On The Structure of Greek Tribal Society: An Essay Part 6

(M54) Such being the character of the burden of mutual responsibility borne by members of kindred blood, it remains, if possible, to obtain some idea of how this responsibility became narrowed and limited to the nearest relations, and what was the meaning underlying the distinction drawn between certain degrees of relationship.

When examining the more detailed structure of the organisation of the kindred, considerable light seems to be thrown upon survivals in Athens by comparison with the customs of other communities, which were undergoing earlier stages of the same process of crystallisation from the condition of semi-nomadic tribes into that of settled provinces or kingdoms.

(M55) In the Gortyn Laws we read:-

iv. 24. "The father shall have power over the children and the property to divide it amongst them.... As long as they (the parents) are alive, _there is no necessity for division_.... If a man or woman die their children, or grandchildren, or great-grandchildren, shall have the property...."

The headship of the ????? and the ownership of the property vested in the parent as long as he lived and wished to maintain his power. Even after his death, unless they wished it, the sons need not divide up amongst themselves, but could live on with joint ownership in the one ????? of their deceased father. The eldest son would probably take the house itself, _i.e._ the hearth, with the duties to the family altars which devolved upon him as head of the family.(128)

An example of this joint ownership occurs in the speech of Demosthenes against Leochares.(129) The two sons of Euthumachos after his death gave their sister in marriage (no doubt with her proper portion), and lived separately but _without dividing_ their inheritance (t?? ??s?a? ????t??).

Even after the marriage of one brother, they still left the property undivided, each living on his share of the income, one in Athens, the other in Salamis.

The possibility of thus living in one ????? and on an undivided patrimony is implied in another pa.s.sage in Demosthenes, where, however, the exact opposite is described as actually having taken place.(130)

Bouselos had five sons. He divided (d???e?e? t?? ??s?a?) his substance amongst them all as was fair and right, and they married wives and begat children and children's children. Thus _five_ ????? sprang up out of the one of Bouselos, and _each brother dwelt apart_, having his own ????? and bringing up his own offspring (???????) himself (????? ??ast?? ??e?).

Whilst the parents were alive the family naturally held very closely together, and often probably lived in one patriarchal household like Priam's at Troy.

Isaeus declares:-The law commands that we maintain (t??fe??) our parents (???e??): these are-parents, grandparents and _their parents_, if they are still alive:

"For they are the beginning (????) of the family (?????) and their estate descends to their offspring (???????): wherefore it is necessary to maintain them even if they leave nothing."(131)

The duty of maintenance (t??fe??) owed to the ancestor would follow the same relationship as the right of inheritance from him, and this common debt towards their living forebears could not help further consolidating the group of descendants already bound together by common rites at the tombs of the dead.

But granted this community of rights and debts, is it possible to formulate for the Greeks anything of the same limitations in the incidence of responsibility amongst blood-relations that is to be found elsewhere?

(M56) In western Europe, owing perhaps to the influence of Christianity, the rites of ancestor-worship have no prominence. Ecclesiastical influence however was unable to prevent an exceedingly complex subdivision of the kindred existing in Wales and elsewhere. Whether this subdivision finds its _raison d'etre_ in the worship of ancestors or not, the groups thus formed serve as units for sustaining the responsibilities incident to tribal life, and being, as will be seen, governed by similar considerations to those existing among the Greeks, they afford very suitable material for comparison, and throw considerable light upon one another.

(M57) As the various departments affected by blood-relationship or purity of descent come under notice, it will be seen that the position of _great-grandson_ as at once limiting the immediate family of his parents and heading a new family of descendants is marked with peculiar emphasis.

(M58) In the ancient laws of Wales it rests with great-grandsons to make the final division of their inheritance and start new households.

Second cousins may demand redivision of the heritage descending (and perhaps already divided up in each generation between) from their great-grandfather. After second cousins no redivision or co-equation can be claimed.(132)

In the meanwhile the oldest living parents maintained their influence in family matters. In the story of Kilhwch and Olwen, in the _Mabinogion_, the father of Olwen, before betrothing her to Kilhwch, declares that "her four great-grandmothers and her four great-grandsires are yet alive; it is needful that I take counsel of them."(133)

(M59) Even when feudalism refused to acknowledge other than an individual responsibility for a fief, it was unable to overcome the tribal theory of the indivisibility of the family, which maintained its unity in some places even under a feudal exterior. But as generations proceeded, and the relationships within the family diverged beyond the degree of second cousin, a natural breaking up seems to have taken place, though in the direction of subinfeudation under the feudal enforcement of the rule of primogeniture, instead of the practice, more in accordance with tribal instincts, of equal division and enfranchis.e.m.e.nt. It may however be surmised that the subdivision and subinfeudation of a holding in the occupation of such a group of kinsmen would be carried out by the formation of further similar groups.

(M60) In the _Coustumes du Pais de Normandie_ mention is made of such a method of land-holding, called _parage_. It consists of an undivided tenure of brothers and relations _within the degree of second cousins_.

The eldest does homage to the capital lord for all the _paragers_. The younger and their descendants hold of the eldest without homage, until the relationship comes to the _sixth degree inclusive_ (_i.e._ second cousins). When the lineage is beyond the sixth degree, the heirs of the cadets have to do homage to the heirs of the eldest or to whomsoever has acquired the fief. Then _parage_ ceases.(134)

The tenure then becomes one of subinfeudation. As long as the _parage_ continued, the share of a deceased _parager_ would be dealt with by redivision of rights, and no question would arise of finding heirs. But when it became a question of finding an heir to the group, failing heirs in the seventh degree inclusive, that is, son of second cousins-looked upon as son to the group-failing such an heir, the estate escheated to the lord.

(M61) There is an interesting pa.s.sage in the Ancient Laws of Wales ordaining that the next-of-kin shall not inherit as heir to his deceased kinsman, but as heir to the ancestor, who, apart from himself, would be without direct heir, _i.e._ presumably their common ancestor.

"No person is to obtain the land of a _co-heir_, as of a brother, or of a cousin, or of a second cousin, by claiming it as heir to that one co-heir who shall have died without leaving an heir of his body: but by claiming it as heir _to one of his own parents_, who had been owner of that land until his death without heir, whether a father, or grandfather, or great-grandfather: that land he is to have, if he be the nearest of kin to the deceased."(135)

This of course refers to inheritance within the group of co-heirs, the members of which held their position by virtue of their common relationship within certain degrees to the founder. And we may infer that emphasis was thus laid on the proof of relationship by _direct descent_, in order to prevent shares in the inheritance pa.s.sing from hand to hand unnoticed, beyond the strict limit where subdivision could be claimed _per capita_ by the individual representatives of the diverging _stirpes_.

(M62) The kindred in the _Ordinances of Manu_ is divided into two groups:-

1. Sapindas, who owe the _funeral cake_ at the tomb.

2. Samanodakas, who pour the _water libation_ at the tomb.

"To _three ancestors_ the water libation must be made; for _three ancestors_ the funeral cake is prepared; the fourth (descendant or generation) is the giver (of the water and the cake); the _fifth has properly nothing to do_ (with either gift)."(136)

This may be put in tabular form:-

Receivers of water.

1. Great-grandfather's great-grandfather.

2. Great-grandfather's grandfather.

3. Great-grandfather's father.

Receivers of cake.

1. Great-grandfather.

2. Grandfather.

3. Father.

4. Giver of cake and water 5. Excluded

Or inversely:-

Givers of cake or _Sapindas_.

Householder Brothers 1st cousins 2nd cousins

Pourers of water or _Samanodakas_.

3rd cousins 4th cousins 5th cousins

Within the _Sapinda_-ship of his mother, a "twice-born" man may not marry.(137) Outside the _Sapinda_-ship, a wife or widow, "commissioned" to bear children to the name of her husband, must not go.

"Now _Sapinda_-ship ceases with the seventh person, but the relationship of a Samanodaka (ends) with the ignorance of birth and name."(138)