On The Structure of Greek Tribal Society: An Essay Part 16

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 a.n.a.logies 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 t.i.tle to citizens.h.i.+p 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 citizens.h.i.+p, 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) Members.h.i.+p 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 wors.h.i.+p of the greater G.o.ds, 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 wors.h.i.+p of the Apollo Patroos, the Zeus Herkeios or Ktesios, and the heroes or ancestors of his family. Inasmuch as citizens.h.i.+p 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 Patroos 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 wors.h.i.+p of private or public G.o.ds 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 members.h.i.+p 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 relations.h.i.+p by blood to the members of that family.(350)

(M173) Apart from the tribal character of the qualification for citizens.h.i.+p, 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 relations.h.i.+p was due to the importance attached to the religious and social functions inc.u.mbent 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 wors.h.i.+p 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 relations.h.i.+p 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 wors.h.i.+p.

(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-wors.h.i.+p, 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 workmans.h.i.+p 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 const.i.tution. 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 inst.i.tutions 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 G.o.ds. 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 ????ste?a at Athens must not be put down as belonging merely to that period. In the light of the close a.n.a.logies 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?

THE END.