Pindar describes this method of cultivation when he says:—

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

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

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

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

And again:—

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

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

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

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

At Achmetaga, in Euboea,

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

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



7. Summary Of The Early Evidence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



8. Hesiod And His Κλήρος.

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

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

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

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



9. Survivals Of Family Land In Later Times.

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

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

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

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

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

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

In his Life of Lycurgus he says that—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



CHAPTER V. CONCLUSION.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



INDEX.

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

Agora, 2, 3

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

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

ἀνεψιός see ἀγχιστεία

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Funeral, see Sacrifices

Gavelkind, in Kent, 95

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

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

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

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

Hestia, 3, 4, 138; called "princess," 13

Inheritance, see κλῆρος, and Heir

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

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

κλαρῶται, 130

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

κληροῦχοι, 131 et seq.

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

Lar = "lord," 12; lares of king, 4

Leases, for ever, 134-6

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

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

Manes, duties to, in India, 19

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

Octopus, 125 note

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

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

Parage, in Normandy, an undivided tenure, 50

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

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

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

Prytaneum, 3, 4, 15, 138

Register, of phratria, 36; of deme, 38

Ruth, as widow and ἐπίκληρος, 31-4

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

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

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

Tonsure, in Greece, 39; in India, 40

Tribe, its basis one of blood, 4-5, 138; possible development of, 14-15; admission to, 68 et seq., 96 (and see Citizenship)

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

THE END.



FOOTNOTES

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

1 Il. ix. 63.

2 Il. ii. 400.

3 Il. xi. 807.

4 Il. ii. 788.

M4 The Prytaneum and Hestia.

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

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

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

7 Thuc. ii. 16.

M5 Their origin.

8 Journal of Philol. xiv. 145.

9 Op. cit. p. 153.

M6 Qualification for share in religious rites one of blood.

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

M7 Ancestor-worship not obvious in Homer.

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

M8 Offerings of food to the gods,

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

M9 and to the dead.

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

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

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

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

M11 Offerings to the dead in the Old Testament.

16 Ps. cvi. 28. v. Maine's Early Law and Custom, p. 59.

M12 Resemblance between Homer and the Old Testament.

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

M13 Ancestor-worship in India and Rome.

18 Soph. Antig. 659.

19 Coulanges, Cite Antique, p. 65.

20 Soph. Antig. 199.

21 Soph. Phil. 933. Soph. Elekt. 411.

M14 The need of food for the dead;

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

M15 the same in Egypt,

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

24 Id. chap. liii.

25 Id. chap. lxxii.

26 Id. chap. lxxvii.

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

27 Cite Antique, p. 93, ἑστία δέσποινα.

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

28 Wks. & Days, 327-332.

29 Id. 353-5.

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

30 Laws 717, Trans. Jowett, cf. 729 C and 931 A.

M24 and extended to their tomb.

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

Iliad iv. 477 and xvii. 302.

... οὐδὲ τοκεῦσιν θρέπτα φίλοις ἀπέδωκε...

Hesiod, Works and Days, 118.

οὐδέ κεν οἵγε γηράντεσσι τοκεῦσιν ἀπὸ θρεπτήρια δοῖεν χειροδίκαι.

32 Plato, Laws, 877 C.

33 Aeschin. c. Timarch. 13.

34 Isaeus, iv. 19 (Nicostrat.).

M25 Continuity of the family; M26 in the Ordinances of Manu;

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

M27 and according to Plato.

36 Laws, 721 B, Trans. Jowett, cf. 923 A.

37 Dem. c. Leoch. 1090, and Il. xxiii. 163, xvi. 455, xxiv. 793.

38 Dem. c. Macart. 1077.

39 Isaeus, ii. 36 and 42.

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

M28 The importance of male succession.

41 Plut. Lycurg. and Numa 4. Xen. Rep. Lac. i. 7 to 9.

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

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

44 Herod. v. 40.

45 Herod. vii. 205. Quoted by Hearn, Aryan Household, p. 71.

46 Iliad xv. 497.

47 Is. vii. 30.

48 Is. ii. 36.

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

M29 Succession through a daughter.

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

51 Is. viii. 31. Cf. συνουκεῖν in Dem. in Neaeram 1386.

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

53 Is. vi. 14. Cf. Ar. Vesp. 583 et seq.

54 Manu ix. 131 and 132.

55 Ib. 136.

56 Ib. 135.

M30 She must marry the next of kin.

57 Laws, 924.

58 Cf. Terence, Phormio 125-6.

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

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

M31 even though already married.

59 Isaeus, iii. 64.

60 Ordinances iii. 11.

61 Isaeus, i. 39.

M32 Similar rules in the laws of Gortyn,

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