom honour and
gifts to their prince were due. Gifts in land formed a special mark of
honour, and may at the same time have served another purpose from the
giver’s point of view by way of a permanent source of income or endowment,
as it were, whereby the continuous exactions towards the maintenance of
the prince from the lands of the people might tend to be alleviated. Thus
much of power over the property of his inferiors he undoubtedly retained,
and he probably cultivated what he liked of the outlying lands under his
sway.

(M148) But the evidence does not show that he ever had the right of coming
between the οἶκος of his tribesmen and their κλῆρος: the only means at his
disposal of severing the link between the family and the land, were those
employed by Ahab and Jezebel to acquire the “inheritance” of the ancestral
vineyard of Naboth at Jezreel.




§ 8. Hesiod And His Κλήρος.


In the time of Hesiod, the κλῆρος(321) could be sold in case of need and
added to the possession of another.

(M149) But the case of Hesiod is in itself somewhat exceptional. His
father had fled from his own country by stress of poverty, and settled on
the barren land of Askra in Boeotia, where he was allowed to acquire some
land.(322) He was therefore somewhat of a sojourner (the μετανάστης of
Homer),(323) and, true to the Homeric doctrine, was unencumbered by the
claims of kindred. Hesiod contrasts the ready help of the neighbour with
the perfunctory slowness of the kinsman, duty-bound. The neighbour, he
says, is prompted by the need of mutual protection of material property,
the kinsman stays to bind on his sandals and gird his loins for the labour
he is forbidden to shirk.(324)

Hesiod and his brother Perses had divided the κλῆρος of their father into
two, and lived apart. Perses had squandered his half, and spent his time
and his livelihood in the gay life of the town, but none the less seems to
have expected to be allowed to draw still further on the resources of the
paternal property, to the distress of his industrious brother.

Hesiod does not contemplate any possible means of making a living other
than by tilling the soil; and his quaint ideas may be taken as typical of
the small Boeotian peasant-farmer, allowance being made for the short time
that his family had held land at Askra.




§ 9. Survivals Of Family Land In Later Times.


(M150) In later Greek writers it is several times stated that the κλῆροι
or ἀρχαῖαι μοῖραι were inalienable. Yet all remark to what a deplorable
extent the alienation and accumulation of land into few hands had been
carried. Aristotle comments on the excellence of the ancient law, at one
time prevalent in many cities, against the sale of the original κλῆροι,
and the good purpose therein of making every one cultivate his own
moderate-sized holding.(325)

Innumerable passages could be quoted from the speeches of Isaeus,
referring to the law that forbade any one to alienate by will his landed
estate from his lawful sons. Plato warns his friends that buying and
selling is desecration to the god-given κλῆρος.(326)


    “Now I, as the legislator, regard you and your possessions, not as
    belonging to yourselves, but as belonging to your whole family,
    both past and present.”(327)


Plutarch and Heraclides say that the same law against the sale of the
κλῆρος existed anciently at Sparta.

(M151) Plutarch’s evidence, late as it is, of the ancient customs among
the Spartans is worthy of further consideration.

In his _Life of Agis_ he states that the κλῆρος passed in succession from
father to son—ἐν διαδοχαῖς πατρὸς παιδὶ τὸν κλῆρον ἀπολείποντος—until the
Peloponnesian war.

In his _Life of Lycurgus_ he says that—


    “When a child was born, the father was not entitled to maintain it
    (τρέφειν), but he took and carried it to a place called ‘lesche,’
    where the _elders of his tribesmen_ were sitting, who, if they
    found the child pretty well grown and healthy, ordered its
    maintenance (τρέφειν), allotting to it one of the 9,000 kleroi
    (κλήρων αὐτῷ τῶν ἐνακισχιλίων προσνείμαντες).”(328)


Elsewhere in Greece at the introduction of the new-born child to the
relations and friends a few days after its birth, symbolical gifts of food
were made as the child was carried round the hearth.(329)

(M152) The important part of this ceremony at Sparta, described by
Plutarch, seems to be the introduction of the infant to the elders of the
tribe, and the recognition by them of its right to maintenance, if it
appeared to them physically worthy of admission to the tribe. It cannot be
supposed that Plutarch believed that vacant κλῆροι escheated, so to speak,
to the community, because he elsewhere describes the lamentable tendency
of estates to get into few hands, which the community would in that case
surely have been able somewhat to prevent. Nor is it likely that a κλῆρος
was actually set apart for the maintenance of each infant, who was
apparently still nourished in its father’s house until seven years old,
when its education and occupations were regulated by the State.

Reading this passage with the other in the _Life of Agis_, a natural
inference is, that the child’s right to succeed to the property of his
father only was thereby assured to him by the elders, _i.e._ the right on
his attaining manhood to enjoy the possession of land. This is the view
taken by M. de Coulanges;(330) but surely there is more underlying the
account of the ceremony. What actually took place with regard to the
allotment of a κλῆρος to the infant member of the tribe, cannot be decided
here. The State at Sparta undertook to educate all her sons after a
certain age, and gave the parent no further rights over the child. Is
there in this ceremony a transfer of the claim for maintenance from
against the head of the household to the larger unit represented by the
elders of the tribe, irrespective of the inheritance of the son from his
father?

It would be necessary for the adult Spartan citizen, of the class of
ὁμοιοι at any rate, to have a right to the produce of some land, as
otherwise it is difficult to see how he could contribute the necessary
provisions that formed his share of maintenance at the joint table of his
_syssition_; unless indeed he drew his allowance from his father’s estate.

(M153) In any case the idea of the dependence of a member of the tribe for
sustenance upon his right to a κλῆρος is striking; and at the same time
the evidence goes to show that his maintenance was a claim upon a group of
kinsmen at Sparta, comprising more than the nearest relations, and was
recognised as such by them.

(M154) The link that bound the cultivators to their land was so strong in
early times at Athens, that mortgages could apparently not be paid off by
mere transfer of the land itself; but the whole family of the debtor went
with their mortgaged property and became enslaved to the creditor, having
in future to work the land for him at a fixed charge.

This was the state of affairs that Solon set himself to mend, and it is
instructive that the method, he seems to have chosen, was to loosen the
tie between the owner and his land, and, by facilitating the transfer of
land from one to another, to obviate the necessity of taking the debtor’s
person with his family into slavery on account of the debt.(331)

Nevertheless, in spite of the radical legislation of Solon, the sentiment
that bound the family to the soil remained long after his time.

(M155) Besides the prohibition to sell the family land which Aristotle
speaks of as prevailing in Lokris, the Hypoknemidian Lokrians insisted on
actual residence on that land in the case of their colony at Naupaktos.
Though unable apparently wholly to forbid the participation of the
colonists in the ancestral rites of their kin in Lokris, they took
advantage of the prevailing sentiment with regard to the permanence of the
family, and insisted that the continuance of the hearth of the colonist at
Naupaktos should at any rate be considered of equal importance.

According to an inscription of the fifth century B.C.:—


    “The colonist has the right to return to Lokris and sacrifice with
    his γένος both in the rites of his δᾶμος and his φοίνανοι for
    ever. He can only return permanently without paying the
    re-establishment tax if he has left ἐν τᾷ ἱστίᾳ at Naupaktos a
    grown-up son or a brother. If a γένος of the colonists is left
    without a representative (ἐχέπαμον) ἐν τᾷ ἱστίᾳ, the nearest of
    kin (ἐπάγχιστος) in Lokris shall take the property, provided he go
    himself, be he man or boy, within three months to Naupaktos. A
    colonist can inherit his share of his Lokrian father’s or
    brother’s property....”


    “If a magistrate deals unfairly and refuses justice, he shall be
    ἄτιμος and shall lose his μέρος μετὰ οἰκιατᾶν.”(332)


(M156) Though the sale of estates could be effected at Athens in the
fourth century B.C., yet, when the owner died without having sold, the
succession was regulated by the ancient custom. If there were legitimate
children, the inheritance to the land could not be diverted from them,
even by will;(333) provided only that the children had gone through the
ceremony of being accepted and enrolled by the phratria. If the descendant
had neglected this formality, and had failed to be recognised as a legal
member of the kindred or clan, he or she lost all rights to the property,
which went to the devisee or next of kin.(334) The right to possess land
was thus at Athens, as at Sparta, intimately connected with the tribal
organisation; and the claim for maintenance from the paternal estate could
only lie, after full acknowledgment of the necessary qualification had
been granted by the larger unit of relationship.




§ 10. The Idea Of Family Land Applied Also To Leasehold And Semi-Servile
Tenure.


(M157) Attention has been drawn to the reciprocal relations that existed
between the family and its land, and their inseparability in the minds and
phraseology of the Greeks at different times. There is a further
development however arising from this point of view, without some notice
of which the subject of the tenure of the κλῆρος would be incomplete, and
which serves to confirm the method with which this subject has been
treated.

Though alike in their estimation of the possession of land as a means of
livelihood and for the accumulation of wealth, the Greeks had very
different views with respect to the place of agriculture as a worthy
occupation for a citizen. Sparta regarded it as entirely beneath the
dignity of her sons and forbade their personal application to the
cultivation of their κλῆροι. There was at Athens, on the other hand, a
large class of citizens whose energies were entirely devoted to the
production of fruits of the earth, whilst the life of a country gentleman,
combined with that of the farmer, was by no means despicable in their
eyes.

(M158) There were mainly two methods of enjoying the possession of a
landed estate. Either the land was cultivated by the owner himself with
the help of bought slaves or hired servants, few or many, as described in
Hesiod and the _Oeconomics_ of Xenophon;(335) or the owner resided in the
city or a neighbouring town, and the land was tilled by aliens or serfs
(called sometimes κλαρῶται), like the Helots of Sparta, who paid an annual
contribution from the produce to their landlord. The serf was often
attached hereditarily to the soil in the sense of being unable to give up
his holding, but also had certain rights as against his master, both in
the matter of his own possessions and in that he could not be sold out of
the country.(336)

(M159) There is a passage in the Gortyn Laws that states:—that if there
are no rightful successors to inherit the property of a deceased
Gortynian, his household’s κλῆρος, _i.e._ the persons composing it, shall
inherit his property. That is to say, if a Gortynian family died out and
no legal representative could be found, their proprietary rights were
extinguished and the κλαρῶται who lived upon the land took all their
property. This provision favours the idea that at Gortyn also the
citizen-population came of a race of conquerors, who were not exactly
looked upon as ground landlords upon whose land a subject family was
settled or had been allowed to remain, but that, whilst the relation of
the κλαρῶται to their land was of the closest if not an absolute bondage
to the soil, the proprietary rights of their superiors and masters
consisted of the conqueror’s overlordship and the power to derive their
maintenance from the joint produce of their serfs’ labour and the
land.(337)

This comprehensive use of the word κλῆρος, as meaning both the allotment
of land and the family who were bound to occupy it, whose labour also
created its value to its lord and master, is quite consistent with the use
of the word in reference to the holdings of the Spartan citizens. The
allotment of a κλῆρος at Sparta evidently meant also a transference of
rights over the Helots that worked it; and even if this further
implication was not actually included in the meaning of the word, it was
so inseparable in thought that no explanation was necessary of the
composite significance of the allotment.

(M160) The Athenians in their κληρουχίαι seem instinctively to have
combined these two methods of agriculture. The κληροῦχοι were not
colonists, who became citizens of a new city, but they remained citizens
of Athens, holding however their κλῆροι in a remote district. But the
chief feature of this method of landholding was that the owner, though
remaining a citizen of Athens and liable to the same claims from the
mother city in respect of military service, &c, as before, was yet
supposed to reside in the neighbourhood of his new κλῆρος. This was the
case, even when the land itself was left in the hands of the conquered
population at a fixed annual charge.

(M161) An inscription found on the Acropolis of Athens, and relating to
some date about 560 or 570 B.C., defines the legal status of the first
κληροῦχοι sent to Salamis. They were assimilated to Athenian citizens as
to taxes and military service; but they must reside on their land under
pain of an absentee’s tax to the State.(338)

(M162) In the year 427 B.C. the Athenians conquered the island of Lesbos.
They imposed no tribute on the subjugated islanders, but, making the land
into three thousand κλῆροι “except the Methymnian land,” they first set
apart three hundred κλῆροι as sacred to the gods, and on to the others
they sent off κληροῦχοι chosen by lot from themselves; to these the
Lesbians paid annually for each κλῆροι two minae, and _themselves worked
the land_.(339)

According to the account of Aelian, the same method of procedure was
adopted after the conquest of Euboea in about 510 B.C. The Athenians,
having conquered the Chalkidians, apportioned their land to κληροῦχοι(340)
in two thousand κλῆροι, _i.e._ the country called Hippobotos; and, setting
aside τεμένη to Athena in the place called Lelantos, they let out(341) the
rest according to the pillars that stand in the King’s Stoa, which thus
bear record of the leases.(342)

(M163) The holding of each κληροῦχος may have varied in size according to
the character of the soil and features of the country; but it may safely
be asserted that it must have been of sufficient dimensions, not only to
provide subsistence for the native population left on the soil, but also
to pay a considerable portion towards the keep of the κληροῦχος himself,
during his enforced residence in the conquered country.

The class of citizen from amongst whom the κληροῦχοι were chosen by lot,
did not consist of families with much property in Athens.(343) Younger
sons without occupation, whom their fathers had not been quite callous
enough to “expose” in infancy,(344) and restless individuals without
property in the mother country, would be most likely to offer themselves.
And to such the two minae per annum, paid by the Lesbians from the produce
of each κλῆρος, would appear a reasonable if not a sumptuous provision of
livelihood. There were a hundred drachmae in the mina, and if it is true,
as asserted by Plutarch,(345) that in the time of Solon one drachma was
the price of a sheep, a yearly income of two hundred sheep, or their
equivalent, would be forthcoming to each κληροῦχος—surely a considerable
contribution to the maintenance of his family.(346)

Under these circumstances each κλῆρος served to provide maintenance for
two households—both of whom had hereditary rights therein, though
themselves in different strata of society. Both households also were in a
sort attached to the soil, the one in practical bondage, the other bound
by law to reside in the country wherein lay its substance, and (if we may
use the common expression of the Welsh Laws) its privilege.

(M164) This double and continuous ownership was not confined to the
semi-servile tenure of lands annexed by Athenian conquests.

Leases to be handed down from father to son _for ever_—τὸν πάντα
χρόνον—subject of course to the regular payment of the rent, seem to have
been quite usual.

What is said to be the oldest Greek contract we have, is of this
nature.(347) It was found in Elis at Olympia, and runs as follows:—


    “Contract with Theron and Aichmanor with regard to the land in
    Salamona of eighteen plethra. Rent, twenty-two manasioi of barley
    in the month Alphioios; if he omits, let them pay double. _They
    shall hold for ever._”(348)


There is an instance of a proprietor of land at Mylasa, in Karia,
deliberately selling his estates to a sacred community for the benefit of
the god, and receiving them again (like the Roman _precaria_) from the
trustees on perpetual lease—εἰς πατρικά—as the patrimonial substance of
his family, for himself and his issue or whosoever should take inheritance
from him. He thus obtained a money value down in return for his property,
but bound himself and his descendants to an annual rent of so many
drachmae, to form part of the revenues of the god. Moreover his
“family-land” in this case was apparently more inalienable now than
before; for he might neither divide the land henceforth, nor share the
responsibility for the rent with another.(349)

(M165) Do not these instances show that even leases were included in the
same category with actual ownership of land, being embraced within the
characteristic idea that the land that contributed to the maintenance of
the family and had come to be regarded almost as giving that family its
social if not its political status, should descend unintermittently from
generation to generation in that family, though its occupation was subject
to providing support likewise to a superior owner and his family, whose
descendants in their turn also would demand their share in the produce?

Is the conclusion justified that the basis of this indomitable feeling was
that the peculiar view of the family, as consisting of a long line of past
and future representatives, precluded the individual, who happened to be
the living representative at any given time, from taking an irresponsible
position as absolute master of the property, upon which his family had
been, was, and would be dependent?





CHAPTER V. CONCLUSION.


(M166) In weighing the results of this essay, it would be absurd to
pretend that anything of the nature of a last word can be said on the
subject. The process of the early development of Greek society cannot be
ascertained merely from the study of a few survivals in historic times.
The comparative method must be carried much further than has been
attempted here, before the secrets of antiquity can be laid bare and an
authoritative statement made.

There would seem, however, to be at any rate some points, of those that
have come under notice, worthy of further investigation, in so far as they
indicate that Greek society was no isolated growth, but must be given a
place in the general development of the systems of Europe.

(M167) It is suggested that in the continuity of city life from an earlier
stage of society under some form of the Tribal System, can be found the
only natural explanation of the structure of the kindred at Athens in the
fourth and fifth centuries B.C. Comparison with the customs of other
nations,—the Hindoos, the Welsh, and the Israelites, the last two being
the most typical examples of peoples of which we have written records
whilst still living under the tribal system—has shown remarkable analogies
in the organisation of their inner society.

(M168) The actual similarity in the sentiment which surrounded the
possession of the privileges of tribal blood and the title to citizenship
at Athens, can hardly be exaggerated.

(M169) The foundation of the bond in either case has a threefold aspect.
The bond is one of blood, of religion, and of maintenance.

(M170) The qualification for citizenship, as much as for the tribal
privilege, was a question of parentage; and the citizen equally inherited,
with his blood, responsibilities towards the community into which he was
born, as to a larger kindred.

(M171) Membership of the tribe or of the city was the only qualification,
that admitted to the privilege and duty of partaking in the public
religious observances. Tribesmen and citizens, by virtue of their
privilege, shared in the worship of the greater gods, of Hestia in the
Prytaneum, of Zeus Agoraios, and of the Heroes or special guardians of
their community; in like manner as the member of the smaller group of a
kindred, by virtue of his blood, shared in the worship of the Apollo
Patroïos, the Zeus Herkeios or Ktesios, and the heroes or ancestors of his
family. Inasmuch as citizenship depended upon purity of descent, the
possession of the latter qualification carried with it the right to share
in the greater ceremonies. But the converse was equally stringent, in that
the possession of shrines of Apollo Patroïos and Zeus Herkeios was
impossible, unless the family was one of those who had for many
generations been recognised as belonging to the true stock of the
community.

(M172) Inasmuch as the worship of private or public gods consisted mainly
of offerings of food, of beasts or produce of the earth, and wine, every
tribesman or citizen must have had the means of providing his share in the
offerings, besides supporting himself and his family. Those devoted to
handicraft or merchandise were often despised by the regular tribesman or
citizen, and sometimes therefore formed separate clans by themselves, like
the smiths in Arabia. It is not surprising, therefore, to find that the
membership of the tribe or city should have carried with it the right to
the possession of some portion of the arable land and of the pasture, upon
which all were regarded as being dependent. In this way the possession of
land was intimately related to the status and the duties of the owner. It
was the visible mark of his full tribal privilege, and was the practical
means of his fulfilling his duty towards his fellows and the public
religion, as well as to the needs of his ancestors and household. It seems
also to have been believed that, in partaking of the hospitality or
sharing in the sacrificial feast of any family, a bond was for the time
being created which was in most respects practically equivalent to
relationship by blood to the members of that family.(350)

(M173) Apart from the tribal character of the qualification for
citizenship, the most conservative organisation wherein had been
stereotyped the most precious of tribal customs, was that of the kindred.

It is suggested that the vitality of the customs surrounding the bond of
family relationship was due to the importance attached to the religious
and social functions incumbent on all members of a household united by
kindred blood. The actions of the individual members were constrained by
their weighty responsibilities towards the continuance and prosperity of
the composite household, in which they moved, and apart from which their
existence could not but be altogether incomplete.

The worship of ancestors occupied a prominent place in the needs of the
Athenian household, and, no doubt, had a corresponding influence in the
preservation of its unity. The same of course cannot be said for Wales,
where Christianity had replaced, in the records at any rate, whatever
religious beliefs may have existed earlier. But the grouping of the
kindred according to grades of relationship was adhered to by the Welsh as
an intrinsic part of their very conception of a kindred; and this would
point to the conclusion that such subdivisions were due to wider needs
than can be found in any particular form of religious belief or worship.

(M174) If, as has been suggested, in adhering to these customs, the Greeks
were still treading in the tracks of their tribal ancestors, how is it
that the most convincing evidence comes from as late as the fifth and
fourth centuries B.C. and mainly from the most highly civilised of the
cities of Greece?

The _Iliad_ and the _Odyssey_ may perhaps be trusted as truly portraying,
so far as they go, the manners and customs of the great period of Achaian
civilisation, known as Mycenean, which may be said to have culminated just
before the Dorian invasion. Whence then came the public recognition of
those household ceremonies of ancestor-worship, which filled such a large
place in the life of the Athenian citizen, and which, it has been
suggested, were consciously or unconsciously slurred over by the Homeric
poets?

(M175) Mr. Walter Leaf has already found an answer to this question,(351)
viz. that these ceremonies were the long cherished customs of the ancient
Ionian or Pelasgian inhabitants of Greece, who had formed the substratum
of society under Achaian rule, and who only came into prominence on the
removal of their superiors at the time of the Dorian invasion. And this
continuity, underlying the superficial rule of the Achaians, seems to be
borne out by recent research and discovery.(352)

The Athenians always boasted their Ionian descent, and may well have
inherited their habits with the traditions of their origin.

(M176) But the customs reviewed in the foregoing pages seem to have a
wider parentage than can be attributed to the Pelasgians alone. Spartan
customs at any rate cannot thus be accounted for.

(M177) In the course of argument reference has often been made to the
Jewish records in the Books of the Old Testament, and indeed a remarkable
parallel is presented in the history of the two peoples. Both peoples
apparently reached their greatest period about the same time. The reign of
Solomon with its gold and costly workmanship must have resembled that of
the Mycenean kings in more than similarity of date, and outward splendour.
Taking Homer again as the courtly chronicler of the Achaian age of gold,
the Books of the Kings of both peoples are curiously conscious of their
former tribal conditions, through which they easily trace back to the very
fountain-head of their race.

(M178) In the period of the decay of the Jewish people under the stress of
invasion by foreign kings, strenuous efforts were made by their prophet
leaders to purge them from the alien blood and alien influences contracted
in the careless days of their prosperity. Their aim was to restore once
more those strict tribal habits which had served them so well at the time
of their own victorious invasion, and which still lay dormant in their
constitution. In similar wise, the period of Achaian prosperity seems to
have been followed by a rise into prominence at any rate, if not an actual
resuscitation, of old tribal customs.

(M179) The actual traces of tribal institutions in Homer need not be
underrated. There is much that is of a tribal character in the Homeric
chieftain in his relations to his tribesmen and to their gods. Survivals
of tribal custom may also be seen in the reverence for the guest, and the
sacredness of the bond of hospitality lasting as it did for generations;
and in the blood-feud with its deadly consequences, especially when
occurring within the tribe or kindred. Indeed if only the Pentateuch of
the Achaians could be found in the ruins of Mycenae and added to the
Homeric Book of the Kings, would it not then probably be evident that
there was much more of a tribal nature in the organisation of the kindreds
of the Achaians and surviving throughout the whole period of their
splendour than the aristocratic poets of the Homeric schools allowed
themselves to record?

(M180) Although therefore nearly all our evidence of the internal
structure of the kindred among the Greeks dates from the fifth century
B.C., the ἀγχιστεία at Athens must not be put down as belonging merely to
that period. In the light of the close analogies to be found in the
structure of other tribal systems, it is probable that such subdivisions
of the kindred belong to an extremely early period in the history of the
Greeks, whether as Achaians or Ionians or Dorians. Are they not indeed
necessary features of tribal society itself wherever it is examined?





INDEX.


Adoption, object of, 35;
  out of unfortunate home, 36;
  ceremony of, 36-7

_Agora_, 2, 3

ἀγχιστεία, 32;
  its meaning, 55;
  its limits, 58-9;
  all within it liable for bloodshed, 75 _et seq._;
  its tribal origin, 143

Ancestor-worship, 10, 140;
  in Homer, 5, 7;
  in Israel, 8, 9;
  in Egypt, 11;
  pre-Homeric, 141, _note_

ἀνεψιός see ἀγχιστεία

βασιλεύς, one of a class, 107, 114;
  honoured like a god, 105-6, 122;
  owned τέμενος, 102, 106, 122;
  influenced the seasons, 105, _note_;
  over-lordship not altogether hereditary, 107;
  levied maintenance on their people, 115, 122;
  Solomon, 116;
  household βασιλεύς 92

Bastard, no place in family, 95-6;
  allotment or gift for his maintenance, 95-6

Blood, as basis of family, 13;
  of tribe, &c., 4-5, 138;
  its purity jealously guarded, 67 _et seq._;
  acquisition of, 68 _et seq._

Blood-fine, not within the tribe or kindred, 42-4, 77;
  in Wales, the _galanas_, 78 _et seq._;
  paid by whole family, 79 _et seq._

Bloodshed, responsibility for, 42;
  rested on ἀγχιστεία, 75 _et seq._;
  within the kindred, 44, 77

Citizenship, admission to, 71, 96;
  qualification for, by three descents, 73;
  basis of, 138;
  confirmed to son of stranger, 71, _note_

ἔγκτησις, grant of, to new citizen, 97, _note_; 123, _note_

ἐπίκληρος, succession found through her, 23;
  she must marry next-of-kin, 23-7;
  in Gortyn laws, 26;
  where more than one, 26;
  inherited for her issue, 28;
  Ruth as, 31, 34;
  had right of maintenance from property, 23-4

Family (_see_ οἶκος), bound to the land, 127 _et seq._;
  family estate in Santa Maura, 86;
  head of family, 91

Funeral, _see_ Sacrifices

Gavelkind, in Kent, 95

Guest, importance at sacrifice, 99-100;
  hereditary guestship, 110

Hearth, 3, 4;
  as basis of the family, 13, 17;
  in Prytaneum, 4, 15;
  initiation of heir to, 89

Heir, duties of, 18-19, 20;
  importance of male heir, 21-3, 98 _et seq._;
  daughter’s son, 23-7;
  always ranks as _son_ of deceased, 34 _et seq._, 59 _et seq._;
  initiated to hearth, 89;
  introduced to kindred, 36;
  and to the deme, 38-9;
  importance of introduction of, 41, 125-8;
  co-heir in Wales, 51;
  law of succession, 57 _et seq._;
  disinheritance, 61;
  division among heirs, 64 _et seq._, 101;
  Ahab’s ’inheritance’ of Naboth’s vineyard, 114

Hesiod, his κλῆρος, 123;
  the needs of a farmer, 109

_Hestia_, 3, 4, 138;
  called “princess,” 13

Inheritance, see κλῆρος, and Heir

Kinship, grades of, 48 _et seq._;
  in India, 52;
  in Wales, 49, 67 _et seq._;
  the fourth degree, 73, 112;
  the seventh, 78 et _seq._;
  the ninth, 68 _et seq._;
  wife’s relations no kin to husband but are to son, 61, _note_

Kinsmen, duties of, 18, 42;
  next of kin marries “heiress,” 23-7, 35;
  his duty to redeem property in Israel, 32, 95;
  kinsmen accept heir, 36, 41, 125-7;
  sanction disinheritance, 61;
  liable for bloodshed, 75 _et seq._;
  Hesiod’s idea of, 123

κλαρῶται, 130

κλῆρος, its form, 85 _et seq._;
  supported the οἶκος, 88 _et seq._, 110, 121, 127;
  need not be divided, 47, 89, 93, 97;
  no joint holding between father and sons, 93;
  sold in case of need, 94;
  in theory inalienable, 94, 113, 124, 127;
  allotted to new citizen, 96;
  in Homer, 102;
  held by tribesmen, 108;
  of Hesiod, 123

κληροῦχοι, 131 _et seq._

Land, ownership of, proof of civic rights, 83, 96 (_see_ κλῆρος and
            τέμενος)

_Lar_ = “lord,” 12;
  _lares_ of king, 4

Leases, for ever, 134-6

Levirate, not in Greece, 27;
  in India, 29;
  in Israel, 30 _et seq._

Maintenance of parents (_see_ Parents);
  of οἶκος, 110;
  the bond of, 110, 139;
  of the chief, 114 _et seq._; 122;
  in Ezekiel, 119;
  of children at Sparta, 125;
  gift of food to babe, 125;
  derived from κλῆρος, 127

_Manes_, duties to, in India, 19

Marriage, of heiress, 23-6;
  of near relations, 29;
  of widow (_see_ Levirate)

_Octopus_, 125 _note_

οἶκος, part of γένος, 17;
  importance of continuity of, 9, 19-20, 30, 35, 111, 128;
  the unit of ownership of property, 47, 109;
  extent of, 54-6, 88-9;
  the householder in India, 99;
  supported by its land, 110, 113, 121;
  of Bouselos, 55, 62;
  power of head of, 91-2

Open field system, in Greece, 85;
  in the islands, 87;
  in Homer, 88, 104;
  its elasticity, 118-9

_Parage_, in Normandy, an undivided tenure, 50

Parents, maintenance of, 18, 48;
  after death, 19

_Phratria_, enrols legitimate sons, 36-7;
  partly responsible for bloodshed, 76

Primogeniture, not the rule in Greece, 90;
  nor in India, 97 _et seq._;
  eldest son had certain rights or dignity, 90 _et seq._, 97 _et seq._;
  called ἠθεῖος, 91, _note_

_Prytaneum_, 3, 4, 15, 138

Register, of phratria, 36;
  of deme, 38

Ruth, as widow and ἐπίκληρος, 31-4

Sacrifices, object of, 6, 139, _note_;
  to the dead, 8, 9-12;
  of funeral cake in India, 51 _et seq._;
  funeral rites at Athens, 20;
  of householder in India, 99;
  bond of common religion, 13, 53, 138

Stranger, abhorrence of, 5, 71, 74;
  as guest, 99 (_see_ Guest);
  admission to tribe, 67 _et seq._, 96

τέμενος, in Homer, 103, 113;
  allotted to princes and gods, 102, 106, 118, 122;
  called πατρώιος, 106;
  helped to support prince, 118-9

Tonsure, in Greece, 39;
  in India, 40

Tribe, its basis one of blood, 4-5, 138;
  possible development of, 14-15;
  admission to, 68 _et seq._, 96 (_and see_ Citizenship)

Widow, could not inherit from husband, 27-8;
  returned to her kin or guardian, 28;
  when allowed to remain, 28, _note_;
  the case of Tamar, 30;
  of Ruth, 31 _et seq._

THE END.






FOOTNOTES


   M1 Vitality of the tribal system.
   M2 Its survivals form the subject of this inquiry.
   M3 The centres of political and tribal society.

_    1 Il._ ix. 63.

_    2 Il._ ii. 400.

_    3 Il._ xi. 807.

_    4 Il._ ii. 788.

   M4 The Prytaneum and Hestia.

_    5 Journal of Philology_, xiv. 145 (1885), Mr. Frazer on Prytaneum.

    6 Cauer, _Delect. Inser. Graec._ § 121. (Crete, c. 200 B.C.) “I swear
      by Hestia in the Prytaneum (τὰν ἐμ πρυτανείῳ), by Zeus of the Agora,
      Zeus Tallaios, Apellon Delphinios, Athanaia Poliouchos, Apellon
      Poitios, and Lato, and Artemis, and Ares, and Aphordite, and Hermes,
      and Halios ... and all gods and goddesses.” _Cf._ also § 116, and
      _Od._ xiv. 158.

      Plato, in _Laws_ § 848, says Hestia, Zeus and Athena shall have
      temples everywhere.

_    7 Thuc._ ii. 16.

   M5 Their origin.

_    8 Journal of Philol._ xiv. 145.

_    9 Op. cit._ p. 153.

   M6 Qualification for share in religious rites one of blood.

   10 Exception, however, was sometimes made in the case of the stranger
      as a favoured guest, _v. infra_, p. 99.

   M7 Ancestor-worship not obvious in Homer.

   11 Plato (_Laws_ 948) remarks that at the time of Rhadamanthos the
      belief in the existence of the gods was a reasonable one, seeing
      that at that time most men were sons of gods.

   M8 Offerings of food to the gods,

_   12 Il._ xxiii. 206. It is clear from _Il._ i. 466 _et seq._ that the
      sacrifice was held to be a feast at which the choice portions were
      devoured by the god by means of the fire on his altar. _Cf._ p. 139,
      note.

   M9 and to the dead.

   13 It was not therefore only at the mouth of Hades that the dead could
      benefit by such offerings.

  M10 The continuance of his name quite as important as offerings of food.

_   14 Od._ iv. 197. _Cf._ _Il._ xvi. 455.
      ἔνδα ἑ ταρχύσουσι κασίγνητοι τε ἔται τε
      τύμβῳ τε στήλῃ τε: τὸ γὰρ γέρας ἐστὶ θανόντων.

   15 The speculative state of mind displayed in the _Iliad_ may be
      illustrated from the effect on Achilles of the apparition of
      Patroklos after death in a dream. As he wakes suddenly the
      conviction comes upon him:—“Ay me, there remaineth then even in the
      house of Hades a spirit and phantom of the dead, albeit the life be
      not anywise therein: for all night long hath the spirit of hapless
      Patroklos stood over me, wailing and making moan, and charged me
      everything that I should do, and wondrous like his living self it
      seemed.” _Il._ xxiii, 113 &c.

  M11 Offerings to the dead in the Old Testament.

   16 Ps. cvi. 28. _v._ Maine’s _Early Law and Custom_, p. 59.

  M12 Resemblance between Homer and the Old Testament.

   17 1 Sam. xx. 6. Θυσία τῶν ἡμερῶν ἐκεῖ ὅλῃ τῇ φυλῇ.

  M13 Ancestor-worship in India and Rome.

   18 Soph. _Antig._ 659.

   19 Coulanges, _Cité Antique_, p. 65.

   20 Soph. _Antig._ 199.

   21 Soph. _Phil._ 933. Soph. _Elekt._ 411.

  M14 The need of food for the dead;

   22 Aesch. _Pers._ 609-618. The speaker in this case is a Persian and a
      woman; but many passages might be quoted from the Greek poets. _Cf._
      Lucian, _De Luctu_, 9. Τρέφονται δὲ ἄρα ταῖς παρ᾽ ἡμῖν χοαῖς καὶ
      τοῖς καθαγιζομένοις ἐπὶ τῶν τάφων: ὡς εἴ τῳ μὴ εἴη καταλελειμμένος
      ὑπὲρ γῆς φίλος ἥ συγγενὴς, ἄσιτος οὗτος νεκρὸς καὶ λιμώττων ἐν
      αὐτοῖς πολιτεύεται.

  M15 the same in Egypt,

   23 Edited by C. H. S. Davis (Putnam, 1894).

_   24 Id._ chap. liii.

_   25 Id._ chap. lxxii.

_   26 Id._ chap. lxxvii.

  M16 and in India.
  M17 Ancestor-worship not necessarily post-Homeric.

_   27 Cité Antique_, p. 93, ἑστία δέσποινα.

  M18 The hearth and the tie of common blood.
  M19 Possible course of social development.
  M20 The change of tribesmen into citizens.

_   28 Wks. & Days_, 327-332.

_   29 Id._ 353-5.

  M21 The study of the family introductory to the history of the tribe.
  M22 The duties of the individual to his οἶκος,
  M23 began with his living parents;

_   30 Laws_ § 717, Trans. Jowett, _cf._ 729 C and 931 A.

  M24 and extended to their tomb.

   31 Arist, _Ath. Pol._ lv. 3. Isaeus, viii. 32. “The law commands us to
      maintain (τρέφειν) our parents even if they have nothing to leave
      us.” _Cf._ Ruth iv. 15 διαθρέψαι τὴν πολιάν σου.

      _Iliad_ iv. 477 and xvii. 302.

      ... οὐδὲ τοκεῦσιν
      θρέπτα φίλοις ἀπέδωκε...

      Hesiod, _Works and Days_, 118.

      οὐδέ κεν οἵγε
      γηράντεσσι τοκεῦσιν ἀπὸ θρεπτήρια δοῖεν
      χειροδίκαι.

   32 Plato, _Laws_, 877 C.

   33 Aeschin. _c. Timarch._ § 13.

   34 Isaeus, iv. 19 (_Nicostrat._).

  M25 Continuity of the family;
  M26 in the _Ordinances of Manu_;

_   35 Ordinances of Manu_, translated by A. C. Burnell, edited by E. W.
      Hopkins. London: 1884. Bk. ix. 106, 8, 182, 137, 161.

  M27 and according to Plato.

_   36 Laws_, 721 B, Trans. Jowett, _cf._ 923 A.

   37 Dem. _c. Leoch._ 1090, and _Il._ xxiii. 163, xvi. 455, xxiv. 793.

   38 Dem. _c. Macart._ 1077.

   39 Isaeus, ii. 36 and 42.

   40 Arist. _Pol._ 1, 2, 4, Ἡ κτῆσις μέρος τῆς οἰκίας ἐστί.

  M28 The importance of male succession.

   41 Plut. _Lycurg. and Numa_ 4. Xen. _Rep. Lac._ i. 7 to 9.

   42 From Xen. _Rep. Lac._ i. 9, it would seem that such children, born
      into a family where there were already children of both father and
      mother, had no share in the family property.

   43 This was the practice also in Arabia (Rob. Smith, _Kinship &c._, p.
      110).

   44 Herod. v. 40.

   45 Herod. vii. 205. Quoted by Hearn, _Aryan Household_, p. 71.

_   46 Iliad_ xv. 497.

   47 Is. vii. 30.

   48 Is. ii. 36.

   49 Is. iii. 59 and 60, vi. 28.

  M29 Succession through a daughter.

   50 For want of a better translation implying “going with the property”
      this word will be rendered by “heiress.”

   51 Is. viii. 31. _Cf._ συνουκεῖν in Dem. _in Neaeram_ 1386.

   52 Demosth. _Steph_. ii. 1134. Son. of ἐπίκληρος inherits (κρατεῖν τῶν
      χρημάτων) ἐπὶ δίετες; τὸν δὲ σῖτον μετρεῖν τῇ μητρί.

   53 Is. vi. 14. _Cf._ Ar. _Vesp_. 583 _et seq._

_   54 Manu_ ix. 131 and 132.

_   55 Ib._ 136.

_   56 Ib._ 135.

  M30 She must marry the next of kin.

_   57 Laws_, 924.

_   58 Cf._ Terence, _Phormio_ 125-6.

      Lex est ut orbae, qui sunt genere proxumi,
      Eis nubant, et illos ducere cadem haec lex jubet.

      and Diod. Sic. xii. 18: ὁ δὲ ἀγχιστεὺς πλούσιος ὦν ἠναγκάσθη γῆμαι
      γυναῖκα πενιχρὰν ἐπίκληρον ἄνευ προικός.

  M31 even though already married.

   59 Isaeus, iii. 64.

_   60 Ordinances_ iii. 11.

   61 Isaeus, i. 39.

  M32 Similar rules in the laws of Gortyn,

   62 vii. 15-ix. 24. We may compare this with _Odyssey_ vii. 60 _et seq._
      where Alkinoos marries his _niece_, Arete, the only child and
      therefore ἐπίκληρος of his brother Rhexenor.

_   63 c. Macart._ 1068 (_Law_)

   64 (Plut. _Solon_ 21. ἐν τῷ γένει τοῦ τεθηκότος ἔδει τὰ χρήματα
      καταμένειν. Plato, _Laws_ 925. A heiress _must_ marry a citizen. In
      the Gortyn laws, if any one marry the heiress contrary to law, the
      next of kin shall have the property).

  M33 and amongst the Israelites.
  M34 The levirate proper not found in Greece.
  M35 The widow returned to her guardian.

   65 Dem. _c._ _Macart_. 1076. Widow only allowed to remain in her
      deceased husband’s house on plea of pregnancy and under the
      guardianship of the archon.

      Dem. _c._ _Boeot_. 1010. Wife leaves her husband’s house and is
      portioned out again by her brothers.

   66 Cf. _Ord. of Manu_ v. 147-8. “No act is to be done according to
      (her) own will by a young girl, a young woman, or even by an old
      woman, though in (their own) houses.

      “In her childhood (a girl) should be under the will of her father;
      in her youth, of her husband; her husband being dead, of her sons; a
      woman should never enjoy her own will.”

   67 Dem. _c._ _Spoud_. 1029. Father takes away daughter and gives her to
      another.

      _Cf._ also Dem. _c._ _Eubulid_. 1311.

      Isaeus, v. 10. By coming into an inheritance from his first cousin,
      a man also becomes guardian (ἐπίτροπος καὶ κύριος) of his three
      female first cousins, though all married.

   68 Dem. _pro Phormio._ 953.

   69 As in Isaeus, ii. 7 and 8.

   70 ix. 70. &c.

  M36 Marriage of near relations.

   71 vii. 11 and 12.

  M37 The levirate among the Israelites.
  M38 The case of Tamar.

   72 Gen. xxxviii. 10.

  M39 The case of Ruth.

   73 Ruth i. 8-12.

   74 For the meaning of ἀγχιστεύς see below p. 55.

  M40 Dependence on the next of kin.
  M41 The son of the heiress must leave his father’s house,

   75 xi. 49.

  M42 and enter that of the deceased relative

   76 Isaeus, vii. 31.

_   77 c. Macart._ 1077.

  M43 Hence the custom of adoption.

   78 Dem. _c. Leochar._ 1093. ἐκ τῶν κατὰ γένος ἐγγυτάτω εἰσποιεῖν υἱὸν
      τῷ τετελευτηκότι ὅπως ἄν ὁ οἶκος μὴ ἐξερημωθῇ.

   79 Is. x. 17.

  M44 The introduction of the heir to the kindred.

   80 Arist. _Pol._ 1, 2, 4 Ἡ κτῆσις μέρος τῆς οἰκίας ἐστί.

  M45 The same for true as for adopted son.
  M46 The ceremony at Athens;

   81 Is. ii. 14.

   82 Is. vii. 1, 16, 13 and 27.

   83 Dem. _c. Eubulid._ 1315.

   84 Is. vi. 25.

   85 Andoc. _de Myst._ 126.

   86 Dem. _c. Macart._ 1054 and 1078.

   87 Dem. _c. Leoch._ 1091. Isaeus iii. 80 and viii. 18.

  M47 and at Gortyn;

   88 Isaeus ix. 7 (_Astyph._) τελευτήσαντι αὐτῷ καὶ τοῖς ἐκείνου
      προγόνοις τά νομιζόμενα ποισει.

   89 Isaeus vi. 44; ix. 2 and 33; x. 2 and 4. Dem. _c. Leoch._ passim.
      _Cf. Manu_, ix. 142.

   90 Dem. _c. Leoch._ 1094, 1099, and (_lex Solonis_) 1100.

_   91 Ib._ 1090.

  M48 and also in India.

   92 Mayne on _Hindu Law_ (1892), p. 105 and 162.

_   93 Op. cit._ p. 141-2 and 189. _Manu_ ix. 142. He offers no cake to
      his original ancestors.

  M49 The introduction to the deme.
  M50 The custom of tonsure.

_   94 Thes._ 5.

   95 ἀπάρχεσθαι: in Homer to “begin” a sacrifice by offering the _hair_
      of the victim. Later, to “dedicate.”

_   96 Il._ ii. 542 ὄπιθεν κομόωντες.

   97 Herod, iii. 8. The Arabs cut their hair in a ring away from the
      temples.

_   98 Il._ xxiii. 141-6.

   99 Paus. i. 37, 3.

_  100 Char._ 21.

_  101 Deipnosoph._ xi. 88.

_  102 Manu_ ii. 65.

_  103 Cf._ ii. 38. This was the last year that a Brahman could receive
      investiture.

  104 Isaeus, vi. 10.

_  105 Anc. Grk. Inscr._ Brit. Mus. cccxv. cccxvii. and cccxviii. Oath of
      mother required before legitimacy registered, in the island of
      Kalymna.

_  106 Cf._ Aristot. _Ath. Pol._ xlii.

  107 Isaeus, iii. 75.

_  108 Ib._ vi. 47. _Cf._ Deuteronomy xxiii. i.

  M51 Liability for bloodshed rested on a group of kinsmen.

  109 Robertson Smith, _Kinship, &c. in Arabia_, p. 262.

  110 Dem. _in Euerg._ and _Mnesib._ 1160.

  111 Dem. _Macart._ 1069. _Cf._ Deut. xxi. 1-9.

_  112 Cf. Od._ iii. 195.

  M52 No ransom for murders within the tribe;

_  113 Il._ ix. 63.
      ἀφρήτωρ, ἀθέμιστος, ἀνέστιός ἐστιν ἐκεῖνος,
      ὅς πολέμου ἔραται ἐπιδημίου ὀκρυόεντος.

  114 Il. xiii. 695. _Cf._ xv. 335.

_  115 Il._ xvi. 572.

_  116 Il._ ii. 662.

_  117 Cf. Od._ xiii. 259, xiv. 380.

  M53 or between citizen and citizen.

  118 Quoted in Dem. _c. Aristocrat._ 629.

_  119 Laws_ 865 d.

_  120 Ib._ 871. Soph. O.C. 407. Oedipus could not be buried on Theban
      soil, because he had shed ἔμφυλον αἷμα.

_  121 Cf_. Aeschines in _Ctesiph._ 244.

  122 ix. 17-19. _Cf._ Dem. _c. Pantaen._ 983, 59.

  123 Plato, _Laws_ 871 D.

  124 Plato, _Laws_ 871 B. _Cf._868.

_  125 Ib._ 872 E. _Cf._ Tacitus, _Germania_, 21. Suscipere tam
      inimicitias seu patris seu propinqui quam amicitias necesse est. Nec
      implacabiles durant: luitur enim etiam homicidium certo armentorum
      ac pecorum numero, _recipitque satisfactionem universa domus_,
      utiliter in publicum, quia periculosiores sunt inimicitiae juxta
      libertatem.

_  126 Ib._ 873 E.

  127 Herod. i. 44.

  M54 All kinsmen were not equally responsible.
  M55 The unity of the οἶκος.

  128 v. _infra_ p. 90 _et seq._

_  129 c. Leoch._ 1083.

  130 Dem. _c. Macart._ 1055-6.

  131 Isaeus, viii. 32.

  M56 Grades of kinship in Western Europe.
  M57 The position of the great-grandson,
  M58 in Wales,

_  132 Venedotian Code_, ii. xii.

  133 Lady Charlotte Guest’s _Mabinogion_, p. 234.

  M59 and in feudal Normandy.
  M60 The custom of _parage_.

  134 cxxviii-cxxxi.

  M61 Co-heritage in Wales.

_  135 Dimetian Code_, ii. xxiii.

  M62 Degrees of relationship in India.

_  136 Manu_, ix. 186.

_  137 Manu_, iii. 5.

_  138 Manu_ v. 60.

  M63 Four generations share in the cake-offering.
  M64 Similar grouping of the pourers of the water libation.

_  139 Gwentian Code_, ii. viii.

  M65 The οἶκος includes four generations.

  140 Dem. _c. Makart._ 1076.

  M66 The ἀγχιστεία at Athens.

  141 Cf. _infra_, tree on p. 62.

  142 Dem. _c. Makart._ 1055-6.

  143 Dem. _c. Makart._ 1077.

_  144 Id._ 1078 _et seq._

  M67 The right of succession limited to the great-grandchild of the
      common ancestor.
  M68 The law according to Isaeus.

  145 Isaeus, vii. 22, and xi. i.

  146 Isaeus, xi. 30.

  M69 The law according to Demosthenes.

_  147 c. Makart._ 1067.

  148 In Dem. _c. Leochar._ 1088. ἀνεψιαδοῦς is used to denote the
      relationship of a man to the adopted son of his great-uncle, or, as
      we should say, first cousin once removed.

  M70 No ἀγχιστεία beyond great-grandsons.

_  149 c. Makart._ 1053.

  M71 The heir always ranked as _son_.

  150 Dem. _c. Makart._ and _c. Leoch._ 1100, &c.

  M72 Hence the limit of the inheritance at cousin’s children.
  M73 Disinheritance must be sanctioned by kinsmen.

  151 The wife’s kin are no kin to her husband, but _are_ to her son.

  152 Plato, _Laws_, 929 c. Trans. Jowett.

  M74 The case of the estate of Hagnias in Isaeus and Demosthenes.

  153 Dem. _c. Makart._ 1058.

_  154 Id._ 1070.

  155 Mentioned in Dem. _c. Makart._ 1056.

  M75 Equal division amongst heirs of the same grade.
  M76 The share of a dead son taken by his children.

_  156 Supra_, p. 56.

  M77 If sons all dead, grandsons probably divided _per capita_,
  M78 as in the case of nephews and cousins.

_  157 c. Makart._ 1068, _supra_, p. 26.

  M79 Purity of tribal blood jealously guarded.
  M80 In Wales, privileges attained in the fourth generation by
      intermarriages.

_  158 Welsh Laws_, iv. i. and x. vii. Exception is made for the _son of a
      stranger chieftain_.

_  159 Welsh Laws_, v. ii. and _Vened. Code_, ii. xvi. and elsewhere.

  M81 Otherwise not until the tenth generation.

_  160 Welsh Laws_, v. ii.

_  161 Welsh Laws_, xiii. ii.

_  162 Venedotian Code_, ii. xiv. and _Gwentian Code_, ii. xxx. _Cf._ the
      Shunammite’s _cry unto the King_ for restoration of her house and
      fields after an absence of seven years. 2 Kings viii. 3.

  M82 The same rule amongst the Israelites.
  M83 Shorter time in special cases.

  163 Gen. xlviii. 5. _Cf._ Pindar, _Ol._ viii. 46. Troy to be subdued by
      children of Aeacus in first and fourth generations.

  M84 The privilege of citizenship jealously guarded at Athens.

  164 Dem. _in Neaer._ 1376.

_  165 Anc. Inscrip._ Brit. Mus. ccxxxviii. Citizenship had to be
      confirmed on son of foreigner admitted to citizenship.

  M85 Abhorrence of alien blood.
  M86 Citizenship only conferred as the highest honour.
  M87 Qualification dependent on ancestry and status of family.

_  166 Ath. Pol._ lv. 3.

_  167 Cf._ Pollux, viii. 85: εἰ Ἀθηναῖοί εἰσιν ἑκατερωθεν ἐκ τριγονίας.

_  168 Cf._ Aristot. _Pol._ iii. 2: ὁρίζονται δὲ πρὸς τὴν χρῆσιν πολίτην
      τὸν ἔξ ἀμφοτέρων πολιτῶν καὶ μὴ θατέρου μόνον, οἷον πατρὸς ἢ μητρός,
      οἳ δὲ καὶ τοῦτ᾽ ἐπὶ πλέον ζητοῦσιν, οἷον ἐπὶ πάππους δύο ἢ τρεῖς ἢ
      πλείους.

  M88 Fourth generation acquired new privilege or status.

_  169 Oed. Tyr._ 742 and 1063 quoted by Hearn, _Aryan Household_, p.
      206.

      θάρσει; σὺ μὲν γὰρ οὐδ᾽ ἐὰν τρίτης ἐγὼ
      μητρὸς φανῶ τρίδουλος, ἐκφανεῖ κακή ...

      _Cf._ Demosth. 1327. πονηρὸς ἐκ τριγονίας.

_  170 Handbuch der Griechischen Staatsalterthümer_, von G. Gilbert, ii.
      p. 298, quotation from Dittenberger 371, 4 ff.:—(ὁ) πριάμε(νος τ)ὴν
      ἱερητείαν τῆς Ἀρτέμιδος τῆς Περ(γα)ίας π(αρ)έξετα(ι ἱ)έρειαν ἀστὴν
      ἐξ ἀστῶν ἀμφοτέρων ἐπὶ (τ)ρεῖς γενεὰς γεγενημένην καὶ πρὸς πατρὸς
      καὶ πρὸς μητρός.

  171 Nehemiah vii. 64.

  M89 Seventh generation in the Ordinances of Manu.

_  172 Manu_, x. 64.

  M90 All within the ἀγχιστεία were liable.

  173 Plato’s _Laws_, ix. 871 B.

_  174 Cf._ 868.

  175 872 E.

  176 878 D.

  M91 The Law of Draco.

  177 Dem. _c. Makart_, 1069.

      There is some uncertainty in the text of this passage, but the
      following is Blass’ reading adopted by Kohler:—προειπεῖν τῷ
      κτείναντι ἐν ἀγορᾷ ἐντὸς ἀνεψιότητος καὶ ἀνεψιοῦ συνδίωκειν δὲ καὶ
      ἀνεψιοὺς καὶ ἀνεψιῶν παῖδας καὶ ἀνεψιαδοῦς καὶ γαμβροὺς καὶ
      πενθέρους καὶ φράτορας.

      I am indebted to Mr. J. W. Headlam for this information, and also
      for the fact of the discovery of the confirmatory inscription.

  178 Dem. _c. Euerg. et Mnesib._ 1161. κελεύει ὁ νόμος τοὺς προσήκοντας
      ἐπεξιέναι μέχρι ἀνεψιαδῶν; καὶ ἐν τῷ ὅρκῳ διορίζεται ὅτι προσήκων
      ἐστι etc.... _Cf._ Pollux, viii. 118 (obviously quoting this
      passage).

  M92 The case of murder within the ἀγχιστεία.

_  179 Laws_, 877 c.

_  180 Cf._ 2 Sam. xiv. 7. House extinguished for fratricide.

  M93 The blood-fine or galanas in Wales.

_  181 Dimetian Code_, ii. i.

_  182 Gwentian Code_, ii. viii. _Cf._ Sapinda and Samānodaka: both owe
      rites at death of kinsman. Manu, ix. 186, and v. 60, quoted above.

_  183 Venedotian Code_, iii. i.

  M94 Defilement rested upon the group of kinsmen.

_  184 Inscript. Jurid. Grecques_ par Dareste, &c., 1891, p. 10.
      Inscription found at Iulis in Keos. _Fifth century_ B.C. _Cf._
      Numbers xix. 14.

_  185 c. Makart._ 1071.

  M95 The mother’s relations included in Greece and in Wales.

_  186 Welsh Laws_, vol. i. 229. Cf. _Ord. of Manu_, ix. 201, where list
      of those incapable of receiving inheritance includes eunuchs.

  M96 The usual holding of a citizen was called a κλῆρος or “lot.”

  187 ὁ περὶ τῶν κλήρων καὶ ἐπικλήρων. _Pol. Ath._ 9.

  M97 The relation of ownership of land to the structure of the family.

  188 Cf. _Cic. de Legibus_ ii. 21. Nam sacra cum pecunia pontificum
      auctoritate, nulla lege conjuncta sunt.

  189 Dem. _in Calliclem_, 13-14. Coulanges, _Problèmes d’Histoire_, p.
      19.

  190 Arist. _Pol. Ath._ lv. 3; Harpocration, ὅτι δὲ τούτοις μετῆν τῆς
      πολιτείας οἷς εἴη Ζεὺς ἑρκεῖος, δεδήλωκε καὶ Ὑπερείδης ...

  191 In other words, the devisee could not possess the property devised
      to him until his place as heir in the succession by blood or
      adoption was legally established.

  192 Isaeus, i. 17. The “friendship” insured that his presence and
      officiating at the tomb would be acceptable to the soul of the
      deceased—always an important consideration.

  M98 Early semi-pastoral habits.

  193 Thuc. i. 2. Νεμόμενοί τε τὰ αὑτῶν ἔκαστοι ὅσον ἀποζῇν, καὶ
      περιουσίαν χρημάτων οὐκ ἔχοντες οὐδὲ γῆν φυτεύοντες, ἄδηλον ὃν ὁπότε
      τις ἐπελθὼν καὶ ἀτειχίστων ἅμα ὄντων ἄλλος ἀφαιρήσεται.

_  194 Od._ 21. 16. Cf. _Il._ xi. 682 _sq._ where the booty consists of 50
      herds of kine, 50 flocks of sheep, 50 droves of swine, 50 flocks of
      goats, and 150 chestnut mares, many with foals at foot.

_  195 Il._ xx. 216-8.

_  196 Il._ xxi. 602. Cf. _Od._ iii. 495.

  M99 Modern methods of land-tenure in Greece and the islands.

_  197 Consular Reports_, p. 20.

_  198 Ibid._

 M100 Family-holdings in Santa Maura.

  199 P. 199.

_  200 Consular Reports_, pp. 23 and 30.

 M101 The open field system in Greece,
 M102 and in the islands.

_  201 Ibid._ p. 26.

_  202 Ibid._ p. 40.

_  203 Ibid._ p. 49.

 M103 The open field system in Homer.

  204 “The Homeric Land System,” _Journal of Hellenic Studies_, 1885.

 M104 Ownership of the κλῆρος vested in the head of the οἶκος.

  205 Isaeus, xi. 49 (Hagnias).

  206 Harp. _s. v._ ἀφ᾽ Ἑστίας μυεῖσθαι; Ἰσαῖος ἐν τῷ πρὸς Καλυδῶνα. ὁ ἀφ᾽
      Ἑστίας μυούμενος Ἀθηναῖος ἦν πάντως. κλήρῳ δὲ λαχὼν ἐμυεῖτο.

 M105 Dependence of other members of the οἶκος.

  207 Isaeus, vii. 15 and 27, (Apollod.)

  208 1055 _et seq._ _Cf._ 1149 where one brother lives with his father
      after the division, whilst his brother has a house of his own: and
      1086 where two brothers live apart but with undivided estate.

 M106 The prerogative of the eldest brother,

_  209 Il._ xv. 187 _sq._

_  210 Ib._ xiii. 355.

_  211 Cf._ the use of ἠθεῖος (“revered”) as the stock epithet of the
      _eldest_ brother in Homer _Il._ vi. 518, and elsewhere. Pollux,
      _On._ 3, 24, states that this is the right use of the word.

 M107 contrasted with the power of the head of the household.

_  212 Od._ xiii. 142.

_  213 Il._ iv. 59 _sq._

      Καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ θεός εἰμι, γένος δὲ μοι ἔνθεν, ὅθεν σοι;
      καὶ με πρεσβυτάτην τέκετο Κρόνος ἀγκυλομήτης,
      ἀμφότερον, γενεῇ τε καὶ οὕνεκα σὴ παράκοιτις
      κέκλημαι; σὺ δὲ πᾶσι μετ᾽ ἀθανάτοισιν ἀνάσσεις.

_  214 Od._ i. 397, _cf._ ix. 115.

  215 xxix. Εἰς Ἑστίαν.

      Ἑστιη, ἣ πάντων ἐν δώμασιν ὑψηλοῖσιν
      ἀθανάτων τε θεῶν χαμαὶ ἐρχομένων τ᾽ ἀνθρώπων
      ἕδρην ἀίδιον ἔλαχε, πρεσβηίδα τιμὴν,
      καλὸν ἔχουσα γέρας καὶ τίμιον; οὐ γὰρ ἄτερ σοῦ
      εἰλαπίναι θνητοῖσιν, ἵν᾽ οὐ πρώτῃ πυμάτῃ τε
      Ἑστίῃ ἀρχόμενος σπένδει μελιηδέα οἶνον.

  216 Pol. I. 2, 6. πᾶσα γὰρ οἰκία βασιλεύεται ὑπὸ τοῦ πρεσβυτάτου. _Cf._
      use of πρεσβεύεσθαι in _Aesch. Ag._ 1300, _Choeph._ 486 and 631.

_  217 Gortyn Law_, iv. 24, _supra_ p. 47.

 M108 No joint holding between a father and his sons.

  218 In the island of Tenos, according to an inscription of the second or
      third century B.C., the transfer of undivided fractions of houses
      and property was of exceedingly common occurrence. Sales are
      recorded of a fourth part of a tower and cistern; half a house,
      lands, tower, &c. _Inscr. Jurid. Gr._: Dareste, &c. p. 63.

 M109 Confirmatory evidence of the Gortyn Laws.

_  219 Gortyn Laws_, iv. 29-31.

 M110 But the land was in theory inalienable from the family.

  220 Cf. _Ordinances of Manu_, ix. 213-4. “If an eldest (brother),
      through avarice, commit an injury against his younger (brothers), he
      should be made a not-eldest and _shareless_, and be put under
      restraint by kings.”

      “None of the brothers who perform wrong acts _deserve_ (share in)
      _the property_, ...”

_  221 Laws_, 877 c.

  222 Lev. xxv. 25; Jerem. xxxii. 8.

 M111 Close analogy in the custom of Gavelkind in Kent.

  223 Another version runs:
      “The fader to the bonde
      And the son to the londe.”

      Sandys, _History of Gavelkind_, 1851, pp. 5 and 150.

 M112 Allotment or “gift” to a bastard son.
 M113 But he was not admitted to his father’s family.

_  224 Od._ xiv. 209. _Cf._ Pindar, _Ol._ ix. 95-100. Bastard prince named
      after his mother’s father and given one πόλιν λαόν τε διαιτᾶν.

  225 Is. vi. 23.

  226 Cf. _Eur. Ion_ 1541.

      ... τοῦ θεοῦ δὲ λεγόμενος
      οὐκ ἔσχες ἄν ποτ᾽ οὔτε παγκλήρους δόμους
      οὔτ᾽ ὄνομα πατρός.

 M114 Gifts of land to new citizens.

  227 See inscriptions quoted in _Mittheilungen Athen._ vol. 9, pt. 1, p.
      60. εὐεργέτῃ γενομενῳ τῆς πόλεως δοῦναι πολιτείαν, κλῆρον ἐν τῷ
      πεδίῳ, οἰκίην, κῆπον κυάμων διηκοσίων ἀμφορέων, ἀτέλειαν ... αὐτῷ
      καὶ ἐκγόνοις.

      ... δοῦναι ἡμικλήριον δασείης κτήνειον (?) ἐν τῷ πεδίῳ, οἰκίην,
      κῆπον κυάμων ἀμφορέων ἑκατὸν, &c. ... αὐτῷ καὶ ἐκγόνοις.

      Cf. _Cauer Delect._ § 221. αὐτοῖ καὶ ἐκγόνοις, καὶ ἔγκτησιν γᾶς καὶ
      οἰκίας καὶ ἐπινομίας, &c. ... and § 232.

      _Do._ § 395 (4th cent. B.C.). So many plethra each ἔχειν πατρουέαν
      τὸμ πάντα χρόνον.

      _Do._ § 27. The importance of the grant of ἔγκτησις must lie in its
      being the evidence of admission to full privilege. _V. infra_, p.
      139.

 M115 Dependence of sons during their father’s life.

  228 p. 122, note A.

_  229 Manu_, ix. 104-106.

 M116 His property divided amongst them at his death.

  230 iv. 184. “An elder brother is equal to a father.”

 M117 But special respect shown to the eldest son.

  231 ix. 182.

  232 iii. 171-2.

  233 ix. 110 and 213.

  234 ix. 111.

 M118 The duties of the householder.

  235 iii. 77 _et seq._

  236 vi. 90.

  237 iii. 67, 70, and 72.

 M119 Honour paid to the guest.

  238 iii. 108.

_  239 Elektra_, 784.

_  240 Elektra_, 637.

_  241 Od._ viii. 546. ἀντὶ κασιγνήτου ξεῖνός θ᾽ ἱκέτης τε τέτυκται ἀνέρι,
      ὅς τ᾽ ὀλίγον περ ἐπιψαύῃ πραπίδεσσιν.

_  242 Od._ iii. 30-80.

 M120 Right of maintenance of the younger members of the family.

_  243 Cf. Manu_, ix. 163. “The son of the body is the one and only lord
      of the paternal wealth: but to do the others no harm he should
      afford (them something) to support life.”

_  244 Manu_, ix. 115.

  245 ix. 214.

  246 ix. 118.

  247 ix. 47.

  248 ix. 210.

  249 ix. 209.

  250 ix. 208. Though viii. 416 states the contrary. “A wife, _son_, and
      slave are said to be without property: whatever property they
      acquire is his to whom they (belong).”

  251 ix. 207.

 M121 The βασιλεύς and his τέμενος contrasted with the tribesman and his
      κλῆρος.

_  252 Il._ xx. 165.

 M122 The possessions of the βασιλεύς.

_  253 Od._ xiv. 96.

_  254 Il._ vi. 194.

_  255 Il._ ix. 574; _cf._ xx. 184.

_  256 Il._ xiv. 121.

  257 Or “belonging to a _basileus_.”

  258 Cf. _Il._ xi. 67. “As when reapers over against each other drive
      their swaths through the ploughland of a rich man of wheat and
      barley, and thick fall the handfuls”...

      This contrast is drawn by Professor Ridgeway: _op. cit._ p. 19
      _Journal of Hellenic Studies_, 1885.

 M123 The κλῆρος of the tribesman probably in the open fields in the
      plain.

_  259 Il._ xviii. 541.

_  260 Il._ xxi. 602.

  261 Ridgeway, _op. cit._

  262 Plato, _Laws_, 842. E. Διὸς ὁρίου πρῶτος νόμος ὅδε εἰρήσθω; μὴ
      κινείτω γῆς ὅρια μηδεὶς ... νομίσας τὸ τἀκίνητα κινεῖν τοῦτο εἶναι
      ... καταφρονήσας δὲ, διτταῖς δίκαις ἔνοχος ἔστω, μιᾷ μὲν παρὰ θεῶν,
      δευτέρᾳ δὲ ὑπὸ νόμου.

_  263 Il._ xi. 558.

_  264 Il._ xii. 421; _v._ Ridgeway, _op. cit._

  265 Isaeus, ix. 17-19.

  266 πίονες ἀγροί. _Il._ xxiii. 832. _v._ Ridgeway, _op. cit._ p. 16.

 M124 The βασιλεύς “honoured like a god with gift of a τέμενος.”

_  267 Il._ xii. 313. Cf. _Il._ ix. 297. A good king also has power over
      the crops, etc., to bring plenty. See _Od._ xix. 110-5. Frazer,
      Golden Bough, i. 8 _et seq._

_  268 Il._ vi. 191.

_  269 Il._ xii. 313. καὶ τέμενος νεμόμεσθα μέγα (_not_ τεμένεα).

_  270 Od._ vi. 291-3. Xenophon states that choice portions of land in the
      territory of many neighbouring towns were set apart for the king of
      Sparta. _Rep. Laced._ xv. 3.

_  271 Od._ xi. 184.

 M125 The τέμενος descended from father to son.

_  272 Il._ xx. 391, ὅθι τοι τέμενος πατρώιόν ἐστιν.

  273 τὸ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ ἀπὸ προγόνων.

  274 Vide _Il._ ii. 46 and 101-8. Agamemnon’s σκῆπτρον πατρῴιον had been
      handed down to him in succession from Thyestes, Atreus, Pelops,
      Hermes, and Zeus, for whom it had been made by Hephaistos.

_  275 Od._ i. 386. Cf. _Od._ ii. 22. δύο δ᾽ αἰὲν ἔχον πατρώια ἔργα.

      Cf. _Od._ i. 407. ποῦ δέ νύ οἱ γενεὴ καὶ πατρὶς ἄρουρα?

      Cf. _Od._ xi. 185. Telemachos νέμεται τεμένεα of Odysseus.

      Cf. _Od._ xx. 336. πατρώια πάντα νέμηαι.

 M126 Iason’s claim upon his great-grandfather’s estate.

  276 Pindar, _Pyth._ iv. 255 _et seq._

 M127 Rich tribesman might hold several κλῆροι.

_  277 Od._ xiv. 211.

  278 Cf. _Il._ xii. 421. περὶ ἴσης.

 M128 The κλῆρος was the holding of the head of an οἶκος.

_  279 Od._ xiv. 62.

_  280 Od._ xiv. 211.

  281 Wks. and Dys. 405. The next line which explains that the woman is to
      be slave and _not_ a wife is evidently a later addition. Aristotle
      did not know it, and interpreted γυνη as wife.

_  282 Pol._ i. 2, 5-7.

  283 I am indebted to Professor Ridgeway for the right meaning and
      derivation of this word, which stands for ὁμόκηποι, having the α
      long and not short as stated in Liddell and Scott’s Dictionary.
      Another reading is ὁμόκαπνοι which would mean sharers of the smoke
      or hearth.

  284 Pindar, _Nem._ ix. 11.

 M129 and supplied the maintenance the house.

_  285 Œcon._ i. 2. μέρη δὲ οἰκίας ἄνθρωπός τε καὶ κτῆσίς ἐστιν. Pol. i.
      4, 1. ἡ κτῆσις μέρος τῆς οἰκίας ἐστί.

_  286 Od._ iv. 318.

_  287 Od._ xiv. 158; xvii. 155; xx 230. ἴστω νῦν Ζεὺς πρῶτα θεῶν ξενίν τε
      τράπεζα ἱστίν τ᾽ Ὀδυσῆος ἀμύμονος, ἥν ἀφικάνω.

 M130 Force of the bond of food.

_  288 Il._ vi. 230.

 M131 The need of an established household strongly felt.

_  289 Il._ xv. 497.

  290 p. 75. Mr. Leaf mentions other countries where the father takes a
      new name as father of his eldest son.

_  291 Od._ iv. 754-7

      οὐ γὰρ ὀίω
      πάγχυ θεοῖς μακάρεσσι γονὴν Ἀρκεισιάδαο
      ἔχθεσθ᾽, ἀλλ᾽ ἔτι πού τις ἐπέσσεται, ὅς κεν ἔχῃσιν
      δώματα θ᾽ ὑψερεφέα καὶ ἀπόπροθι πίονας ἀγρούς.

      “Far away” implies width of sway and extent of influence; and the
      protection of outlying properties would necessitate a great name and
      a strong hand.

 M132 Diversion of inheritance by death of heir a sore evil.

_  292 Il._ v. 151 _et seq._

_  293 Od._ vii. 150.

_  294 Od._ xi. 184. _Cf._ xx. 336. ὄφρα σὺ μὲν (= Telemachos) χαίρων
      πατρώια πάντα νέμηαι.

 M133 Naboth’s vineyard bound to his family and heir.

  295 1 Kings xxi 3.

  296 Ezekiel xlvi. 16.

 M134 The maintenance of the chiefs levied upon the people under the name
      of gifts.

_  297 Od._ i. 392.

  298 βασιλεύς in Homer means “prince” and is applied to a class, not a
      single chieftain. _Il._ xii. 319 of Sarpedon and Glaukos. _Il._ iv.
      96 of Paris. _Od._ i. 394 of the Ithakans. _Od._ viii. 41 and 390 of
      the Phaeakians. _Cf._

_  299 Il._ xvii. 250.

_  300 Il._ xxiv. 262.

_  301 Od._ ii. 74.

_  302 Od._ xiii. 13.

_  303 Od_. xix. 195.

 M135 The right to receive such “gifts” could be transferred to another.

_  304 Il._ ix. 291. Cf. _Il._ ix. 483. Peleus enriched Phoinix, and gave
      him much people (πολὺν λαόν) to be ἄναξ over.

_  305 Od._ iv. 174.

 M136 In India the chief of a town might receive the king’s supplies.

_  306 Manu_, vii. 118.

  307 vii. 123.

 M137 The maintenance of the Great King,

  308 Herod, i. 192.

_  309 Ibid._

 M138 and of Solomon.

  310 1 Kings iv. 7-27. One of these officers was over “threescore great
      cities with walls and brazen bars.”

 M139 Revenue from land in ancient Egypt.

  311 Herod. ii. 109.

  312 Genes. xlvii. 26.

 M140 Grants of land to the prince easily made, in their elastic system of
      agriculture.

  313 Pind. _Nem._ vi. 11 (Trans. Myers), _cf._ Ridgeway, _op. cit._ p.
      20.

 M141 Such grants were a special honour, and served to relieve other
      contributions.

  314 Ezekiel xlv. 8, 9.

  315 Ez. xlvi. 18.

_  316 Od._ xxiv. 207.

 M142 Modern specimens of the elasticity of Greek methods.

  317 Mahaffy, _Rambles in Greece_, 3rd ed. p. 200.

  318 Rennell Rodd’s _Customs and Lore of Modern Greece_, p. 58.

 M143 The gifts to the prince not actually food-rents for the land.
 M144 The chief’s land apart from the tribesmen’s.

_  319 Od._ vi. 293.

_  320 Ib._ 259.

 M145 The land sustained the householder in his duties to other members
      and guests.
 M146 The chief had the right to demand gifts from the people;
 M147 he had tribal right to a τέμενος, as the tribesman to a κλῆρος,
 M148 but could not deprive the tribesman of his land.

  321 The κλῆρος is spoken of as capable of good cultivation by means of a
      yoke of oxen.

 M149 Hesiod an immigrant: not a typical case of a family.

_  322 Works and Days_ 637. Possession of land would presuppose admission
      to full civic rights. _V. supra_, p. 97.

_  323 Il._ ix. 648; xvi. 59.

_  324 W. and D._ 345 &c. γείτονες ἄζωστοι ἔκιον, ζώσαντο δὲ πηοί.

 M150 Land was in theory inalienable from the family.

  325 Arist. _Pol._ VIII. ii. 5. ἦν δὲ τό γε ἀρχαῖον ἐν πολλαῖς πόλεσι
      νενομοθετημένον μηδὲ πωλεῖν ἐχεῖναι τοὺς πρώτους κλήρους; ἔστι δὲ
      καὶ ὅν λέγουσι Ὀξύλου νόμον εἶναι τοιοῦτόν τι δυνάμενος, τὸ μὴ
      δανείζειν εἴς τι μέρος τῆς ὑπαρχούσης ἑκάστῳ γῆς. Cf. _Id._ iv. 4
      ὥσπερ ἐν Λοκροῖς νόμος ἐστὶ μὴ πωλεῖν.... ἔτι δὲ τοὺς παλαιοὺς
      κλήρους διασῴζειν.

_  326 Laws_ 741.

_  327 Laws_ 923.

 M151 In Sparta child must be accepted by its father’s tribesmen,

_  328 Lycurg._ xvi.

  329 Suidas; and Harpocration _s.v._ ἀμφιδρόμια:—Λυσίας ἐν τῷ περὶ τῆς
      ἀμβλώσεωσ, εἰ γνήσιος ὁ λόγος. ἡμέρα τις ἤγετο ἐπὶ τοῖς νεογνοῖς
      παιδίοις, ἐν ᾗ τὸ βρέφος περὶ τὴν ἑστίαν ἔφερον τρέχοντες, καὶ ὑπὸ
      τῶν οἰκείων καὶ φίλων πουλύποδας καὶ σηπίας ἐλάμβανον. Octopus is
      still a staple article of food on the shores of the Mediterranean.

 M152 who decided as to its maintenance.

_  330 Nouvelles Recherches_, 1891, p. 63.

 M153 Maintenance derived from the κλῆρος.
 M154 The family bound to their land at Athens;

  331 Arist. _Pol. Ath._ 2 and 5.

 M155 and in Lokris.

  332 Dareste, &c, _Recueil des Inscr. Jurid. Gr._ xi.

 M156 But heirs at Athens also must first be accepted by group of kinsmen.

  333 Isaeus, iii. 60 and 42; vi. 48.

  334 Isaeus, iii. 73 and 80.

 M157 Further application of the idea of family land.
 M158 Two methods of occupation of land: (1) by owner himself; (2) by
      subject population.

  335 Cf. _Thuc._ ii. 16 for Attica. Such are the numerous small farmers
      who appear in the plays of Aristophanes.

_  336 Athen._ vi. 85. Βοιωτῶν (φησὶν Ἀρχέμαχος) τῶν τὴν Ἀρναίαν
      κατοικισάντων οἱ μὴ ἀπάραντες εἰς τὴν Βοιωτίαν, ἀλλ᾽
      ἐμφιλοχωρήσαντες παρέδωκαν ἑαυτοὺς τοῖς Θετταλοῖς δουλεύειν καθ᾽
      ὁμολογίας, ἐφ᾽ ῴ οὔτε ἐξάξουσιν αὐτοὺς ἐκ τῆς χώρας οὔτε
      ἀποκτενοῦσιν, αὐτοὶ δὲ τὴν χώραν αὐτοῖς ἐργαζόμενοι τὰς συντάξεις
      ἀποδώσουσιν. _Cf._ Strabo, xii. 3, 4.

 M159 At Gortyn on extinction of citizen-family the κλαρῶται inherited.

  337 Gortyn. v. 25. αἱ δὲ μὴ εἶεν ἐπιβάλλοντες τᾶς ϝοικίας οἵτινες κ᾽
      ἴωντι ὁ κλᾶρος, τούτονς ἔκεν τὰ κρήματα. The words τᾶς ϝοικίας
      should be taken with οἵτινες, &c, rather than with the preceding
      words. οἵτινες κ᾽ ἴωντι ὁ κλᾶρος is equivalent to οἱ κλαρῶται.

      See Dareste, &c, _Inscript. Jurid. Gr._ p. 463.

 M160 Similar twofold tenure in the Athenian κληρουχίαι.
 M161 Examples in Salamis,

_  338 Mittheil. Inst. Ath._ ix. p. 117. The original number of κληροῦχοι
      in this case was apparently five hundred.

 M162 in Lesbos,

  339 Thuc. iii. 50.

  340 κατεκληρούχησαν.

  341 ἐμίσθωσαν.

  342 Aelian, _V. II._ vi. I. _Cf._ Herod, v. 77 and vi. 100.

 M163 Each κλῆρος therefore supported two families.

  343 Smith’s _Dicty. of Antiquities_, s.v. _colonia_.

  344 Bekker, _Charicles_, p. 218.

  345 Ridgeway, _Origin of Currency_, &c., p. 324.

  346 The ordinary Athenian dicast is supposed to have subsisted largely
      upon his pay of three obols or a half-drachma _per diem_.

 M164 The same double ownership in leases “for ever.”

  347 Dareste, &c, _Recueil Inscr. Grec._ p. 256 xiii.

  348 Cauer, _Delectus_, § 263.

      Συνθέκα[ι] Θέρον[ι κ]αἰχμάνορι πὰρ τᾶρ γᾶρ τᾶρ ἐν Σαλαμόναι, πλέθρον
      ὀπτὸ καὶ δέκα. Φάρεν κριθᾶν μανασίος δύο ταὶ ϝίκατι Ἀλφιόιο μενόρ;
      αἰ δὲ λίποι, λυσάστο τό διφυίο. Πεπάστο τόν πάντα χρόνον.

  349 Dareste, &c, _Inscr. Jurid. Grec._ xiii. quater. (Mylasa in Karia.
      Second century B.C.) _summarised:_—

      A. The tribe (φυλή) of the Otorkondeis at the advice of their
      treasurers and led by the priest of Artemis, decide to purchase from
      Thraseas, son of Polites son of Melas of Grab ... and adopted son of
      Heracleitos son of Heracleides of Ogonda, lands (γέας) in the Ombian
      plain with the sixty-two ranks of vines, three olive trees, and all
      the other trees without reserve, also lands elsewhere with the trees
      without reserve for 5,000 drachmae of light Rhodian silver, provided
      that Thraseas has the sale registered with sureties. Moreover,
      Thraseas coming to the ekklesia declared that he was ready to manage
      these things: and the sale having taken place of the said
      (properties) to the trustees in the name of the god. Thraseas
      himself then and there took on lease all the said (properties) from
      the treasurers of the tribe: and he shall hold them (εἰς πατρικά)
      for his patrimony, himself and his issue or those to whomsoever the
      inheritance of his goods passes, and he shall pay annually to the
      treasurers of the tribe 100 and ... drachmae, without fail or fraud.

      B. ... all the land and trees which Thraseas has bought from
      Artemisia, daughter of Hekataios of Ketambissos, without exception
      in these places either in the matter of the share he took in the
      division with his brother or of what he bought from Artemisia, all
      for 7,000 drachmae of light silver of Rhodes, provided that Thraseas
      register the sale and give sureties. And coming before the ekklesia
      Thraseas declared that he was prepared to manage this; and the sale
      of the foregoing having taken place to the trustees in the name of
      the god, Thraseas himself then and there took on lease all the
      foregoing from the treasurers of the tribe: and he shall hold them
      (εἰς πατρικά) for his patrimony, himself and his issue or those to
      whom the inheritance passes, and he shall pay annually to the
      treasurers of the tribe 300 drachmae.

      The rent forms part of the revenues of the god. If Thraseas gets
      more than two years in arrear, the contract is annulled.

      He shall not divide the land or share the rent (οὐ παραχωρήσει δὲ
      Θρασέας ἑτέρῳ οὐδενὶ.... καταμερίζων τὰς γέας οὐδὲ καταδιελεῖ τὸν
      φόρον).

 M165 Perhaps due to the prevailing idea of the family as a continuing
      unit.
 M166 No final word can yet be said.
 M167 Explanation of the structure of the kindred to be found in the
      descent of city life from earlier stage of tribal society.
 M168 Similarity between the bond of tribal blood and that of citizenship.
 M169 The threefold bond:—
 M170 (1) the bond of blood;
 M171 (2) the bond of religion;
 M172 (3) the bond of maintenance.

  350 Robertson Smith (_The Religion of the Semites_) holds that the
      object of sacrifice was thus to maintain this imaginary kinship
      between the deity and the worshippers.

 M173 Many tribal customs survived in the kindred and the household.
 M174 But these survivals mostly found in post-Homeric records.
 M175 They perhaps belonged to the pre-Achaian inhabitants of Greece.

_  351 Companion to the Iliad_, pp. 6-7.

  352 Since the foregoing chapters were in print, I have had the benefit
      of seeing Herr Erwin Rohde’s admirable work, entitled _Psyche_
      (Freiburg and Leipsig, 1894). His view is that the worship of Heroes
      had the complete form of ancestor-worship: that, ancestors being
      buried at the hearth, or in the family tomb on private ground, death
      made no break in the membership of the family. And he claims that
      the _Seelencult_ or ancestor-worship of the later Greeks must have
      been continuous from pre-Homeric times.

 M176 But many were probably of wider parentage.
 M177 Comparison with the history of the Jews.
 M178 Reaction in times of distress to earlier tribal habits by the Jews,
      and perhaps by the Achaians.
 M179 These tribal habits probably only dormant throughout and common to
      all Greeks,
 M180 if not practically even to all tribal systems.