THE LIBRARY OF THE OF UNIVERSITY CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE ON THE STKUCTUBE OF GKEEK TEIBAL SOCIETY ON THE STEUCTUEE OF GREEK TRIBAL SOCIETY AN ESSAY HUGH E. SEEBOHM V, \ N Eontion MACMILLAN AND CO. AND NEW YOKE 1895 The Bights of Translation and Reproduction are Reserved RICHARD CLAY AND SONS, LIMITED, LONDON AND BCNOAY. PEEFACE 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 inade- quately laid the case before the reader. My thanks are due, for their ready help, to Professor TV. Kidgeway, Mr. James TV. 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 con- sciously or unconsciously absorbed from the works vi Preface. of the late M. Fustel de Coulanges. His La Cite Antique and his Nouvelles Recherches sur quelques ProbUmes d'Histoire (1891) are stores of suggestive material for the student of Greek and Roman customs. They are rendered all the more instruc- tive 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 acknowledg- ment 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 organisa- tion 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 institu- tions ; 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 Preface. vii 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 settle- ment, have we a more graphic account than of the Israelites. Their proximity geographically to the Phoenicians, 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, imme- diately 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. CONTENTS CHAPTER I. PAGE INTRODUCTORY . 1 CHAPTER II. THE MEANING OF THE BOND OF KINSHIP. 1. THE DUTY OF MAINTENANCE OF PARENTS DURING LIFE, AND AFTER DEATH AT THEIR TOMB 17 2. THE DUTY OF PROVIDING MALE SUCCESSION 21 3. THE POSITION OF THE WIDOW WITHOUT CHILD AND THE DUTIES OF AN ONLY DAUGHTER 27 4. SUCCESSION THROUGH A MARRIED DAUGHTER : GROWTH OF ADOPTION : INTRODUCTION OF NEW MEMBER TO KINSMEN 34 5. THE LIABILITY FOR BLOODSHED 41 x Contents. CHAPTER III. THE EXTENT OF THE BOND OF KINSHIP, PAQB 1. DEGREES OF BLOOD RELATIONSHIP ; THE APXI2TEIA . 46 2. LIMITATIONS IN RESPECT OF SUCCESSION OUTSIDE THE DIRECT LINE OF DESCENT 56 3. DIVISION AMONGST HEIRS 64 4. QUALIFICATION FOR THE RECOGNITION OF TRIBAL BLOOD 67 5. LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY FOR BLOODSHED 75 CHAPTER IV. THE RELATION OF THE FAMILY TO THE LAND. 1. THE KAHPO2 AND ITS FORM 82 2. THE RELATION OF THE KAHPO2 TO THE OIKO2 . 88 3. THE HOUSEHOLDER IN INDIA : THE GUEST 97 4. TENURE OF LAND IN HOMER : THE KAHPO2 AND THE TEMENO2 102 5. EARLY EVIDENCE continued : THE KAHPO2 AND THE MAINTENANCE OF THE OIKO2 108 6. EARLY EVIDENCE continued: THE TEMENO2 AND THE MAINTENANCE OF THE CHIEFTAIN . 114 Contents. xi PAGE 7. SUMMARY OF THE EARLY EVIDENCE 120 8. HESIOD AND HIS KAHPO2 123 9. SURVIVALS OF FAMILY LAND IN LATER TIMES .... 124 10. THE IDEA OF FAMILY LAND APPLIED ALSO TO LEASE- HOLD AND SEMI-SERVILE TENURE 129 CHAPTER V. CONCLUSION 137 CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTORY. IN trying to ascertain the course of social develop- CHAP } ment among the Greeks, the inquirer is met by an it ~ of initial difficulty. The Greeks were not one great the tribal system 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 B 2 Introductory. CHAP. I. only of those customs whose roots did not strike too deeply into the essence of the composition of tribal society. its sur- It is the object of these notes to try to put back form S the * n their true setting some of the conditions prevailing, "hu^* f some ti mes incongruously with city life, among the quiry. 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. The There were three important public places necessary pom7cai f ^0 every Greek community and symbolical to the and tribal Greek mind of the very foundations of their institu- society tions. 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 ' (d(j>p^Ta>p), ' out- law' (adenuTTos), and ' hearthless ' (aveanos). 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.' 1 11. ix. 63. 2 11 ii. 400. ' II xi. 807. The Prytaneum and the Chieftain. The Trojans held agora at Priam's doors, 1 and it CHAP. i. 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. In the centre of most towns of Greece 2 stood the The Pry- Prytaneum or magistrates' hall, and in the Prytaneum *^ eul was the sacred hearth to which attached such rever- Hestia - ence that in the most solemn oaths the name of Hestia was invoked even before that of Zeus. 3 Thu- cydides states that each KW^ 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. 4 The word Prytanis means ' chieftain.' It is prob- able 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 1 II ii. 788. 2 Journal of Philology, xiv. 145 (1885), Mr. Frazer on Pry- taneum. 3 Cauer, Delect. Inscr. Graec. 121. (Crete, c. 200 B.C.) 'I swear by Hestia in the Prytaneum (rav e'fi Trpimiw'w), 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. 4 Thuc. ii. 16. B 2 4 Introductory. CHAP. i. Prytancum, acquiring vitality from the indelible superstition attaching to the hearth within its pre- cincts, maintained thereby its political importance, when nothing but certain religious functions re- mained to its lord and master in the office of Archon Basileus. Their Mr. Frazer, in his article in the Journal of Phil- ology 1 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. 2 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 to- gether, 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. Quaiifica- The basis of tribal coherence was community of Siarefo blood, actual or supposed ; the visible evidence of the i Journal of PhUol. jtiv. 145. I 2 Op. cit. p. 153. Religion of Tribe and Household. possession of tribal blood was the undisputed partici- CHAP. I. pation, as one of a kindred, in the common religious re ij^3 ceremonies, from which the blood-polluted and the % one . r of blood. stranger-in- blood were so strictly shut out. 1 It is therefore in the incidence of religious duties, and in the qualifications of the participants, that it is reason- able 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. The worship of ancestors or household gods as Ancestor- such is not evident in the visible religious exercises n r D t rshlp of the Homeric poems. But this can hardly be a obvious in . . . . Homer. 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 1 Exception, however, was sometimes made in the case of the stranger as a favoured guest, v. infra, p. 99. Introductory. CHAP. i. extremely irrelevant if any of the libations or hecatombs were perverted to any intermediate, how- ever heroic, ancestor from the all-powerful and ever ready divinity who was so often also himself the boasted founder of the family. 1 offennp The libations and hecatombs themselves, however, the gods, 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 etherial diet of nectar and ambrosia. 2 and to the 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 (/ifXiKpiTTw), 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 3 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.' The con- This done, the ghosts flock up to drink of the blood oHiisnaine of the victim. But the ghost of Elpenor, who met important nis death at tne house of Circe by falling from the a r!!o i d ings r00 ^ * n ki s Drunken haste to join his already departed 1 Plato (Laics 948) remarks that at the time of Khadamanthos the belief in the existence of the gods was a reasonable one, seeing that at that time most men were sons of gods. 2 II. xxiii. 206. It is clear from II. 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. 3 It was not therefore only at the mouth of Hades that the dead could benefit by such offerings. Offerings to the Dead. 7 comrades, and who had therefore received no burial CHAP. I. 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.' l 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 person- ification of nature ? 2 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 1 Od. iv. 197. Cf. II. xvi. | tion comes upon him : ' Ay me, 455. i there remaineth then even in the rap^vaovcri ica(riyvr)Toi erai re TtJju/3o> Te crr/jX?/ re ' TO yap yepas fCTTl daVOVTW. 2 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 convic- 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.' 77. xxiii. 113 &c. 8 Introductory. CHAP. i. reverence displayed towards the hearth and the respect for seniority in age, it may perhaps be justifiable to suppose that domestic religious observ- ances, 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. Offerings Ancestor-worship would be as much out of place dead in i Q the Old Testament ; and yet there are references Testament * n ^ e 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 them- selves to former superstitions of their own people, imply that the great tribal religion of the Israelites had super- seded 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.' 1 The transgressions of the Israelites in the wilder- ness are described in the Psalms : ' They joined themselves also unto Baalpeor and ate the sacrifices of the dead.' 1 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 1 Ps. cvi. 28. v. Maine's Early Law and Custom, p. 59. Ancestor- Worship. 9 to keep a jealous watch on the continuance of his CHAP. i. fair fame among the living. A close resemblance in this point lies between Resem- the Homeric poems and the Old Testament. Though between actual food and drink is not provided for the dead, ^ m t ^ r e yet the stress laid on the permanence of the family, Old Testa - 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 inter- view 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 * 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 con- stitution of society did not afford it the same 1 1 Sam. xx. 6. QvV f)p.fpS>v eVcet 5\jj rfj ? ; l and as cpiceios he received worship upon the altar that stood in the court- yard of nearly every house in Attica. 2 The permanent place of these gods in the homes of the people is further denoted by the use of such epithets as eyyeveis 3 and Trarpatoi.* The need The tombs, on the other hand, were not approached the dead ; 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 nourish- ing 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- 1 Soph. Antiy. 659. 3 Soph. Antig. 199. 3 Coulanges, CM Antique, p. 4 Soph. Phil. 933. Soph. Elekt. 411. Food for the Dead. 11 leafy growth of the pale green olive fragrant fruit is here, and CHAP. I. twined flowers, children of the teeming earth.' l The same idea of nourishment of the dead, though the same shared with the other gods, determines the offerings 1D in the Egyptian Book of the Dead. 2 ' 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.' 3 ' 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.' 4 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.' 6 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 offer- ing 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.' 1 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. vTiu Se apa rats Trap' r/ fj.lv KCU TOLS Kadayiofj.fi>ois eVt rdfpaiv ' a>s el TO> fj.r) elrj KaraXeXei/i/iei'os 1 VTrep yrjs (pi\os fj acriTos OVTOS vexpos KOI lv avrols 2 Edited by C. H. S. Davis (Putnam, 1894). 3 Id. chap. liii. 4 Id. chap. Ixxii. 5 Id. chap. Ixxvii. 12 Introductory. CHAP. i. Chapter cxlviii. ordains that there 'shall be placed offerings before them of loaves, beer, meat, incense, funereal dishes, bringing into favour with R& and making that the deceased is fed in the netherworld* and in 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 ances- tors within fixed degrees, and marking them off in the matter of responsibility thereto from more dis- tant relations, who owed similar duty elsewhere. Ancestor- Being thus surrounded by nations that believed not" intensely in the need in the dead of nourishment at post^" 117 ^6 hands of their relatives on earth, it would indeed Homeric. b e 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 Basis of Early Society. 13 that Hestia was sometimes designated by the Greeks CHAP. i. with the similar title of mistress of the house, or princess. 1 If, as long as the tribe was felt to be a real unit, the religious instincts of the tribesmen were concen- trated 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 wor- ship, for the titles of honour and respect to be used equally towards those meaner ancestors who hence- forth 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 ripws 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. M. de Coulanges considers that the sacred rites of The hearth 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 com- 1 Cite Antique, p. 93, eori'a decnroivcL. 14 Introductory. CHAP. i. munity, 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 Pry- taneum 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. Possible During the wanderings and migrations of peoples sotiafdef- * n ^ ne searcn f r greener pastures or broader lands, veiopment. 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 com- paratively permanently established, emphasis would be transferred to the petty quarrels and internal dis- sensions arising between different sections within the community itself. The tie of common blood, uniting all members of the tribe, would be gradually dis- regarded 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 The Tribe and tJie Family. 15 only where the relationship was obvious and well CHAP. i. 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. So, too, in the matter of religious observance : The the reverence of the individual for the Prytaneum tribesmen and common hearth of the state would undergo a p t \ 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, sur- rounded by those who are really conscious of their connection by blood in common descent from much more immediate ancestors, that the true tribal feel- ing 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. 1 Behaviour to other than blood-relations is regulated by expediency, by what you may expect in return from your neighbours. 2 Whether the family is to be regarded as the chief factor in the composition of the city, or how much of 1 Wks. & Days, 327-332. | 2 Id. 353-5. 16 Introductory. CHAP. i. 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. The study At any rate, if the true basis of the organisation family f tne f ftm ily aQ d the kindred, as found in historic introduc- times in Greece, could once be established, material tory to the history of assistance ought to nave 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. QavovTi ' $AAot 8' &s ayovat BIKTVOV, TOV fK ftvBov KAcOOTT/pa (TO>oVT(S XlVov. Aeschylus. 1. THE DUTY OF MAINTENANCE OF PAEENTS DURING LIFE, AND AFTER DEATH AT THEIR TOMB. As the hearth was the centre of the sanctity and CHAP. n. reverence of the family, so the word OLKOS was the cus- The duties tomary term to signify the smaller group of the com- ^ v ^ a ito posite yevos, consisting of a man and his immediate his IKOS > descendants. In the first place, the individual was absolutely committed to sacrifice all his personal feel- ings for the sake of the continuity of his ol/cos, and this was his supreme duty. But whereas several ol/coi 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 privi- lege 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 pre- c 18 The Bond of Kinshij>. began with his living parents ; CUAP. ii. decessors 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 olfcos, in respect of his duties thereto. Plato l 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.' The candidates for the archonship were asked, among other things, whether they treated their parents properly. 2 It was only in case of some indelible stain, such as wife-murder, that the debt of maintenance of the parent was cancelled. 3 Yet even when the father had lost his right of main- tenance 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. 4 and ex- 1 Laws 717, Trans. Jowett, cf. 729 c and 931 A. 2 Arist, Ath. Pot. Iv. 3. Isaeus, viii. 32. 'The law com- mands us to maintain (rpttptiv) our parents even if they have nothing to leave us.' Cf. Ruth iv. 15 8ia6ptyat TT)i> iro\iuv Kf . . . Hesiod, Works and Days, 118 ov8f K(i> olyt diro 6ptTrri]pia 3 Plato, Laws, 877 c. 4 Aeschin. c. Timarch. 13. Maintenance of Parents. 19 ' Is it not,' says Isaeus, ' a most unholy thing, CHAP. II. if a man, without having done any of the customary rites due to the dead, yet expects to take the inheri- tance of the dead man's property ? ' l The duty of maintenance of the parent thus Continuity extended even beyond the tomb, and this retrospec- family ; tive 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. 'No world of heaven exists for one not possessed intheCWz- of a son.' The debt, owed by the living member of n 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.' 2 1 Isaeus, iv. 19 (Nicostraf). 2 Ordinances of Manu, trans- E. W. Hopkins. London : 1884. Bk. ix. 106, 8, 182, 137, 161. lated by A. C. Burnell, edited by C 2 20 The Bond of Kinship. CHAP. ii. Plato expresses the same feeling in the Laws : l and ac- cording to ' After a sort the human race naturally partakes of immortality, Plato, 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, 2 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. 3 If he had occasion to perform military service, he must serve in the tribe and the deme of his parent ( tives, to constrain a reluctant heiress to marry or to compel the next of kin to perform his duty. Plato 6 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 ; dis- regarding, in his zeal for these, the further considera- tions, which the father himself might be expected 1 Demosth. Stfph. ii. 1134. Son of tVtVAqpor inherits TU>V Tjfiaruv) tirl bifTts ' TO* 8f (rlrov (jL(rplv TJ Is. vi. 14. Cf. Ar. Ve$p. 583 et $eq. 3 Manu ix. 131 and 132. 4 Ib. 136. 5 Ib. 135. 6 Laws, 924. TJie Need of Male Succession. 25 to have had, with regard to the suitability of the CHAP, n. match. 1 A certain leniency was however allowed to the even i i .. i. though neiress who was unwilling to marry an obnoxious already kinsman, and to the kinsman who had counterclaims m upon him in his own house. Nevertheless the rules remained very strict. Isaeus states emphatically, 2 ' Often have men been compelled by law to give up their properly wedded wives, owing to their becoming e-rriKXrjpoi through the death of their brother to their father's property and having to marry the next of kin (rots eyyvrara yevovsr),' 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.' 3 Again Isaeus : ' We, because of our nearness of kin, would have been compelled to maintain (yrjpoTpofalv) our aged grandfather and either ourselves marry Cleoriymos' (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.' * In the laws of Gortyn very clear rules are laid 1 Cf. Terence, Phormio 125-6 Lex est ut orbae, qui sunt genere proxumi, Eis nubant, et illos ducere eadem haec lex jubet. and Diod. Sic. xii. 18 6 Se TrXovcrto? &>v yvvaiKa. Tvevi^pav fni<\r]poi> avev irpoiKos. 2 Isaeus, iii. 64. 3 Ordinances iii. 11. * Isaeus, i. 39. 26 The Bond of Kinship. CUAP. ii. down to be followed where there were difficulties in similar the way of the heiress marrying the next of kin. rales in the Gortyn, '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 ne 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 ' l There is also a statement made by Demosthenes 2 that sounds as if it might have come from the Ordi- nances 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. 1 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. 1 ' But if there is still no one, she shall marry any one else she can.' Such pains were taken to find a representative 1 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 firinXrjpos of his brother Rhexenor. 2 c. Macart. 1068 (Law) The Widoiv and Only Daughter. 27 for the deceased in his family, or at any rate CHAP. n. in his tribe. 1 The same questions seem to have arisen amongst and the Israelites in the time of Moses. thT gSt Israelites. Numbers xxxvi. 8. ' And every daughter that possesseth an inheritance (LXX. ayxivrcvova-a. K\r)povo^.iav) in any tribe of the children of Israel, shall be wife unto one of the family of the tribe of her father (eVi T>V K ro\> Sfaov rov Trarpbs avrfjs), that the children of Israel may enjoy (dyxurrevtiv) 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 (LXX. TOtf avftyiols GUTCOJ').' 3. THE POSITION OF THE WIDOW WITHOUT CHILD AND THE DUTIES OF AN ONLY DAUGHTER. THE levirate, or marriage with deceased husband's The levir- brother, seems to have had no place in Greek family not P foimd law. The wife was of no kin necessarily to the m Greece - 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 1 (Plut. Solon 21. ev TIO TOV TfdvTjKOTOS f8tl TO. KarafjifVfiv. Plato, Laws i)25 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). 28 The Bond of Kinship. CHAP. ii. 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 enjoy- ment, 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 ar)p (Latin levir) for marriage seems to have begun with his brother's daughter, not his brother's widow. The widow The childless widow on the death of her husband to h e had to return to her own family or whoever of guardian, j^j. ki n( j re( j was guardian (/cvptos) of her, and if she wished, be given again in marriage by him. 1 The woman at Athens even after marriage always retained her Ki/pios or guardian, 2 who was at once her protector and trustee. He was probably the head of the ol/coy to which she originally belonged her next of kin and had great power over her. 3 A case there is 4 where the heir to the property also takes the wife of the previous owner; but in this case the husband may have been Kvptos of his own 1 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.lQW. Wife leaves her husband's house and is por- tioned out again by her brothers. 8 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. 4 In her childhood (a girl) should be under the will of her father ; in her youth, of her hus- band ; her husband being dead, of her sons ; a woman should never enjoy her own will.' 3 Dem. c. Sjwud. 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 guar- dian (iirirponos *ai icvpios) of his three female first cousins, though all married. 4 Dem. pro Phormio. 953. The Widow and Only Daughter. 29 wife, and so could bequeath or give her away to whom- CHAP. n. ever he liked. 1 In the Ordinances of Manu, the limitations of the levirate are very strictly defined. 2 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. The laws of Manu otherwise are strict against the Marriage marriage of close relations ; a restriction not found in relations. Greece. Isaeus 8 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 olicos, 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. 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 1 As in Isaeus, ii. 7 and 8. 2 ix. 70. &c. 3 vii. 11 and 12. 30 The Bond of Kinship. CHAP. ii. the custom with regard to heiresses is so vividly told The levir- that it is worth quoting at some length. it*' among the Israel- Deut. xxv. 5. ' If brethren dwell together and one of them die itea. 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 brotJier 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. OIKOS)." ' And his name shall be called in Israel, " The house (OIKO?) of him that hath his shoe loosed."' Such was the scorn felt for the man who refused p er f orm ^he 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 child- less. The second son's refusal to raise up seed to his brother because he knows that his own name mil not be perpetuated thereby, but his Mother's, meets with summary punishment. ' And the thing that he did was evil in the sight of the Lord, and He slew him also.' l 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, The case Tamar. 1 Gen. xxxviii. 10. The Widow and Only Daughter. 31 his approval of her action, in her desire to perpetuate CHAP. n. 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.' The statement of the customary procedure in The case Deuteronomy is very picturesquely illustrated and fulfilled in detail in the story of Kuth, 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 1 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 1 Ruth i. 8-12. 32 The Bond of Kinship. CHAP. ii. 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 vvyyevia 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 (row dyxicrrevovTcov) l whose place it was to redeem property sold or lost by a kinsman. This duty is thus set forth in Leviticus : Depend- Lev. xxv. 25. 'And if thy brother be waxen poor and sell ence on the some of his possession, then shall his kinsman (dyxHrrtvwv) that is next of nex j. t him come and shall redeem that which his brother hath km. . , . 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 dy^ta-revs, i.e. within the reach of the claim on the next of kin, yet is there one dyxKrrevs who is nearer than he, and who must first be asked. 'Now Boaz went up to the gate and sat down there, and be- hold 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 1 For the meaning of dyxiorevf see below p. 55. The Widow and Only Daughter. 33 he said unto the near kinsman, "Naomi that is come again out of CHAP. II. the country of Moab selleth the parcel of land which was our brother Elimelech'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 inheri- tance, 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. D 34 The Bond of Kinship. CHAP. ii. 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 eirixXripos, 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, Elime- lech's widow, through whom the issue ought otherwise to have been found. 4. SUCCESSION THROUGH A MARRIED DAUGHTER I GROWTH OF ADOPTION : INTRODUCTION OF NEW MEMBER TO KINSMEN. The son of BUT if the heiress was already married and had mustTe^ve sons, she need not be divorced and marry the next of house ther S ki n > though that still lay in her power. It was con- sidered 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 1 mentions a case where a wife inherits from her deceased brother a farm and persuades her 1 xl 49. The Married Daughter's Son. 35 husband to emancipate their second son in order that CHAP. n. he may carry on the family of her brother and take the property. In another passage l the conduct of married sisters and enter in not appointing one of their own sons to take his the de- place as son in the house of their deceased brother, relative and in absorbing the property into that of their husbands, whereby the olicos of their brother became is described as shameful In Demosthenes 2 a man behaving in similar wise is stigmatised as Herein lay the reason that adoption became so Hence the / .. i i , . custom of lavounte a means in classical times oi securing an adoption. heir. It became almost a habit amon the Athenians who had no sons, to adopt an heir often even the next of kin who would naturally have succeeded to the inheritance. 3 The transfer of the adopted son from the ol/cos of his father to the OIKOS 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 child- less man that his successor would not merge the inheritance in that of another olicos, and made it extremely unlikely that he would neglect his religious duties as they would be henceforth his own ancestral rites. Sometimes, it seems, 4 sons of an unfortunate 1 Isaeus, vii. 31. 2 c. Macart. 1077. 3 Dem. c. Leochar. 1093. 4 Is. x. 17. Kara yivos e'-yyvrdra) D OTT(OS O.V OIKOS fJ-T] 36 The Bond of Kinship. CHAP. ii. father were adopted into another olicos 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. The intro- The inheritance of property being only an accessory fheheh- to to tne heirship, 1 the ceremony of adoption consisted *l ie , of an introduction to the kindred and to the ancestral kindred. -PI M -T altars, and an assumption of the responsibilities connected therewith. The same The process was the same as for the proclamation for ^op^ f tue true blood of a son, and was exactly in accord- ed son. ance ^h tribal instincts. Whatever the history of the parpia at Athens, in it seems to have been accumulated a great number of the survivals of tribal sentiment. The cere- The adoption at Athens took place at the gathering f tk e phratores in order that all the kin might be present (irapovTwv rwv o-vyyei/wi/). 2 The adopter must lead his son to the sacrifices on the altars 3 and must show him to the kinsmen (a-vyyeveis or yewrjTai) 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 4 and if the vote was in his favour, then and not till then he was enrolled in the common register (els TO KOIVOV ypa/j,/j,aTeiov) of the phratria in the name of sou 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. 5 1 Arist. Pol. 1, 2, 4 'H p.tpos TTJS olxias (crri. 2 Is. ii. 14. 3 Is. vii. 1, 16, 13 and 27. 4 Dem. c. Eubului. 1315. 6 Is. vi. 25. Introduction to the Kindred. 37 If any of the phratores objected to the admission CHAP. n. of the new kinsman, he must stop the sacrifices and remove the victim from the altar. 1 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, 2 or joined in a feast provided by the father of the admitted son. 3 The ceremonial given in the Gortyn laws is and at . ., J Gortyn ; 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 ia) a victim-for-sacrifice and a vessel of wine TroVoos.' The adopted son gets all the property and shall fulfil the divine and human duties of his adoptive father 4 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 ol/cos, i.e. had not provided for his succession and by certain legal ceremonies been readmitted to his former family, he 1 Andoc. de Myst. 126. 4 Isaens ix. 7 (Astyph.) 2 Dem. c. Macari. 1054 and rfXevrrjcravTi avrw *at rols fKfivov 1078. 3 Dem. c. Leoch. 1091. Isaeus iii. 80 and viii. 18. Trpoyovois TO. vo/JLiofjLeva 7roiT]crft 38 Tlie Bond of Kinship. CHAP. II. was considered of no relationship to them and had no right of inheritance in their goods. 1 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. 2 If he did return to his former OIKOS, leaving a son in his place and that son died, he could not return and take the property thus left without heir direct. 3 andfaiso 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.' * 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. 5 The intro- The introduction into the deme which took place at ^- Q a o e f eighteen at Athens, including the enrolment in the \r}^iap^iKov ypa^^areloi', seems to have been a registration of rights of property and an assumption of the full status of citizen. The word Xtaji/co's is 1 Isaeus vi. 44 ; ix. 2 and 33 ; 3 Ib. 1090. x. 2 and 4. * Mayne on Ilindu Z,a?(1892), Dem. c. Leoch. passim. Cf. p. 105 and 162. Manu ix. 142. 6 Op. cit. p. 141-2 and 189. 2 Dem. c. Leoch. 1094, 1099, \ Manu ix. 142. He offers no cake and (lex Solonis) 1100. ' to his original ancestors. The Tonsure-rite. 39 defined by Harpocration as meaning ' capable of CHAP. n. managing the ancestral estate (TO, Trarpwa oitcovo/j,eli>).' The word \rjgis 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. Plutarch * states that it was the custom at coming The cus- of age to tonsure the head and offer the hair to some tonsure, 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 2 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 (eKciparo TO. irpoaQfv ^ovov) as Homer says the Abantes do : 3 and this kind of tonsure (ccovpa) is called " Theseis " because of him. Now the Abantes first shaved themselves in this manner, not in imitation of the Arabs 4 as some have it, nor even in emula- tion 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 occur- rence. Achilles' hair was dedicated as an offering to the river Spercheios in case of his safe return. 5 Knowing that this is impossible, in his grief at the death of Patroklos, with apologies to the god he cuts his 1 Thes. 5. 2 dirdpxfv) to the house of some rich man, and wonder possesseth them that look on him ' 5 Od. xv. 272. ' Having slain a man of my tribe (6p.(pv\ov) : and many are his relations (Kacrtyj^roi) and kinsmen (erat) 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 (eVt S7/i<) for whom there be not many avengers (doa-a-ijTfjpes) behind, he fleeth leaving his kin (TTTJOVS) and his fatherland, how then we who have slain the pillar of the state ! ' If ransom there was none for the murderer within or be- the tribe, there was equally none for murders between St citizen and citizen, in this point also the inheritors of citizen - the sentiments of tribesmen. In the law of Solon 6 it 1 n. ix. 63 d(ppr)Ta>p, ddffjLicrTOs, di/e'orioj ecrriv (Klt>OS, os Tro\ffjiov eparai f7Ti8r]p.iov OKpVOfVTOS. 2 II xiii. 695. Cf. xv. 335. 3 II. xvi. 572. 4 II. ii. 662. 5 Cf. Od. xiii. 259, xiv. 380. 6 Quoted in Dem. c. Aristocrat. 629. 44 The Bond of Kinship. CHAP. ii. was forbidden to take payment in compensation from the murderer : 1 The murderer can be slain in our land, not tortured, not held to ransom (jirj^i anoivav).' Plato l 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 defiled with bloodshed at the sacred altars was held to be a gross impiety and source of divine anger. Plato 2 says : 'The murderer shall be slain, but not buried in the country (xwpa) of the deceased, which would be a disgrace and impiety.' 3 In the case of a suicide, the hand that committed the crime was to be cut off and buried separately. In Isaeus 4 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 (oliceloi) not to allow any of Thou- dippos' people (rwv ouS/TTTrou) 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 for ever : if he returned he could be killed at sight by any one and with impunity. 5 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 1 Laws 865 D. 8 16. 871. Soph. O.C. 407. Oedipus could not be buried on Theban soil, because he had shed t n v \ o v ai/ia. 3 Cf. Aeschines in Ctesiph. 244. 4 ix. 17-19. Cf. Dem. c. Pantaen. 983, 59. 6 Plato, Laics 871 D. The Liability for Bloodshed. 45 the pollution and the hatred of the gods . . . and he shall be in the CHAP. II. power of any who is willing to avenge the dead.' * 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 (gvyyeveia). 2 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. 3 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 : 4 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. 1 Plato, Laws 871 B. Cf. 868. 2 Ib. 872 E. Cf. Tacitus, Ger- mania,2l Suscipere taminimicitias sen patris seu propinqui quam ami- citias necesse est. Nee implacabiles durant : luitur enirn etiam horni- cidium certo armentorum ac pe- corum numero, recipitque satisfac- tionem universa domus, utiliter in publicum, quia periculosiores sunt inimicitiae juxta libertatem. 3 Ib. 873 E. 4 Herod, i. 44. CHAPTER III. THE EXTENT OF THE BOND OF KINSHIP. Arctior vero colligatio est societatis propinquorum : ab ilia enim immensa societate human! generis in exiguum angustumque concluditur. Cicero. 1. DEGREES OF BLOOD-RELATIONSHIP ; THE AFXI2TEIA. CHAP. in. SUCH being the character of the burden of mutual Ain~s- responsibility borne by members of kindred blood, it men were remains, if possible, to obtain some idea of how this not equally re- responsibility became narrowed and limited to the nearest relations, and what was the meaning under- lying 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. Degrees of Blood-relationship. 47 In the Gortyn Laws we read : CHAP. in. iv. 24. ' The father shall have power over the children and the The unity property to divide it amongst them ... As long as they (the f ^ e 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 OLKOS 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 olicos 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. 1 An example of this joint ownership occurs in the speech of Demosthenes against Leochares. 2 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 (rrjv ovaiav av^^rov). 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 ol/cos and on an undivided patrimony is implied in another passage in Demosthenes, where, however, the exact opposite is described as actually having taken place. 3 Bouselos had five sons. He divided (Sievei/iev rqv ovo-iav) his substance amongst them all as was fair and right, and they married wives and begat children and v. infra p. 90 et seq. 2 c. Leoch. 1083. 3 Dem. c. Mac-art. 1055-6. 48 The Extent of Kinship. CHAP. in. children's children. Thus Jive olxoi sprang up out of the one of Bouselos, and each brother dwelt apart, having his own ol/coy and bringing up his own off- spring (ticyovoi) himself (%b>plf t/cacrroy a>*ei). 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 (rpe^eiv) our parents (yoiteis) : these are- parents, grandparents and their parents, if they are still alive : " For they are the beginning (apxff) of the family (y/vor) and their estate descends to their offspring (ticyovoi) : wherefore it is necessary to maintain them even if they leave nothing." 1 The duty of maintenance (rpefaiv) 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 else- where ? Grades of In western Europe, owing perhaps to the in- w'cStern" 1 fluence of Christianity, the rites of ancestor- worship Europe, have no prominence. Ecclesiastical influence how- ever was unable to prevent an exceedingly complex subdivision of the kindred existing in Wales and elsewhere. Whether this subdivision finds its raison d'etre in the worship of ancestors or not, the groups 1 Isaeus, viii. 32. Degrees of Blood-relationship. 49 thus formed serve as units for sustaining the respon- CHAP. in. sibilities 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. As the various departments affected by blood- The posi- relationship or purity of descent come under notice, g r eat 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. In the ancient laws of Wales it rests with great- in Wales, grandsons to make the final division of their inheri- tance 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. 1 In the meanwhile the oldest living parents main- tained 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.' 2 Even when feudalism refused to acknowledge and in other than an individual responsibility for a fief, it ^T- was unable to overcome the tribal theory of the mand y- Venedotian Code, ii. xii. 2 Lady Charlotte Guest's Mab- inogion, p. 234. E 50 The Extent of Kinship. CHAP. in. 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 enfranchise- ment. It may however be surmised that the sub- division and subinfeudation of a holding in the occu- pation of such a group of kinsmen would be carried out by the formation of further similar groups. The cus- 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 relation- ship 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. 1 The tenure then becomes one of subinfeudation. As long as the parage continued, the share of a deceased parager would be dealt with by re- division of rights, and no question would arise of finding heirs. But when it became a question of 1 cxxviii cxxxi. Degrees of Blood-relationship. 5 1 finding an heir to the group, failing heirs in the CHAP. in. 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. There is an interesting passage in the Ancient Laws Co-herit- of Wales ordaining that the next-of-kin shall not in- wales. herit 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.' l 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 with- in certain degrees to the founder. And we may infer that emphasis was thus laid on the proof of relation- ship 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. The kindred in the Ordinances of Manu is Degrees of divided into two groups : ship'in 1. Sapindas, who owe the funeral cake at the Indla> tomb. 1 Dimetian Code, ii. xxiii. E 2 52 The Extent of Kinship. CHAP. in. 2. Samanodakas, 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.).' l This may be put in tabular form : _ . f 1. Great-grandfather's great-grandfather. " Great-grandfather's grandfa ' Great-grandfather's father. . i Receivers _ . f I. Great-grandfather's great-grandfr . ! 2. Great-grandfather's grandfather. I 3. Great-grandfather's father. ivers ( I' ** I 3. . Grandfather, of cake. I - 4l Father. 4. Giver of cake and water. 5. Excluded. Or inversely : Householder "\ Brothers 1st cousins ( Glvers of cake or 2nd cousins } 3rd cousins 4th cousins L Pourers of water or Samdnodakas. 5th cousins } 6th cousins excluded. Within the Sapinda-&lu.ip of his mother, a ' twice- born ' man may not marry. 2 Outside the Sapinda- ship, a wife or widow, ' commissioned ' to bear child- ren to the name of her husband, must not go. ' Now Sapinda-ship ceases with the seventh person, but the relationship of a Samanodaka (ends) with the ignorance of birth and name.' 3 1 .1/anw, ix. 186. 2 ,1/anu, iii. 5. 3 J/awu, v. 60. Degrees of Blood-relationship. 53 All are Sapindas who offer the cake to the same CHAP. in. ancestors. Fourgene- 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 conjunc- tion 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-grand- father 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. The Samanodakas, or pourers of the water libation similar appear to have been similarly grouped. ofthe ng ' Ignorance of birth and name ' was in Wales P urers of the water considered to be equivalent to beyond fifth cousins, libation. According to the Gwentian Code, ' there is no pro- per name in kin further than that' i.e. fifth cousins. 1 And this tallies exactly with the previous quotation from Manu limiting the water libation to 1 Gwentian Code, ii. viii. 54 The Extent of Kinship. CHAP. in. 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. It was extremely improbable that a man would fonr n gene- see further than his great-grandchildren born to him rations. b e f ore m ' s 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-grand- children 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 ol/top, 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, 1 and would carry on the name of the 1 Dem. c. Makart. 107G. The AFXI2TEIA. 55 eldest branch of his great-grandfather's house, and CHAP. in. 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 ytvos. In the fourth century B.C. this compact group The limited to second cousins still survived at Athens, responsible to each other for succession, by in- heritance 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 a^to-re/a, and all its members were called ayxiareis, 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 olicos. The five sons of Bouselos, 1 we are told, on his death divided his sub- stance amongst them, and each started a new olicos and begat children and children's children. 2 The action, which was the occasion of the speech, lay between the great-grandsons of two of these five founders of ol/coi., Stratios and Hagnias, and had reference to the disposal of the estate of the grand- 1 Cf. infra, tree on p. 63. | 2 Dem. c. Makart. 1055-6. 56 Tin'- Extent of Kinship. CHAP. in. son 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 l and so forth, would have ranked as all in the same oiicos under their title of Bouselidai. But it is clear from this speech of Demosthenes, that too many genera- tions had already passed to admit of Bouselos being considered as still head of an unbroken olxos, and that his greaZ-great-grandsons were subdivided into separate olxoi under the names of their respective great-grandfathers, Stratios, Hagnias, &c. (01 eV TOU ^Tpartov OLKOV, e/c Be TOV 'Ayviov ' t \ tytvovro). 2. LIMITATIONS IN RESPECT OF SUCCESSION OUTSIDE THE DIRECT LINE OF DESCENT. The right The Gortyn law quoted above in the previous of succes- , si on section goes on : limited to the fiF 6 **' y. If (a man or woman die and) they have no children, the of the deceased's brothers and brother's children or grandchildren shall common 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 nncestor. In the direct line, a man's descendants 1 Dem. c. Makart. 1077. * /v), and in like manner his son's kinsmen by the mother's side, 1 and in their presence he shall accuse his son, setting forth that he deserves at the hands of them all to be dis- missed from the family (yei/o?). 2 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 represen- tative 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 In the speech of Isaeus concerning the estate The case -p. , ... of the oi Hagnias, a real second cousin is in possession 01 estate of the estate. He won the case at the time and died in agmas 1 The wife's kin are no kin to her husband, but are to her son. 2 Plato, Laws, 929 c. Trans. Jowett. 62 Ttie Extent of Kinship. CHAP. in. possession, and an action against his son Makartatos iu isaous for the same property is the occasion of one of the Demo- speeches of Demosthenes. To fully understand the sthenos. relationships referred to in these cases, the accom- panying 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 otKoy was carried on down a long line of male descendants. 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 avctyiov irals so as to bring him within the phraseology of the law, and he suc- cessfully 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 Haguias' 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 ave-^nov TTCUS and oltcelos ere TOV oltcov 63 O *s "* j Os " "r^ fl "-< HH ^2 p^H ^* Gi **, 1 3 PH KJ "T3 4) <^ o *TJ C3 i a '3 s W o O2 ^^ a H) 'o ^ PH 8 II O II PH O 1 1 CHAP. III. 64 The Extent of Kinship. CHAP. in. of Hagnias. 1 He is described as having ' one of the titles mentioned in the law as far as which the law bids the ayxurrela go, for he is cousin's son to Hagnias.' On the other hand, Theopompos, father of Makar- tatos and second cousin of Hagnias, is mentioned 2 as ' being of a different olicos altogether,' and not at all related in such a way as to be heir of Hagnias (fiySev "Trpoa-rjKovTav axrre K\r)povofj,eiv TWV 'Ayvtov, a\\a yevei aTrajrepto OVTWV), being too far off in the family (or by birth). That the title of Theopompos (viz., second cousin- ship) was not valid, may be inferred partly by the ruses he adopted to get possession, but more especially by the fact 3 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 any- thing in these speeches other than confirmatory of the view stated above of the composition and limitation of the 3. DIVISION AMONGST HEIRS. Equal Succession to the inheritance of an estate was amongst ordained by law in strict accordance with the ancient conception of the unity of the family. On the death O f the head of a family, unless the paternal 04*09 was 1 Dem. c. Makart. 1058. 2 Id. 1070. 3 Mentioned in Dem. c. Makart. 1056. Division amongst Heirs. 65 voluntarily continued unbroken by his descendants, CHAP. in. the natural course was for each son ultimately to live apart and found a separate ol/co? 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. The Gortyn Laws have already been referred to as enforcing the principle. 1 If a man died, his heirs were either his sons, or his grandsons, or his great- grandsons. If he had no children, his brothers, and their children, or their grandchildren succeeded. The Athenian law was conceived in the same The share spirit, but mentions a further point viz., that in the J^n taken division amongst sons, the ol/co? of any one of their YS 8 & ' J children. 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 1 Supra, p. 56. 66 The Extent of Kinship. CHAP. in. ay^ia-reta to four generations from the common an- cestor ; any deceased relation in that degree therefore simply dropped out of the succession. if sons all It has generally been assumed that grandsons inheriting directly from their grandfather, all the i n t erme( liate generation being already dead, inherited per capita, none the less the shares of their respective fathers per stirpes. But if the foregoing account of the unity of the ol/eo? and its resemblance in its composi- tion to the household of the Welsh tribal system be correct, it seems more reasonable to suppose that, all the intermediate generation being dead, the grand- sons, 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. as in the The evidence is not sufficient to justify more than nephews a suggestion on either side with regard to divisions and . amongst lineal descendants. With regard to succes- Knnoina sions 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 1 viz., that though all shared the in- heritance 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 cousins. 1 c. Makart. 1068, suprj, p. 2G. Qualifications for Tribal Blood. 67 others merely took their shares of the property CHAP. in. divided to continue their own at/cot, 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 o*/eo hold, p. 206. TOV ddpcrfi (rv p.v yap oiS' eav eyo KOI prj darepov povov, oiov Trarpbs 77 fir/rpoSf ot 8e Kal TOVT' enl n\fov fjirfrpos (pava> rpt'SofXor, T)TOVO~IV, oiov fnl TTUTTTTOVS 8vo 77 rptls fj TrXfiovs. Cf. Dernosth. 1327. novrjpbs - Oed. Tyr. 742 and 1063 [ t< rpiyovtas. 74 The Extent of Kinship. CHAP. in. Halikarnassos 1 ; 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 (tjyxKrTtvdrjaav OTTO rrjs Ifparfias).' 2 The book of Nehemiah closes with the triumphant verse : ' Thus I cleansed them from all strangers.' Seventh The rule in the Ordinances of Manu for the / recovery of Brahman caste is just halfway between ^ e tenth an< ^ tne fourth generations namely, the Manu. seventh, or greatgrandson of the great grandson 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 Qudra woman keeps reproducing itself by nobler (marriage) this ignoble attains a noble family at the seventh union (Yuga).' 3 Thus :- If (1) the halfcaste marries a Brahman woman and (2) his son do. (3) . . grandson do. (4) . . greatgrandson .... do. (5) his son do. (6) . . grandson do. (7) . . r/reatgrandson .... do. at last his family is restored to their lost high caste. 1 Handbuch der Griechischcn Staat*alterthiimer, von G. Gilbert, ii. p. 298, quotation from Ditten- berger 371, 4 ff. : (o) npiafi.((vot o~r)i> t crrwi/ (r^pt'ts ytvfiis ytytvrip.(vr)v KOI irpbs trarpos KOI jrpos fjLTfrpos. Nehemiah vii. 64. T}TJV itpTjTtiav TTJS 'Aprf^ufioy TTJS \ 3 Jfanti, X. 64. np(-ya)i'ar 7r(ap)'^tra(t i)tp(iav Limit of Liability for Bloodshed. 75 ClIAP. III. 5. LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY FOR BLOODSHED. THE a^tcrreia, limited to relations within the Ail within same degrees as for other purposes, seems to be the rtlawn' unit in the case of pollution of the kindred by the hable - death violent or natural of one of their number. 1 ' Whosoever being related to the deceased on the male or female side of those within the cousinship (evros dvf^tonjTos), shall not prosecute the murderer when he ought and proclaim him out- law, 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 . . .' 2 ' 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' (gvyyeveia). 3 ' If a brother wound a brother (o/io-yoi/os) the parents (yfiwjmi) and the kinsmen (orvyyeveis) to cousins' children on male and female side shall meet and judge the case.' 4 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 1 Plato's Laws, ix. 871 B. 3 872 E. 2 Cf. 868. 4 878 D. 76 Tlie Extent of Kinship. CHAP. in. 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 jus- tice, besides being generally concerned in all matters relating to kinship, which affected any member of their phratria. ' Proclamation shall be made against the mur- derer 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 sen- tence as part of the law of Draco about murder. 1 In another place Demosthenes thus refers to the action of this law : ' The law commands the relations to go forth and The Law of Draco. 1 Dem. c. Makart, 1069. There is some uncertainty in the text of this passage, but the following is Blass' reading adopt- ed by Kohler : Trpofintlv ro> KTtivavri (v ayopd (vros u KOI ih'cimi Kai tii't\lsia>i> rraiftas KOI yapfipovs irtv6(povs Kai (/>paTopar. I am indebted to Mr. J. W. Headlam for this information, and also for the fact of the discovery of the confirmatory inscription. Limit of Liability for Bloodshed. 77 prosecute as far as descendants of cousins ; and in the CHAP. in. oath it is defined what the relationship actually is, etc.' * The use of ai/ei/aaSot in addition to dvetyiwv TraiBes 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 responsi- bility. If the murder was committed within the narrow The case limits of the ay^io-rela itself, the double pollution of within the the bloodspilling and the blood spilled rested upon the 4< yxwfe- whole group with overwhelming force. Plato 2 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 child- less, his relations shall meet to the children of his cousins on the male and female side (i.e. all his pos- sible 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 (K\tjpovofj-os els rov olicov), introducing him to the father of the banished (or deceased) man and to those further back in the family (rocs avw TOV jevovs), calling him their son, the con- tinuer of their family (jevv^rtap), their hearth-keeper 1 Dem. c. Euerg. et Mnesib. 1161. Kf\fVfl 6 VOjJLOS TOVS irpocrrjKovras erre^ievai ' 8iopifTai OTI TrpocrTjKcav fcrri etc. ... Cf. Pollux, viii. 118 (obviously quoting this passage). 2 Lau-s, 877 c. 78 Ttic Extent of Kinship. CHAP. in. (fo-TtoC^off), and minister of their sacred rites. . . . But the guilty man they shall ' let lie,' nameless, childless, portionless for ever. 1 wales. The blood- In the ancient Laws of Wales the blood-fine takes a ver y 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 pro- portionally 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 greatgrand- children of a common ancestor. The Dimetian Code describes the relations who pay galanas as follows. 2 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.' 3 1 Cf. 2 Sam. xiv. 7. House extinguished for fratricide. 2 Dimftian Code, ii. i. 3 Gwentian Code, ii. viii. Cf. Sapinda and Sainfinodaka : both owe rites at deatli of kinsman. Mami, ix. 186, and v. 60, quoted above. Limit of Liability for Bloodshed. 79 The Venedotian Code states that galanas is paid by CHAP. in. 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 spear- penny. 1 The sixth cousin is also called ' kinsman son of a fifth cousin, and then the father (i.e. theffth cousin) pays it, because his relationship can be fixed, but the relationship of his son to the murderer cannot.' The defilement of carrying out a corpse and Defile- assisting at a funeral also covered the same area relationship at Athens i.e. the a^io-re/a. The house of the dead man was only to be entered by those kinsmen - 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.' 2 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 avf\fsta8ol. (irAi^ ocrtu evrvs dvf^-iadlov flaw) : no woman at all may enter the house after the carrying out of the corpse except those within dvf\l/ia8o1.' 3 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 1 Venedotian Code, iii. i. 2 Inscript. Jurid. Grecques par Dareste, &c., 1891, p. 10. In- scription found at lulis in Keos. i Fifth century B.C. Cf. Numbers xix. 14. 3 c. Makart. 1071. 80 Tfie Extent of Kinship. CHAP. in. allay the vengeance and auger 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 suc- cession to his place. The The inclusion of the mother's relatives and their relations liability in these circumstances, in addition to the in C Greece paternal relations, follow naturally enough in Wales and in as i n Greece when once the transmission of inherit- ance through a woman, in default of male heirs, had become a recognised possibility. A woman's sons might always be called upon under certain circum- stances 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 con- tinuity provided by a woman's offspring to her rela- tions, 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 Vene- dotian Code. 1 Those women and clerks who can swear that they will never have children, and so are useless for the preservation of continuity in the 1 Welsh Laws, vol. i. 229. Cf. of those incapable of receiving Ord. of J/anu, ix. 201, where list inheritance includes eunuchs. Limit of Liability for Bloodshed. 81 families to which they belong, are specially exempted CHAP. in. from contribution to the galanas, inasmuch as they have forsworn the privilege of attaining through pos- terity a share in the immortality on earth of their kindred. G CHAPTER IV. THE RELATION OF THE FAMILY TO THE LAND. aeuro/xai, T)vf jrpt (rfiio"njv, f) (j)('pft(i. eVl ^dov\ Trdvd', OTTOO-' (Troi(Tiv. Homeric Hymn. 1. THE KAHPOS AND ITS FORM. CHAP. iv. IN trying to realise the methods of land tenure amongst the Greeks, we are baffled by the indirect- ness of the evidence available. The usual ^ e know that the estate which descended from holding offj^gj. t son. and was in theory inalienable from the a citizen J was called family of its original possessors, was called a K\rjpos a*Aijpojor iii !.,.. . . lot. 1 or lot, but the lamiharity with which the poets, historians, and orators use the word does not afford information as to what the K\f)po$ really was and how it was made use of in practice. The law concerning these family holdings, says Aristotle, 1 and concern- ing 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 6 7T/Jt TtoV K\T]pU>V KU\ (TTlK\T)p(nV. Pol. Atfl. 9. The KAHPO2 and its Form. 83 were they easily changed ; they had their source with CHAP. iv. the slow devotion to agriculture of pastoral tribes, and were dependent on a class unaffected by the growth of education and the arts. The intricate connection of the system of land The reia- tenure with the composition of the family removed ownership the consideration of questions of ownership from the ? la f^ to sphere of written law, and delegated them to the most ture of the - 5 , family. conservative department ot customary procedure, ranking them on a par with questions of family religious observances. 1 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 ; 2 and the possession of land at all was in part a guarantee of the pure native blood in the veins of the possessor. 3 It is a striking illustration of the truth of this that, throughout all the extant speeches of Isaeus dealing with the disposal of K\ripoi 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. 4 1 Cf. Cic. de Legibus ii. 21. Nam sacra cum pecunia ponti- ficum auctoritate, null a lege con- juncta sunt. 2 Dem. in Calliclem, 13-14. Coulauges, Problemes d' Histoire, p. 19. 3 Arist. Pol. Ath. Iv. 3; Har- pocration, Sri Se TOVTOIS /j.eTfjv TTJS 7ro\iTfias ols (?T) Zevs ep/ceioy, SeS^AcoKe KOI 'YTrepeidrjs . . . 4 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. G 2 84 The, Family and the Land. CHAP. IV. ' 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 con- nected with him in friendship (t\iv tat &/JM OVTUV aAAoj 3 Od. 21. 16. Cf. //. 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. 4 //. xx. 216-8. The KAHPOE and its Form. 85 pasture in the river meadows, and of the agriculture CHAP. iv. which had long been carried on over the ' wheat- bearing plain ' around the city, l 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. In the Consular Reports on Land Tenure in Europe Modem made in 1869, descriptions are given of the existing^. ' methods of tenure and cultivation in Greece and the * enure in Greece Islands. and the In Greece the usual holding of a small proprietor is said to be of fifteen to twenty-five acres (or some- times double that area), and is called a zeugarion. 2 Many have only a couple of acres. 'The greatest inconvenience and frequent lawsuits arise from the manner in which these properties intersect each other. More- over 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.' 3 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. 1 II. xxi. 602. Cf. Od. iii. 495. 2 Consular Reports, p. 20. 3 Ibid. 86 The Family and the Land. CHAI. iv Professor Ansted, in his book on the Ionian Family- Islands in the year 1863, thus describes the manage- in Santa ment of an estate on the Island of Santa Maura : l Maura. 4 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 how- ever 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 propor- tional 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 mam-ais 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 1 P. 199. The KAHPOS and its Form. 87 tenaciously, is naturally that in which this sort of communism can CH\P. IV. 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 1 5 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. 1 There is little manuring ; the light plough barely The open turns the surface of the land. Land is usually allowed system in to lie fallow every other year, sometimes two years Greece > 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. In the islands of the Archipelago, 2 the holdings are and in the frequently divided into separate plots consisting of a 1S 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, 3 holdings consist of from five to twenty-five acres, seldom in a continuous piece, but ' cut up into patches and intersected by other pro- perties.' In Corfu, 4 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. 30. Consular Reports, pp. 23 and 2 Ibid. p. 26. 3 Ibid. p. 40. 4 Ibid. p. 49. 88 The Family and the Land. CHAP. iv. 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. The open Professor Ridgeway has drawn attention to the system in knowledge of this open field system in the Iliad and Homer. Odyssey ; l 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 K\rjpos 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 KAHPOS TO THE OIKOS. Owner- THE connection of the possession of land with the ie headship of the family finds its counterpart in the r ig n * of maintenance of those who had the true blood o f ^ na ^ family. And in those countries where the sons remained until their father's death under his patria potcstas they had to look to him for main 1 'The Homeric Land System,' Journal of Hellenic Studies, 1885. TJie KAHPO2 and the OIKO2. 89 tenance derived from the tempos which descended to CHAP. iv. 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 incom- plete if he tried to establish during his father's life- time 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. 1 According to Harpocration, the initiation into the mysteries of the hearth only took place on the actual assumption of the inheritance. 2 Occasionally a father feeling the weight of years Depen- would be glad to pass on to his son during his life- O ther time some of his burden of responsibility by making him master of his estate (/cvptos r^s ovaias). 3 In IKOS - 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 justi- fied that the family, until final subdivision into separate ol/coi, 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 olicos along the lines of the rising generations. 1 Isaeus, xi. 49 (Hagnias). 2 Harp. s. v. a<' 'Ecrn'a? fj.Vfl(r6ai 'icrator iv ra> irpos . 6 a<* 'E arias Xa^coj/ e'/ii/erro. 3 Isaeus, vii. (Apollod.). 8e 15 and 27, 90 The Family and the Land. CHAP. iv. 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 1 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 OIKOI from the one OIKOS of Bouselos, and each dwelt apart, having his own house and his own offspring.' 1 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 (icvpios) 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. Thepre- Amongst the Gods, the three brothers Zeus, tne a eidest f Poseidon, and Hades, sons of Khea, shared their brother, inheritance from their father Kronos. They divided everything in three, shaking lots thereover (-rra\\o- nevwv). Each took equal share of honour (e/i/*o/>6 n^sf), but earth and Olympos were common (^wij) to all. 2 But Zeus was the first-born and 'knew more things '- 'A\Xa Zeuy irporepos yeyovei KOI tr\eiova rjBrj 3 and Poseidon therefore avoided open strife with him, how- 1 1055 etseq. Cf. 1149 where and 1086 where two brothers live one brother lives with his father | apart but with undivided estate, after the division, whilst his | '- II. xv. 187 sq. brother has a house of his own : 3 Ib. xiii. 355. The KAHPO2 and the OIKO2. 91 ever unwillingly. Though Zeus be the stronger, CHAP. iv. 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 (aKovaov-rai Kal avdytcTJ). Yet because the Erinnyes ever take the side of the eldest born (jLa ddavdruv Tf dtwv x a M"' ( T* dvdpctnwv fSrv dffiiov ov (\ovcra ytpas Ka TifUO* oi/ yap arep rov 6vT)rolcriv, iv' ov 'Epiov 1i/) 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. 2 His introduction and admission to a phratria and deme, as a descendant of an old family, so far re- moved 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 where- with to found and continue a house of his own. 3 Gifts of When citizenship was conferred upon a beneficent n a e n w t( stranger, it was the custom at the same time to citizens. ass ig n him and his descendants a house and some land. We hear of grants on such occasions consisting of a K\7)po$ in the plain, a house, and a garden free of taxes ; a half-K^pos 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 1 Od. xiv. 209. Cf. Pindar, 3 Cf. Eur. Ion 1541. 01. ix. 95-100. Bastard prince | rov Otov 8i Xry6/if i-os named after his mother's father OVK f rf/s Sovvai TroXiretai/, KXf/pov Iv onrjv, KTTTOV drt\fiav. avr<5 Kal (Kyovois. KTrjveiov (?) fv TO) Trefit'o KrTTOV KvfJ.O)V p.(pOp(Q)V (KO.TOV, &c. avrif Kai ficyovois. avroL teat fK-yovois, Kai (yKTija-iv yas Kal oiKias KOI eVivo/i/ar, &C. . . . and 232. Do. 395 (4th cent. B.C.). So many plethra each e\eiv Trarpoveav rap. Trdvra \p6vov. Do. 27. The importance of the grant of ey/cr^o-i? must lie in its being the evidence of admission to full privilege. V. infra, p. 139. p. 122, note A. Cf. Cauer Delect. 221 3 Manu, ix. 104-106. H 98 The Family and (he Land. CHAP. IV. without leaving anything, and the remaining (brothers) may live ~ . . supported by him just as (if he were their) father. 1 ' ' ' By means of the eldest (son) as soon as he is born a man shown to becomes possessed of a son, and is thus cleared of his debts the eldest towards the manes ; therefore this (eldest son) deserves the whole (inheritance). 1 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.' 2 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.' 3 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. 4 The brothers may live together in this way, 5 but if they divide and live apart, the separate cere- monies necessitated by their separate households will multiply the performance of religious duties, to the advantage of all. The duties The title of Householder, moreover, was more of the , house- tnan a name. holder. ' As all beings depend on air, so all orders depend on the house- holder.' ' Because men of the three (other) orders are daily supported by the householder alone with knowledge and with food, therefore 1 iv. 184. ' An elder brother is equal to a father.' 2 ix. 182. 3 iii. 171-2. 4 ix. 110 and 213. 6 ix. 111. The Householder in India : the Guest. 99 the householder (is) the chief order. That order must be upheld CHAP. IV. 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.' 1 ' As all rivers, ... go to (their) resting-place in the ocean, so men of all orders depend on the householder.' 2 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.' 3 The guest takes a very high place, and his presence Honour 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.' 4 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 gwea-Ttoi in his impending sacri- fice of a bull to the nymphs, promising to send them on their way in the morning. 5 1 iii. 77 et 2 vi. 90. 4 iii. 108. 5 Elektra, 784. 3 iii. 67, 70, and 72. H 2 100 The Family and the Land. CHAP. iv. Earlier in the play during the plotting of Aigis- thos' 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. 1 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. 52 Nestor at Pylos, making sacrifice to Poseidon with his sons and company, welcomes the unknown Tele- machos and Mentor to the sacrificial feast. 8 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 hospi- tality of the host and not in the worthiness of the guest, and that therefore it was worth while to run O ' 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. Right of of the members of the family. To return to the organisation of the Indian in- heritance : The duty of maintenance 4 of the younger members of the family devolves upon the eldest son at the death of his father. If the brothers are 1 Elektra, 637. 2 Od. viii. 546. arr\ flvos ff i*(TT)s rf Tfruicrai dvtpi, os T oXi-yov irtp (TTttyavr) irpairidf AND THE TEMENO2. T}ie In the Homeric poems, written, as they are, from flaff.xttfj an aristocratic or heroic point of view, a great gulf and his . , i Tf>xoi always exists between the royal or princely class and contrasted .-, * , M with the the ordinary tribesmen. and*hT n The favtiw* the lion of his people 1 has his K\fipos. select estate, his refievos, with orchards and gardens of considerable extent ; while the swarms of tribes- men are allotted their tc\rjpoi in the open field, their share in the common pasture, and depend on each other for help in the vintage and harvest. The pos- The possession of large estates and of multitudinous sessions of fl oc k s an( j h er d s 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 npon 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.' 2 Bellerophon migrated from his own country and settled under the patronage of the king of Lykia. 3 He married the king's daughter, and to complete his qualification and to confirm his princely status as a j3aa-i\evs of Lykia, he was allotted by the Lykians an estate where the plain was fattest on the banks of the 1 11, xx. 165. 3 //. vi. 194. 2 Od. xiv. 96. The KAHPO2 and the TEMENO2 in Homer. 103 river, consisting half of arable, half of vineyard, the CHAP. iv. latter presumably on the slopes of the sides of the valley. 1 Besides these no doubt he had flocks and herds on the mountains, with steadings and slaves for their pro- tection. 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 re- adjustment, 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 apovpat enough were his, and many were his orchards of trees apart, and many sheep were his.' 2 In the description of the Shield of Achilles in the Iliad a vivid contrast is drawn between the rich harvest of the ftao-iXevs and the busy toil of the tribesmen. ' Furthermore he set therein a re^evos deep in corn 3 where hinds (epiSoi) were reaping with sharp sickles in their hands . . . and among them the ^ao-tXcvs 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. 4 1 11. ix. 574 ; c/. xx. 184. a II. xiv. 121. 3 Or ' belonging to a basileus.' 4 Cf. 11. xi. 67. 'As when ploughland of a rich man of wheat and barley, and thick fall the handfuls ' . . . This contrast is drawn by reapers over against each other i Professor Ridgeway : op. cit. p. 19 drive their swaths through the Journal of Hellenic Studies, 1885. 104 TJie Family and the Land. CHAP. iv. But in the great common field all was toil and The^x^oj action ; many ploughers therein drave their yokes to tribesman anc ^ ^ ro M *^ c y wnce l e( l about. 1 The holding of the common tribesman was not an estate reiei/os cut fields in out of the plain, but an allotment (/eX^pos), probably ' of strips as in Palestine to-day, in the open fields that lay around the town. On the wheatbearing plain round Troy 2 lay the stones that former men, before the ten years' war, had used to mark the balk or boundary of their strips (olpov apovpijs}.* 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. 4 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. 5 Homer also describes a fight between two men with measuring rods in the common field, 6 and Isaeus 7 relates how an Athenian citizen flogged his brother in 1 //. xviii. 541. 2 //. xxi. 602. 3 Ridgeway, op. cit. * Plato, Laws, 842. E. opiov Trptt)TOf vop.os not (ipT](r6, p.iq fjitv napa 6(u>v, I Ot VTTO VOfiOV. 5 11. xi. 558. 6 11. xii. 421 ; v. Ridgeway, op. The KAHPO2 and the TEMENO2 in Homer. 105 a quarrel over their boundary so that he afterwards CHAP. iv. 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. 1 Such acquisitions would not be included in the re^evos of the prince, the very word re^evos implying an area of land cut out of the cultivated land of the community, generally described as being in the plain (TT&IOV). Such allotments of land seem only to have been The made to princes and gods, but when once allotted, ^ remained as far as can be seen the property of their like , a g d x - 1 J with gift descendants. It was a common fancy of the Homeric of a Wu prince that he was worshipped as a god, and they " often mistook each other for some deity. The god- like Sarpedon asks his cousin Glaukos, wherefore are they two honoured in Lykia as gods, with flesh and full cups and a great Te^evos." As the possession of full tribal blood was necessary for the ownership of a K\rjpos, so princely blood was the qualification for the enjoyment of a 1 Trioves aypoi. 11. xxiii. 832. v, Kidgeway, op. cit. p. 16. 2 II xii. 313. Cf. II. 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. 106 The Family and the Land. The TffKPO! from father to son. CHAP. iv. The honoured individual need not be a king or over- lord, 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 Tf^evos. 1 This great rcfievos on the banks of the Xanthos, half arable and half vineyard, remained in the possession of his grand- children, Sarpedon and Glaukos, apparently still undivided, though they were not brothers but first cousins. 2 The king of the Phaeakians had his -r^evos and fruitful orchard near but apart from the fields and tilled lands of his townsfolk. 3 Odysseus it seems had more than one refievos. 4 Once in the Iliad the epithet ira-rpvios is ap- pli e( l to a chiefs Tf/xci/os. 5 According to Hesychius, n-arpwlos means ' handed down to one's father from his ancestors,' 6 and Homer evidently uses the word in this sense. 7 The kingship itself in Ithaka was considered as part of Telemachos' patrimony : ' Never may Kronion 1 II vi. 191. 2 II. xii. 313. xai i>tptip.(trda /ie'ya (not re/ieVca). 3 Od. vi. 291-3. Xenophon states that choice portions of land in the territory of many neigh- bouring towns were set apart for the king of Sparta. Rep. Laced. xv. 3. Od. xi. 184. 5 II. XX. 391, 601 TOl TffUVOS Trarpuiiov ferny. 6 TO TOV narpos KOI dirb irpoyovwv. 7 Vide 11 ii. 46 and 101-8. Agamemnon's (TKrjirrpov irarp ol Kal Trarpls apovpa ; Cf. Od. xi. 185. Telemachos vf Herat repcvea of Odysseus. Cf. Od. xx. 336. Trdvra t>ffj.T)ai. 108 The Family and the Land. CHAP. iv. VOVT' a'yav). But the kingly sceptre and throne of his father must be his without wrath between them. And Zeus, the ancestral god of them both (Zeu o yeve0\tos apfyoripois), is witness to their oath. 1 Ri . ch Property in land could also be accumulated in the might hands of individuals not necessarily of princely several station. Odysseus tells a tale of how he took a wife Q f < men w ^jj man y K \ijp 0t ' (jro\VK\ripwv avOpwirwv} by reason of his valour. 2 The K\rjpos 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 Kkrjpot, were often equally divided, 3 and the gift of citizenship, as has been already mentioned, was sometimes accompanied by a grant of a half-kleros (r)p,uc\ripiov}. Did the n\^pos then represent in theory an area of cultivated ground capable of sus- taining a single household ? 5. EARLY EVIDENCE continued: THE KAHPO2 AND THE MAINTENANCE OF THE OIKO2. TheKAfipos THERE are signs in Homer of the existence, WftS tilt' holding of already insisted upon for later times, of the connec- tion of the ownership of property with the headship of a household. It follows that if the head of a 1 Pindar, Pt/th. iv. 256 et seq. 3 Cf. //. xii. 421. iripl l 2 0(1. xiv. 211. The KAHPO2 and Maintenance of the OIKO2. 109 family was the only owner of land, the desire of CHAP. iv. establishing a family and thereby preserving at the ofa ^~ same time the acquired property and the name of the 0?/tos ' 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 (KT^O-LS), both an OLKOS and a tempos and a shapely wife. 1 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. 2 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 K\f)pos, as a house, a wife, and a plough-ox. 3 Aristotle quotes this line of Hesiod, in his argu- ment that the ol/fos was the association formed to supply the wants of each day, 4 its members being called by Charondas, he says, 6/j,oat7rvoi (sharers in the mealbin), and by Epimenides the Cretan opo/cairoi (sharers of the same plot of ground). 5 And he might have added that Pindar uses the word 6fj,cK\apoi to mean ' twins.' 6 1 Od. xiv. 62. 2 Od. xiv. 211. 3 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 yvvr) as wife. * Pol. i. 2, 5-7. 5 I am indebted to Professor Bidgeway for the right meaning and derivation of this word, which stands for 6p6ieT)iroi,, having the a long and not short as stated in Liddell and Scott's Dictionary. Another reading is 6/xo/caTrvot which would mean sharers of the smoke or hearth. 6 Pindar, Nem. ix. 11. 110 The Family and the Land. CHAP. iv. A household, according to Aristotle, consisted anifsuj,- thus partly of human beings, partly of property. 1 main- ^ c ^ ose ^y * s the idea of livelihood bound up with tenance of that of the house or olxos, that Telemachos can say the house. . i i i .,. i without incongruity that his house is being eaten by the wooers : pa teal otSe yvwcnv, on, geivoi Trarptolot, eu^o/ie^' elvai).* 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 1 (Econ. i. 2. ptpT) de olifias 3 Od. xiv. 158 ; xvii. 155 ; xx avdpVTros T( xal rnjcrir eVrtv. Pol. 230. umo vvv Zfi>s npStra 6to>v i. 4, 1. 17 cr7'''? i"t rpdnf^a 'urriT) r' 'Odvtrfjos a/iv/iovof, fji> a(piK.dv. Od. iv. 318. 4 //. vi. 230. The KAHPOS and Maintenance of the OIKO2. Ill and ofioKa-n-oi, and binding together those habitually CHAI-. iv. nourished at the same board. If sons married during their father's lifetime The need without any particular means of livelihood, they could live under his roof and authority, forming a great patriarchal household like that of Priam and felt - 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 TriK\r)po$ 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 ap- parently 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'etre of this sentiment in Homer, the existence of the feeling can hardly be denied. The K\r)pos, 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 (olfcos), and their K\r;pos will be unharmed, provided only that the enemy are driven back. l The sentiment that a man was not really ' estab- 1 11. xv. 497. 112 The Family and the Land. CHAP. iv. lished,' 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, 1 as the father of Telemachos, simply because it was con- sidered 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.' 2 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. The diversion of inheritance to any property from 1 p. 75. Mr. Leaf mentions other countries where the father takes a new name as father of his eldest son. 2 Od. iv. 754-7. Gtois 'ApACftcruiSao ov yap ot'ci) yovrjv f^df(T0\ aX\' (Ti irov TIS fflrccrcrcrai, Of K(V (XflVlV Seo/icmi 6' \>i\f(pf<$>ia KOI dnoirpodt. niovas dypovs. ' Far away ' implies width of sway and extent of influence ; and the protection of outlying proper- ties would necessitate a great name and a strong hand. The KAHPO2 and Maintenance of the OIKO2. 113 the direct line is spoken of in Homer as a lamentable CHAP. iv. circumstance greatly intensifying the natural grief at Division the death of the direct heir. of inh f i - tance by ' Then went he after Xanthos and Thoon, sons of Phainops, death of striplings both ; but their father was outworn of grievous age, and .[ a sore 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 (KTTJO-IS).' l 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 posses- sions in his halls and whatever dues of honour the people have rendered unto him.' 2 The same anxiety prompts his question to his mother in Hades, to which he obtains answer : ' The fair honour (ye'pas) that is thine no man hath yet taken, but Telemachos holdeth in safety (thy) demesnes (re/ievea j/f'/nerai).' 3 The belief in the inseparability of the ancestral Naboth's holding and the family was strong in Samaria at the boundto time of Ahab. The King offered Naboth another J 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.' 4 Both the Hebrew narrators and the Greek trans- 1 II. v. 151 et seq. l ofypatrv fj.ev ( = Telemachos) 2 Od. vii. 150. Trarpuia Travra vf/jLtjai. 3 Od. xi. 184. Cf. xx. 33G. 4 1 Kings xxi 3. 1 1 4 The Family and the Land. CHAP, iv lators describe Ahab finally as taking the vineyard at Naboth's death by inheritance (LXX. tcXypovoneiv), 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.' 1 6. EARLY EVIDENCE continued: THE TEMENO2 AND THE MAINTENANCE OF THE CHIEFTAIN. The main- IT must be borne in mind that the tribal idea of ieS the chieftainship sanctioned the custom that the maintenance of the chieftain and his companions or p P le retainers should be levied at will upon the property under the mi . ... . . , r name of of the people. Inis 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 8dyot. As Telemachos declares, ' it is no bad thing to be a ftacriXevs, and quickly does his house become rich and he himself most honoured.' 2 The royal family and nobles 3 levied contributions on their own or conquered peoples apparently at will 1 Ezekiel xlvi. 16. 8 Od. i. 392. 8 IWiAfvj in Homer means 1 prince ' and is applied to a class, not a single chieftain. //. xii. 319 | W. & D. 37-9. of Sarpedon and Glaukos. 72. iv. 96 of Paris. Od. i. 394 of the Ithakans. Od. viii. 41 and 390 of the Phaeakians. Of. Hesiod, The TEMENO2 and Maintenance of Chieftains. 115 in Homer. Agamemnon calls together the Greek CHAP. iv. chiefs : ' Ye leaders and counsellors of the Argives . . . who drink at the public cost (8rjfjna irivowiv) and each command an host eKacrros Aaois). 1 Priam chides his sons : 'Ye plunderers of your own people's sheep and kids (apvvv fjS" tptyav fin8fifuoi apTraKTTJpfs).' 2 Telemachos declares that if the wooers eat up all his sheep and substance, he will go through the city (Kara acrrv) claiming chattels until all be restored. 3 Alkinoos proposes to give gifts to Odysseus, and they themselves going amongst the people (dyeipo- pevoi Kara 8rj/j,ov) will recompense themselves : ' for hard it were for one man to give without return.' 4 ' 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 (8rjp66ev) and oxen to sacrifice to his heart's desire.' 6 These passages throw light on Agamemnon's The right offer to Achilles of seven well -peopled towns, whose such 'gifts 1 inhabitants would enrich him with plenteous gifts. 6 be'trans- The proposal of Menelaos to empty a city of Argos, fe n rre jj to 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. 7 In the Indian society that was regulated in in India 1 11 xvii. 250. 2 II. xxiv. 262. 3 Od. ii. 74. * Od. xiii. 13. & Od. xix. 195. 6 II. ix. 291. Cf. 11. ix. 483. Peleus enriched Phoinix, and gave him much people (no\vv XaoV) to be ai/a over. 7 Od. iv. 174. I 2 11G The Family and the Land. CHAP. IV. the chief of a town might re- ceive the king's sup- plies. The main- tenance of the Great King, and of Solomon accordance with the Ordinances of Maim, 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,' l 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.' 2 Under the rule of the Persians, all Asia was parcelled out in such a way as to supply maintenance (rpo(j>ri) for the Great King and his host throughout the whole year. 3 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. 4 Solomon's table was provided after the same method. ' And Solomon had twelve officers over all Israel which pro- vided 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 ac- cording to his charge.' 6 1 J/awa, vii. 118. 8 vii. 123. 3 Herod, i. 192. < Ibid. 5 1 Kings iv. 7-27. One of these officers was over ' threescore great cities with walls and brazen bars.' The TEMENOS and Maintenance of Chieftains. 117 Sesostris is said to have obtained his revenue CHAP. iv. from the holders of /c\ripoi, in Egypt in proportion to the amount of land in each man's occupation r 1 and ! rom 1 ? nd . i- in ancient Pharaoh, having bought all the land at the time E eypt- 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.' 2 In this case Pharaoh became proprietor by pur- chase 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 pro- prietary rights over his ow r n estate, and may or may not have had power to regulate any further distri- bution 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. The maintenance of the prince was a first charge Grants of apparently upon the property of his subjects; and t hepri nce 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 w r as 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 1 Herod, ii. 109. - Genes, xlvii. 26. 1 1 8 The Family and the Land. CHAP IV. the common pasturage. After agriculture had in their assumed equal importance in the economy of the sj^tom of tribe as the tending of flocks and herds, one is apt cj- to forget that for centuries perhaps for thousands culture. . 1 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 tribes- man having his due allotment, and letting it lie waste again the next year, admitted of considerable read- justment to meet the exigencies of declining popu- lation, 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 refievos apart, or a xlrjpos 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.' l Such It is noticeable that the Aetolians offered were a Meleagros a repevos in the fattest part of the plain, honour, wherever he might choose, as a gift (&&pov) ; and as the Tt/j,vo$ 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 rei^evos. 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. 1 Find. Nem. vi. 11 (Trans. Myers), cf. Ridgeway, op. cit. p. 20. The TEMENO2 and Maintenance of Chieftains. 119 In similar wise Ezekiel suggested the capitalisa- CHAP. iv. tion, as it were, by a gift of land of the contributions a nd~se7ved to the princes, which no doubt were felt to be very ^1^^. irksome. In the division of the land, a portion was tributes. 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, princes of Israel ; remove violence and spoil and execute judgment and justice, and take away your exactions from my people, saith the Lord God.' l 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.' 2 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. 3 The modern usage in Boeotia and in the island of Modem Euboea may very well represent the procedure ancient times, and if it can be imagined that some method of the same sort was in vogue in Boeotia in methods. 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 1 Ezekiel xlv. 8, 9. 2 Ez. xlvi. 18. 3 Od. xxiv. 207. 120 The Family and the Land. CHAP. IV. '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.' * At Achmetaga, in Euboca, ' 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.' 2 The gifts Whether the free tribesman ever looked upon the prince not contribution he made to the maintenance of the food'rents P r i nces > under whose protection he had the privilege for the of living, as a condition of tenure of his land, is open to doubt ; but from the right to demand indiscrimin- ate 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. 1 Mahaffy, Rambles in Greece, 1 * Rennell Rodd's Customs and 3rd ed. p. 200. i Lore of Modern Greece, p. 58. Summary of the Early Evidence. 121 The princes had their compact estates divided off CHAP iv. from the other land of the community, so that a Thoy, 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 un- doubtedly retained, and he probably cultivated what he liked of the outlying lands under his sway. but could But the evidence does not show that he ever had the right of coming between the olvoy of his tribes- Hesiod and his KAHPO2. 123 men and their tempos : the only means at his dis- CHAP. iv. posal of severing the link between the family and the pr j ve the land, were those employed by Ahab and Jezebel to acquire the ' inheritance ' of the ancestral vineyard of land - Naboth at Jezreel. 8. HESIOD AND HIS KAHPO2. IN the time of Hesiod, the X%>os * could be sold in case of need and added to the possession of another. But the case of Hesiod is in itself somewhat Hesipd an exceptional. His father had fled from his own coun- gTant : not try by stress of poverty, and settled on the barren ^g^ 1 ^ 1 land of Askra in Boeotia, where he was allowed to family. acquire some land. 2 He was therefore somewhat of a sojourner (the ^ravdar^s of Homer), 3 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 for- bidden to shirk. 4 Hesiod and his brother Perses had divided the K\rjpos of their father into two, and lived apart. Perses had squandered his half, and spent his time 1 The K\TJpos is spoken of as capable of good cultivation by means of a yoke of oxen.. 2 Works and Days 637. Pos- session of land would presuppose a^coorot *KIOV, faxraj/ro e TT admission to full civic rights. F. supra, p. 97. 3 //. ix. 648 ; xvi. 59. 4 W. and D. 345 &c. ytirove s 124 The Family and the Land. CHAP. iv. 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 IX LATER TIMES. Lnmi was IN later Greek writers it is several times stated that in theory ,-1 ~ > v i i IT j. inalienable tne K\r,poi or ap-^atat pot pai were inalienable. Yet fam?i\- he a ^ remar k 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 K\rjpoi, and the good purpose therein of making every one cultivate his own moderate-sized holding. 1 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 1 Arist. Pol. VI 1 1. ii. 5. r/v S tiv (Is TI ptpos rijs TO yt apxaiov iv TroXAoir 7rdAf\(lv ((it>at ' Sxrntp iv \OKpols roi/r TrpcuTovy K\rjpovs fort 8f KCI\ : rrp.ov tivai K\rpovs Staerto^eii'. TOIOVTOV Tl 8vV(lfJL(VOS, TO fj.r) 8dV(l- ' ~ LlllCS 741. Survivals in Later Times. 125 ' Now I, as the legislator, regard you and your possessions, not CHAP. IV. as belonging to yourselves, but as belonging to your whole family, both past and present.' x Plutarch and Heraclides say that the same law against the sale of the tc\rjpos existed anciently at Sparta. Plutarch's evidence, late as it is, of the ancient in Sparta customs among the Spartans is worthy of further be ac- consideration. ^father's In his Life of Agis he states that the tribesme "' passed in succession from father to son lv St ircnpos 7rai8l rov K\fjpov a7ro\ei7rovTos until the Peloponnesian war. In his Life of Lycurgus he says that ' When a child was born, the father was not entitled to main- tain it (Tpefaiv), 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 main- tenance (rpefpfiv), allotting to it one of the 9,000 kleroi 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. 3 The important part of this ceremony at Sparta, who de- described by Plutarch, seems to be the introduction of the infant to the elders of the tribe, and the recog- nition by them of its right to maintenance, if it i e ts 1 Laws 923. 2 Lycurg. xvi. 3 Suiclas; and Harpocration s.v. a[i.i,8p6p.ia : Avcrias ev r avroits tK rfjs x**P as ov ' 2 A then. vi. ;85. Boio>rd>v anoKTtvovoriv, avroi oe TTJV v TTJV 'Apvaiav I avrolr ipya6fji(voi TCIS (nnna(is ol pt) aTrdpavrts tit | dno8ucrovrai 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. 1 This comprehensive use of the word KXypos, 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 K\ypos at Sparta evidently meant also a trans- ference 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 allot- ment. The Athenians in their K\r)povxiai seem instinctively similar to have combined these two methods of agriculture, t^ur^in The *A,77pouyot were not colonists, who became citizens ^, j* ... Athenian of a new city, but they remained citizens of Athens, K\n PO v- holding however their K\^poi in a remote district. 1 Gortyn. v. 25. at 8e p.f] tlev | rather than with the preceding words, olrivf s K' ?coT-i 6 xXdpos is equivalent to ol K\apu>rai. See Dareste, &c., Inscript. JurM. Gr. p. 463. K 2 (s ras FOIKIO.S oinves K 6 K\apos, TOVTOVS enev ra The words ras Fondas should be taken with olnvfs, &c., 132 The Family and the Land. CHAP iv. 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 K\fipos. This was the case, even when the land itself was left in the hands of the conquered popu- lation at a fixed annual charge. Examples An inscription found on the Acropolis of Athens, s ' and relating to some date about 560 or 570 B.C., defines the legal status of the first fcXypovxoi 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. 1 in Lesbos, 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 K\rjpoi ' except the Methymnian land,' they first set apart three hundred K\rjpot as sacred to the gods, and on to the others they sent off ic\ijpov- XQI chosen by lot from themselves ; to these the Lesbians paid annually for each K\qpos two minae, and themselves worked the land. 2 inEuboea. 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 K\T) polypi, 3 in two thousand K\rjpoi, i.e. the country 1 Mittheil. Inst. Ath. ix. p. J 2 Thuc. iii. 50. 117. The original number of 3 fcAr/poC^o* in this case was ap- parently five hundred. Leasehold and Semi-servile Tenure. 133 called Hippobotos ; and, setting aside repevr} to Athena CHAP. IV. in the place called Lelantos, they let out 1 the rest according to the pillars that stand in the King's Stoa, which thus bear record of the leases. 2 The holding of each K\t]pov'xps may have varied Each in size according to the character of the soil and therefore features of the country ; but it may safely be ^ ported asserted that it must have been of sufficient dimen- families. sions, 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 /cXijpov^os himself, during his enforced residence in the conquered country. The class of citizen from amongst whom the K\V)- pov%oi were chosen by lot, did not consist of families with much property in Athens. 3 Younger sons without occupation, whom their fathers had not been quite callous enough to ' expose ' in infancy, 4 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 tcXr/pos, 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, 5 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 1 f /Ai'<7$pT)er- mant in their constitution. In similar wise, the period thT of Achaian prosperity seems to have been followed by Achaians. a ^^ ^ Q p rom i nence a t any rate, if not an actual resuscitation, of old tribal customs. These The actual traces of tribal institutions in Homer habits need not be underrated. There is much that is of a probably tribal character in the Homeric chieftain in his rela- The Tribal System in Greece. 143 tions to his tribesmen and to their gods. Survivals CHAP. v. of tribal custom may also be seen in the reverence only for the guest, and the sacredness of the bond of hospitality lasting as it did for generations ; and in out and i i P T i -n common to the blood-leud with its deadly consequences, especially ail Greeks, 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 ? Although therefore nearly all our evidence of theifnotprac- internal structure of the kindred among the Greeks even to ail dates from the fifth century B.C., the ay^o-re/a 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 lonians or Dorians. Are they not indeed necessary features of tribal society itself wherever it is examined ? INDEX ADOPTION, object of, 35 ; out of un- fortunate home, 36 ; ceremony of, 36-7 Agora, 2, 3 dyxivTfia, 32 ; its meaning, 55 ; its limits, 58-9 ; all within it liable for bloodshed, 75 etseq. ; its tribal origin, 143 Ancestor - worship, 10, 140 ; in Homer, 5, 7 ; in Israel, 8, 9 ; in Egypt, 11 ; pre-Homeric, 141, note avfnos see P. /3acrtXtif, one of a class, 107, 114 ; honoured like a god, 105-6, 122 ; owned re^os, 102, 106, 122 ; influenced the seasons, 105, note ; over - lordship not altogether hereditary, 107 ; levied main- tenance on their people, 115, 122; Solomon, 116; household /Sao-tAev? 92 Bastard, no place in family, 95-6 ; allotment or gift for his mainten- ance, 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 dyxivrda, 75 et seq. ; within the kindred, 44, 77 C CITIZENSHIP, admission to, 71, 96 ; qualification for, by three de- scents, 73 ; basis of, 138 ; con- firmed to son of stranger, 71, note K s, grant of, to new citizen, 97, note ; 123, note riK\T]pos, succession found through her, 23 ; she must marry next-of- kin, 23-7 ; in Gortyn laws, 26 ; where more than one, 26 ; in- herited for her issue, 28 ; Ruth as, 31, 34 ; had right of mainten- ance from property, 23-4 F FAMILY (see owcos), bound to the land, 127 et seq. ; family estate in Santa Maura, 86 ; head of family, 91 Funeral, see Sacrifices G GAVELKIND, in Kent, 95 Guest, importance at sacrifice, 99- 100 ; hereditary guestship, 1 10 L 146 Index. ii 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 ; impor- tance of male heir, 21-3, 98 et seq. ; daughter's son, 23-7 ; always ranks as son of deceased, 34 et seq. t 59 et seq. ; initiated to hearth, 89 ; introduced to kin- dred, 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. ; dis- inheritance, 61 ; division among heirs, 64 et seq., 101 ; Ahab's 'inheritance' of Naboth's vine- yard, 114 Hesiod, his Ai;po9, 123 ; the needs of a farmer, 109 Hestia, 3, 4, 138 ; called 'princess ' 13 INHERITANCE, see K\fjpos, and Heir K 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 dis- inheritance, 61 ; liable for blood- shed, 75 et seq. ; Hesiod's idea of, 123 KAaporrat, 130 tempos, its form, 85 et seq. ; sup- ported the oucor, 88 et seq., 110, 121, 127 ; need not be divided, 47, 89, 93, 97 ; no joint holding be- tween father and sons, 93 ; sold in case of need, 94 ; in theory in- alienable, 94, 113, 124, 127 ; al- lotted to new citizen, 96 ; in Homer, 102 ; held by tribesmen, 108 ; of Hesiod, 123 131 et seq. LAND, ownership of, proof of civic rights, 83, 96 (see ttXfjpos and 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. M MAINTENANCE of parents (see Par- ents) ; of oiKor, 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 K\fjpos, 127 Manes, duties to, in India, 19 Marriage, of heiress, 23-6 ; of near relations, 29 ; of widow (see Levirate) O Octopus, 125 note olicos, part of yivos, 17 ; impor- tance 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 house- holder in India, 99 ; supported by its land, 110, 113, 121 ; of Bouse- los, 55, 63 ; 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 Index. 147 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 q&ibr, 91, note Prytaneum, 3, 4, 15, 138 R REGISTER, of phratria, 36 ; of deme, 38 Ruth, as widow and fVt/tXT/pof, 31-4 Stranger, abhorrence of, 5, 71, 74 ; as guest, 99 (see Guest) ; admission to tribe, 67 et seq., 96 s, in Homer, 103, 113 ; allotted to princes and gods, 102, 106, 118, 122 ; called irarpwios, 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) 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 house- holder in India, 99 ; bond of common religion, 13, 53, 138 W 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. RICHARD CLAY AND SONS, LIMITED, LONDON AND EUNOAY.