On The Structure of Greek Tribal Society: An Essay Part 5

The public introduction to the kindred, combined with publicity of marriage and of the birth of children would, it is obvious, be a very important protection for the preservation of the jealously guarded purity of the tribal blood. Isaeus(104) says that all relations (p??s????te?), all the phratores, and most (?? p?????) of the demesmen would know whom a man married, and what children he had. This, in addition to the oath (p?st??) of the father or of the mother(105) of the legitimacy of the son introduced to his kin, would seem a very sufficient safeguard.(106)

If a child was not introduced to the phratores, it was considered illegitimate,(107) and could have no share in the rites of kindred and property.(108)

- 5. The Liability For Bloodshed.

(M51) A notable feature of the tribal system all over the world was the _blood-feud_, wiped out only by the death of the manslayer or by the payment of a sufficient recompense. The incidence of the responsibility for murder and for payment of the recompense upon a group instead of only on the guilty individual was of remarkable tenacity, and survived to comparatively late days.

In Arabia the whole tribe of the murderer subscribed to the blood-money, which went to all the males in the tribe of the murdered man.(109)

But in Greece the responsibility fell upon the next of kin, with the help and under the supervision of the rest of the immediate kindred. He had to see that a spear was carried in front of the funeral of the slain man and planted in his grave, which must be watched for three days.(110) He must make proclamation of the foul deed at the tomb, and must undergo purificatory rites, himself and his whole house (????a). If the dead body be found in the country and no cause of death known, the demarch must compel the relatives to bury the corpse and to purify the deme on the same day.(111)

The subject is a familiar one in Homer. The wanderer (eta??st??) is said to have no value (he is ?t??t??), no fine is exacted for his death.

_Il._ xiv. 483. "That my brother's price (?as????t??? p????) be not unpaid: even for this it is that a man may well pray to have some kinsman in his halls (???t?? ??? e?????s??) to avenge (???t??) his fall."

_Il._ ix. 634. "Yet doth a man accept recompense of his brother's murderer: or for his dead son: and so the manslayer for a great price abideth in his own land (?? d??) and the other's heart is appeased and his proud soul, when he hath taken the recompense."(112)

(M52) There are many men told of in the _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_ who were in the position of refugees at the court of some chief. As many of them were wealthy-chiefs' sons or even chiefs-and well able to pay large recompenses, it seems probable that (as is definitely stated in some instances), if the murder was committed on a member of the same family or tribe as the murderer, the only way to wipe out the stain was by death or perpetual exile, as in the case of the typical fratricide Cain. The blood-price was then only between tribe and tribe or city and city. Within the kindred there would be no ransom allowed.(113)

Medon had slain the brother of his step-mother and was a fugitive from his country.(114)

Epeigeus _ruled_ (??a.s.se) fairest Boudeion of old, but having slain a good man of his kin (a?e????), to Peleus fled, a suppliant.(115)

Tlepolemos slew his own father's maternal uncle, gathered much folk together and fled across the sea, because the other sons and grandsons of his father threatened him.(116)

_Il._ xxiv. 479. "And as when a grievous curse cometh upon a man who in his own country (??? p?t??) hath slain another and escapeth to a land of other folk (d??? ?????) to the house of some rich man, and wonder possesseth them that look on him...."(117)

_Od._ xv. 272. "Having slain a man of my tribe (?f????): and many are his relations (?as????t??) and kinsmen (?ta?) in Argos: at their hands do I shun death and black fate and am in exile."

_Od._ xxiii. 118. "For whoso hath slain but one man in his country (??? d??) for whom there be not many avengers (??ss?t??e?) behind, he fleeth leaving his kin (p????) and his fatherland, how then we who have slain the pillar of the state!"

(M53) If ransom there was none for the murderer within the tribe, there was equally none for murders between citizen and citizen,-in this point also the inheritors of the sentiments of tribesmen. In the law of Solon(118) it was forbidden to take payment in compensation from the murderer:-

"The murderer can be slain in our land, not tortured, not held to ransom (?d? ?p?????)."

Plato(119) describes the soul of the deceased as troubled with a great anger against the murderer, so that even the innocent and unintentional homicide must needs flee at any rate for a year. The presence too of a man thus denied with bloodshed at the sacred altars was held to be a gross impiety and source of divine anger. Plato(120) says:-

"The murderer shall be slain, but not buried in the country (???a) of the deceased, which would be a disgrace and impiety."(121)

In the case of a suicide, the hand that committed the crime was to be cut off and buried separately.

In Isacus(122) it is related how Euthukrates in a quarrel over a boundary-stone was so flogged by his _brother_ Thoudippos that, dying some days after, he charged his friends (???e???) not to allow any of Thoudippos' people (t?? T??d?pp??) to approach his tomb. But if the murdered man before his death forgave his murderer, the relatives could not proceed against him.

If the murderer escaped fleeing he must go forever: if he returned he could be killed at sight by any one and with impunity.(123) The pollution rested on the whole kindred of the murdered man.

"Whosoever _being related to the deceased_ on the male or female side of those within the cousinship shall not prosecute the murderer when he ought or proclaim him outlaw, he shall _take upon himself __ the pollution_ and the hatred of the G.o.ds ... and he shall be in the power of any who is willing to avenge the dead."(124)

The pollution cannot be washed out until the homicidal soul has given life for life and has laid to sleep the wrath of the whole family (???????a).(125)

If it is a beast that has killed the man, it shall be slain to propitiate the kin and atone for the blood shed.

If it is a lifeless thing that has caused death, it shall solemnly be cast out before witnesses to acquit the whole family from guilt.(126)

Amongst the Israelites, treating of homicides _amongst themselves_, compensation was forbidden in like manner.

Numbers x.x.xv. 31. "Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer which is guilty of death: but he shall surely be put to death.

"... The land cannot be cleansed of blood that is shed therein but by the blood of him that shed it."

Let us complete this subject with the following story told by Herodotus:(127)-Adrastus, having slain his brother, flees to the court of Croesus. There he becomes as a son to Croesus and a brother to Atys, Croesus' son. This Atys Adrastus has the terrible misfortune to slay, thereby incurring a three-fold pollution. He has brought down upon himself the triple wrath of Zeus Katharsios, Ephestios, and Hetaireios: he has violated his own innocence, his protector's hearth, and the comradeship of his friend.

In despair he commits suicide.

CHAPTER III. THE EXTENT OF THE BOND OF KINSHIP.

Arctior vero colligatio est societatis propinquorum: ab illa enim immensa societate humani generis in exiguam angustumque concluditur.

_Cicero_.

- 1. Degrees Of Blood-Relationship; The ????ste?a.