On The Structure of Greek Tribal Society: An Essay Part 8

[Ill.u.s.tration: Family tree of Bouselos.]

Theopompos, in the speech of Isaeus, had taken possession of the estate of his second cousin Hagnias, as his next of kin and heir. Throughout the speech he is styled ??e???? pa?? so as to bring him within the phraseology of the law, and he successfully defends himself from the claims of the next generation below-viz., his brother's son. But in the speech of Demosthenes against his son Makartatos, who had taken possession at his father's death of the disputed property, it is represented that his father had got possession only by defeating another claimant, Phylomache II., by "surprise," as it was called, by stating that her grandmother through whom she traced her claim was only half-sister to Hagnias' father. But Phylomache's husband, having caused their son Euboulides III. to be adopted as the son of Euboulides II.-his wife's father and Hagnias' first cousin, a quite regular course for the grandson inheriting through his heiress mother-proved that his wife's grandmother was whole sister to Hagnias father, and brought the action under the guidance of Demosthenes against Makartatos. This Euboulides III. sued as true ??e???? pa?? and ???e??? ?? t?? ????? of Hagnias.(153) He is described as having "one of the t.i.tles mentioned in the law _as far as which_ the law bids the ????ste?a go, for he is _cousin's son_ to Hagnias."

On the other hand, Theopompos, father of Makartatos and second cousin of Hagnias, is mentioned(154) as "being of a different ????? altogether," and not at all related in such a way as to be heir of Hagnias (?d??

p??s????t?? ?ste ???????e?? t?? ??????, ???? ???e? _?p?t???_ ??t??), being too far off in the family (or by birth).

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

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

- 3. Division Amongst Heirs.

(M75) Succession to the inheritance of an estate was ordained by law in strict accordance with the ancient conception of the unity of the family.

On the death of the head of a family, unless the paternal ????? was voluntarily continued unbroken by his descendants, the natural course was for each son ultimately to live apart and found a separate ?????

consisting of himself and his offspring. Equal division amongst heirs was therefore the rule in Greece; equal division, that is to say, between all of equal grade.

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

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

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

But the division _per stirpes_ was not maintained throughout. It is probable from the words of the Attic orators that equal division amongst all of the same grade, such as nephews or cousins, took place _per capita_, any deceased member of that grade being represented by his sons.

Representation, of course, could not take place in the case of a division amongst cousins' sons, owing to the strict limitation of the ????ste?a to four generations from the common ancestor; any deceased relation in that degree therefore simply dropped out of the succession.

(M77) It has generally been a.s.sumed that grandsons inheriting directly from their grandfather, all the intermediate generation being already dead, inherited none the less the shares of their respective fathers _per stirpes_. But if the foregoing account of the unity of the ????? and its resemblance in its composition to the household of the Welsh tribal system be correct, it seems more reasonable to suppose that, all the intermediate generation being dead, the grandsons, in virtue of being all equally related to their grandfather, would inherit in equal shares _per capita_.

Any dead grandson would of course be represented, as before, by his son or sons.

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

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

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 owners.h.i.+p of the property vested, until by the death of older generations and the consequent subdivision, each in his turn became head of an ????? and owner of its share in the ancestral property.

- 4. Qualifications For The Recognition Of Tribal Blood.

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

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

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

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

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

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

So too inversely:-

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

This is exactly parallel to the case of the stranger resident in Cymru.

For _nine_ generations he is a stranger, and in _the tenth_ a Cymro. Here for _nine_ generations is the Cymro abroad a tribesman, and in _the tenth_ he is a stranger.

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

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

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

Deut. xxiii. 2 and 3. "A b.a.s.t.a.r.d, or an Ammonite, or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord _even to their tenth generation_, for ever."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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