On The Structure of Greek Tribal Society: An Essay Part 10

"No woman under sixty years old to enter the house or follow the corpse except those within ??e??ad?? (p??? ?sa? ??t?? ??e??ad??

e?s??): no woman _at all_ may enter the house after the carrying out of the corpse except _those within_ ??e??ad??."(185)

All those near of kin a.s.sist in the funeral.

The payment of the blood-fine by the whole family of the murderer was considered necessary to allay the vengeance and anger of the family of the murdered man within the same area of relations.h.i.+p. 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 cla.s.sification identical with their proximity in relations.h.i.+p to the dead man, and their expectation of inheritance from him or succession to his place.

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

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

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

Ga?a? pa?te??a? ?e?s?a?, ????e????, p?es?st??, ? f??e? ?p? ????? p????, ?p??? ?st??, ...

?? s?? d? e?pa?d?? te ?a? e??a?p?? te?????s?, p?t??a, se? d? ??eta? d???a? ??? ?d? ?fe??s?a?

???t??? ?????p??s??.

Homeric Hymn.

- 1. The ?????? And Its Form.

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

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

(M97) The intricate connection of the system of land tenure with the composition of the family removed the consideration of questions of owners.h.i.+p from the sphere of written law, and delegated them to the most conservative department of customary procedure, ranking them on a par with questions of family religious observances.(188) The deposit of some ancestor's bones in a certain field was occasionally a valuable link in the t.i.tle to possession of that piece of land as private property;(189) and the possession of land at all was in part a guarantee of the pure native blood in the veins of the possessor.(190) It is a striking ill.u.s.tration of the truth of this that, throughout all the extant speeches of Isaeus dealing with the disposal of ?????? 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 kins.h.i.+p 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 relations.h.i.+p.(191)

"It seems to me that all those who contend for the right of succession to estates, when like us they have shown themselves to be both nearest in blood to the person deceased, and most connected with him in friends.h.i.+p (f????), are dispensed from adding a superfluity of other arguments."(192)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Corfu,(203) the holdings are similar-infinitesimally small and intermixed pieces of land, especially in the olive groves, where however there are no divisions on the land and the "oldest inhabitant" has to be asked for evidence of owners.h.i.+p in disputed cases.

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

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

Though the a.s.sertion cannot yet be made that the ?????? 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 owners.h.i.+p of the soil to the rank and status of the tribesman.

- 2. The Relation Of The ?????? To The ?????.

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

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

(M105) Occasionally a father feeling the weight of years would be glad to pa.s.s on to his son during his lifetime some of his burden of responsibility by making him master of his estate (?????? t??

??s?a?).(207) In this case, the son would be responsible for the maintenance of his parent, a duty much insisted on by Plato and Isaeus. In fact the conclusion is justified that the family, until final subdivision into separate ?????, 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 ????? along the lines of the rising generations.

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

"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 ????? from the one ????? of Bouselos, and each dwelt apart, having his own house and his own offspring."(208)

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

(M106) Amongst the G.o.ds, the three brothers Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades, sons of Rhea, shared their inheritance from their father Kronos. They divided everything in three, shaking lots thereover (pa???????). Each took equal share of honour (???e t???), but earth and Olympos were common (????) to all.(209) But Zeus was the first-born and "knew more things"-???? ?e?? p??te??? ?e???e? ?a? pe???a ?d?(210)-and Poseidon therefore avoided open strife with him, however unwillingly. Though Zeus be the stronger, grumbles the Sea-G.o.d, 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 (????s??ta? ?a? ??????). Yet because the Erinnyes ever take the side of the eldest born-?? p?es?t????s?? ??????e? a??? ?p??ta?-it were good counsel to knock under, even though the division was made in perfect equality (?s????? ?a? ?? pep?????? a?s?).(211)