On The Structure of Greek Tribal Society: An Essay Part 15

(M150) In later Greek writers it is several times stated that the ??????

or ???a?a? ???a? were inalienable. Yet all remark to what a deplorable extent the alienation and acc.u.mulation 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 ??????, and the good purpose therein of making every one cultivate his own moderate-sized holding.(325)

Innumerable pa.s.sages 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 G.o.d-given ??????.(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 ?????? 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 ?????? pa.s.sed in succession from father to son-?? d?ad??a?? pat??? pa?d? t?? ?????? ?p??e?p??t??-until the Peloponnesian war.

In his _Life of Lycurgus_ he says that-

"When a child was born, the father was not ent.i.tled to maintain it (t??fe??), 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 (t??fe??), allotting to it one of the 9,000 kleroi (?????? a?t? t?? ??a??s?????? p??s?e?a?te?)."(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 ?????? 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 ??????

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 pa.s.sage 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 a.s.sured 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 ?????? 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 cla.s.s of ????? 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 ?????? 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 partic.i.p.ation 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 ????? both in the rites of his d??? and his f???a??? for ever. He can only return permanently without paying the re-establishment tax if he has left ?? t? ?st?? at Naupaktos a grown-up son or a brother. If a ????? of the colonists is left without a representative (???pa??) ?? t? ?st??, the nearest of kin (?p????st??) 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 ?t??? and shall lose his ???? et? ????at??."(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 ?????? 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 acc.u.mulation 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 ??????. There was at Athens, on the other hand, a large cla.s.s 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 ??a??ta?), 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 pa.s.sage in the Gortyn Laws that states:-that if there are no rightful successors to inherit the property of a deceased Gortynian, his household's ??????, _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 ??a??ta? 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 ??a??ta? 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 ??????, 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 ?????? 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 ????????a? seem instinctively to have combined these two methods of agriculture. The ????????? were not colonists, who became citizens of a new city, but they remained citizens of Athens, holding however their ?????? 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 ??????. 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 ????????? sent to Salamis. They were a.s.similated 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 ?????? "except the Methymnian land," they first set apart three hundred ?????? as sacred to the G.o.ds, and on to the others they sent off ????????? chosen by lot from themselves; to these the Lesbians paid annually for each ?????? 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 ?????????(340) in two thousand ??????, _i.e._ the country called Hippobotos; and, setting aside te??? 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 ????????? may have varied in size according to the character of the soil and features of the country; but it may safely be a.s.serted 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 ????????? himself, during his enforced residence in the conquered country.

The cla.s.s of citizen from amongst whom the ????????? 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 ??????, 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 a.s.serted 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 ?????????-surely a considerable contribution to the maintenance of his family.(346)

Under these circ.u.mstances each ?????? 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_-t?? p??ta ??????-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 G.o.d, and receiving them again (like the Roman _precaria_) from the trustees on perpetual lease-e?? pat????-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 G.o.d. 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?