Chapter V. Conclusion.

[pg 137]Chapter V. Conclusion.No final word can yet be said.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.Explanation of the structure of the kindred to be found in the descent of city life from earlier stage of tribal society.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 centuriesB.C.Comparison[pg 138]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 analogies in the organisation of their inner society.Similarity between the bond of tribal blood and that of citizenship.The actual similarity in the sentiment which surrounded the possession of the privileges of tribal blood and the title to citizenship at Athens, can hardly be exaggerated.The threefold bond:—The foundation of the bond in either case has a threefold aspect. The bond is one of blood, of religion, and of maintenance.(1) the bond of blood;The qualification for citizenship, 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.(2) the bond of religion;Membership 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 worship of the greater gods, 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 worship of the Apollo Patroïos, the Zeus Herkeios or Ktesios, and the heroes or ancestors of his family. Inasmuch as citizenship 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,[pg 139]in that the possession of shrines of Apollo Patroïos 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.(3) the bond of maintenance.Inasmuch as the worship of private or public gods 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 membership 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 relationship by blood to the members of that family.350[pg 140]Many tribal customs survived in the kindred and the household.Apart from the tribal character of the qualification for citizenship, 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 relationship was due to the importance attached to the religious and social functions incumbent 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 worship 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 relationship 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 worship.But these survivals mostly found in post-Homeric records.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 centuriesB.C.and mainly from the most highly civilised of the cities of Greece?[pg 141]TheIliadand theOdysseymay 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-worship, 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?They perhaps belonged to the pre-Achaian inhabitants of Greece.Mr. Walter Leaf has already found an answer to this question,351viz. 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.352The Athenians always boasted their Ionian descent, and may well have inherited their habits with the traditions of their origin.But many were probably of wider parentage.But the customs reviewed in the foregoing[pg 142]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.Comparison with the history of the Jews.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 workmanship 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.Reaction in times of distress to earlier tribal habits by the Jews, and perhaps by the Achaians.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 constitution. 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.These tribal habits probably only dormant throughout and common to all Greeks,The actual traces of tribal institutions in Homer need not be underrated. There is much that is of a tribal character in the Homeric chieftain in his relations[pg 143]to his tribesmen and to their gods. 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?if not practically even to all tribal systems.Although therefore nearly all our evidence of the internal structure of the kindred among the Greeks dates from the fifth centuryB.C., the ἀγχιστεία at Athens must not be put down as belonging merely to that period. In the light of the close analogies 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?[pg 145]Index.Adoption, object of,35;out of unfortunate home,36;ceremony of,36-7Agora,2,3ἀγχιστεία,32;its meaning,55;its limits,58-9;all within it liable for bloodshed,75et seq.;its tribal origin,143Ancestor-worship,10,140;in Homer,5,7;in Israel,8,9;in Egypt,11;pre-Homeric,141,noteἀνεψιός seeἀγχιστείαβασιλεύς, one of a class,107,114;honoured like a god,105-6,122;owned τέμενος,102,106,122;influenced the seasons,105,note;over-lordship not altogether hereditary,107;levied maintenance on their people,115,122;Solomon,116;household βασιλεύς92Bastard, no place in family,95-6;allotment or gift for his maintenance,95-6Blood, as basis of family,13;of tribe, &c.,4-5,138;its purity jealously guarded,67et seq.;acquisition of,68et seq.Blood-fine, not within the tribe or kindred,42-4,77;in Wales, thegalanas,78et seq.;paid by whole family,79et seq.Bloodshed, responsibility for,42;rested on ἀγχιστεία,75et seq.;within the kindred,44,77Citizenship, admission to,71,96;qualification for, by three descents,73;basis of,138;confirmed to son of stranger,71,noteἔγκτησις, grant of, to new citizen,97,note;123,noteἐπίκληρος, succession found through her,23;she must marry next-of-kin,23-7;in Gortyn laws,26;where more than one,26;inherited for her issue,28;Ruth as,31,34;had right of maintenance from property,23-4Family (seeοἶκος), bound to the land,127et seq.;family estate in Santa Maura,86;head of family,91Funeral,seeSacrificesGavelkind, in Kent,95Guest, importance at sacrifice,99-100;hereditary guestship,110[pg 146]Hearth,3,4;as basis of the family,13,17;in Prytaneum,4,15;initiation of heir to,89Heir, duties of,18-19,20;importance of male heir,21-3,98et seq.;daughter's son,23-7;always ranks assonof deceased,34et seq.,59et seq.;initiated to hearth,89;introduced to kindred,36;and to the deme,38-9;importance of introduction of,41,125-8;co-heir in Wales,51;law of succession,57et seq.;disinheritance,61;division among heirs,64et seq.,101;Ahab's 'inheritance' of Naboth's vineyard,114Hesiod, his κλῆρος,123;the needs of a farmer,109Hestia,3,4,138;called“princess,”13Inheritance, seeκλῆρος, andHeirKinship, grades of,48et seq.;in India,52;in Wales,49,67et seq.;the fourth degree,73,112;the seventh,78etseq.;the ninth,68et seq.;wife's relations no kin to husband but are to son,61,noteKinsmen, duties of,18,42;next of kin marries“heiress,”23-7,35;his duty to redeem property in Israel,32,95;kinsmen accept heir,36,41,125-7;sanction disinheritance,61;liable for bloodshed,75et seq.;Hesiod's idea of,123κλαρῶται,130κλῆρος, its form,85et seq.;supported the οἶκος,88et seq.,110,121,127;need not be divided,47,89,93,97;no joint holding between father and sons,93;sold in case of need,94;in theory inalienable,94,113,124,127;allotted to new citizen,96;in Homer,102;held by tribesmen,108;of Hesiod,123κληροῦχοι,131et seq.Land, ownership of, proof of civic rights,83,96(seeκλῆροςandτέμενος)Lar=“lord,”12;laresof king,4Leases, for ever,134-6Levirate, not in Greece,27;in India,29;in Israel,30et seq.Maintenance of parents (seeParents);of οἶκος,110;the bond of,110,139;of the chief,114et seq.;122;in Ezekiel,119;of children at Sparta,125;gift of food to babe,125;derived from κλῆρος,127Manes, duties to, in India,19Marriage, of heiress,23-6;of near relations,29;of widow (seeLevirate)Octopus,125noteοἶκος, part of γένος,17;importance of continuity of,9,19-20,30,35,111,128;the unit of ownership of property,47,109;extent of,54-6,88-9;the householder in India,99;supported by its land,110,113,121;of Bouselos,55,62;power of head of,91-2Open field system, in Greece,85;in the islands,87;in Homer,88,104;its elasticity,118-9Parage, in Normandy, an undivided tenure,50[pg 147]Parents, maintenance of,18,48;after death,19Phratria, enrols legitimate sons,36-7;partly responsible for bloodshed,76Primogeniture, not the rule in Greece,90;nor in India,97et seq.;eldest son had certain rights or dignity,90et seq.,97et seq.;called ἠθεῖος,91,notePrytaneum,3,4,15,138Register, of phratria,36;of deme,38Ruth, as widow and ἐπίκληρος,31-4Sacrifices, object of,6,139,note;to the dead,8,9-12;of funeral cake in India,51et seq.;funeral rites at Athens,20;of householder in India,99;bond of common religion,13,53,138Stranger, abhorrence of,5,71,74;as guest,99(seeGuest);admission to tribe,67et seq.,96τέμενος, in Homer,103,113;allotted to princes and gods,102,106,118,122;called πατρώιος,106;helped to support prince,118-9Tonsure, in Greece,39;in India,40Tribe, its basis one of blood,4-5,138;possible development of,14-15;admission to,68et seq.,96(and seeCitizenship)Widow, could not inherit from husband,27-8;returned to her kin or guardian,28;when allowed to remain,28,note;the case of Tamar,30;of Ruth,31et seq.THE END.

Chapter V. Conclusion.No final word can yet be said.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.Explanation of the structure of the kindred to be found in the descent of city life from earlier stage of tribal society.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 centuriesB.C.Comparison[pg 138]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 analogies in the organisation of their inner society.Similarity between the bond of tribal blood and that of citizenship.The actual similarity in the sentiment which surrounded the possession of the privileges of tribal blood and the title to citizenship at Athens, can hardly be exaggerated.The threefold bond:—The foundation of the bond in either case has a threefold aspect. The bond is one of blood, of religion, and of maintenance.(1) the bond of blood;The qualification for citizenship, 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.(2) the bond of religion;Membership 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 worship of the greater gods, 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 worship of the Apollo Patroïos, the Zeus Herkeios or Ktesios, and the heroes or ancestors of his family. Inasmuch as citizenship 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,[pg 139]in that the possession of shrines of Apollo Patroïos 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.(3) the bond of maintenance.Inasmuch as the worship of private or public gods 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 membership 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 relationship by blood to the members of that family.350[pg 140]Many tribal customs survived in the kindred and the household.Apart from the tribal character of the qualification for citizenship, 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 relationship was due to the importance attached to the religious and social functions incumbent 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 worship 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 relationship 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 worship.But these survivals mostly found in post-Homeric records.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 centuriesB.C.and mainly from the most highly civilised of the cities of Greece?[pg 141]TheIliadand theOdysseymay 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-worship, 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?They perhaps belonged to the pre-Achaian inhabitants of Greece.Mr. Walter Leaf has already found an answer to this question,351viz. 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.352The Athenians always boasted their Ionian descent, and may well have inherited their habits with the traditions of their origin.But many were probably of wider parentage.But the customs reviewed in the foregoing[pg 142]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.Comparison with the history of the Jews.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 workmanship 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.Reaction in times of distress to earlier tribal habits by the Jews, and perhaps by the Achaians.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 constitution. 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.These tribal habits probably only dormant throughout and common to all Greeks,The actual traces of tribal institutions in Homer need not be underrated. There is much that is of a tribal character in the Homeric chieftain in his relations[pg 143]to his tribesmen and to their gods. 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?if not practically even to all tribal systems.Although therefore nearly all our evidence of the internal structure of the kindred among the Greeks dates from the fifth centuryB.C., the ἀγχιστεία at Athens must not be put down as belonging merely to that period. In the light of the close analogies 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?

No final word can yet be said.

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.

Explanation of the structure of the kindred to be found in the descent of city life from earlier stage of tribal society.

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 centuriesB.C.Comparison[pg 138]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 analogies in the organisation of their inner society.

Similarity between the bond of tribal blood and that of citizenship.

The actual similarity in the sentiment which surrounded the possession of the privileges of tribal blood and the title to citizenship at Athens, can hardly be exaggerated.

The threefold bond:—

The foundation of the bond in either case has a threefold aspect. The bond is one of blood, of religion, and of maintenance.

(1) the bond of blood;

The qualification for citizenship, 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.

(2) the bond of religion;

Membership 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 worship of the greater gods, 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 worship of the Apollo Patroïos, the Zeus Herkeios or Ktesios, and the heroes or ancestors of his family. Inasmuch as citizenship 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,[pg 139]in that the possession of shrines of Apollo Patroïos 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.

(3) the bond of maintenance.

Inasmuch as the worship of private or public gods 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 membership 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 relationship by blood to the members of that family.350

Many tribal customs survived in the kindred and the household.

Apart from the tribal character of the qualification for citizenship, 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 relationship was due to the importance attached to the religious and social functions incumbent 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 worship 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 relationship 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 worship.

But these survivals mostly found in post-Homeric records.

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 centuriesB.C.and mainly from the most highly civilised of the cities of Greece?

TheIliadand theOdysseymay 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-worship, 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?

They perhaps belonged to the pre-Achaian inhabitants of Greece.

Mr. Walter Leaf has already found an answer to this question,351viz. 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.

But many were probably of wider parentage.

But the customs reviewed in the foregoing[pg 142]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.

Comparison with the history of the Jews.

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 workmanship 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.

Reaction in times of distress to earlier tribal habits by the Jews, and perhaps by the Achaians.

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 constitution. 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.

These tribal habits probably only dormant throughout and common to all Greeks,

The actual traces of tribal institutions in Homer need not be underrated. There is much that is of a tribal character in the Homeric chieftain in his relations[pg 143]to his tribesmen and to their gods. 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?

if not practically even to all tribal systems.

Although therefore nearly all our evidence of the internal structure of the kindred among the Greeks dates from the fifth centuryB.C., the ἀγχιστεία at Athens must not be put down as belonging merely to that period. In the light of the close analogies 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?

Index.Adoption, object of,35;out of unfortunate home,36;ceremony of,36-7Agora,2,3ἀγχιστεία,32;its meaning,55;its limits,58-9;all within it liable for bloodshed,75et seq.;its tribal origin,143Ancestor-worship,10,140;in Homer,5,7;in Israel,8,9;in Egypt,11;pre-Homeric,141,noteἀνεψιός seeἀγχιστείαβασιλεύς, one of a class,107,114;honoured like a god,105-6,122;owned τέμενος,102,106,122;influenced the seasons,105,note;over-lordship not altogether hereditary,107;levied maintenance on their people,115,122;Solomon,116;household βασιλεύς92Bastard, no place in family,95-6;allotment or gift for his maintenance,95-6Blood, as basis of family,13;of tribe, &c.,4-5,138;its purity jealously guarded,67et seq.;acquisition of,68et seq.Blood-fine, not within the tribe or kindred,42-4,77;in Wales, thegalanas,78et seq.;paid by whole family,79et seq.Bloodshed, responsibility for,42;rested on ἀγχιστεία,75et seq.;within the kindred,44,77Citizenship, admission to,71,96;qualification for, by three descents,73;basis of,138;confirmed to son of stranger,71,noteἔγκτησις, grant of, to new citizen,97,note;123,noteἐπίκληρος, succession found through her,23;she must marry next-of-kin,23-7;in Gortyn laws,26;where more than one,26;inherited for her issue,28;Ruth as,31,34;had right of maintenance from property,23-4Family (seeοἶκος), bound to the land,127et seq.;family estate in Santa Maura,86;head of family,91Funeral,seeSacrificesGavelkind, in Kent,95Guest, importance at sacrifice,99-100;hereditary guestship,110[pg 146]Hearth,3,4;as basis of the family,13,17;in Prytaneum,4,15;initiation of heir to,89Heir, duties of,18-19,20;importance of male heir,21-3,98et seq.;daughter's son,23-7;always ranks assonof deceased,34et seq.,59et seq.;initiated to hearth,89;introduced to kindred,36;and to the deme,38-9;importance of introduction of,41,125-8;co-heir in Wales,51;law of succession,57et seq.;disinheritance,61;division among heirs,64et seq.,101;Ahab's 'inheritance' of Naboth's vineyard,114Hesiod, his κλῆρος,123;the needs of a farmer,109Hestia,3,4,138;called“princess,”13Inheritance, seeκλῆρος, andHeirKinship, grades of,48et seq.;in India,52;in Wales,49,67et seq.;the fourth degree,73,112;the seventh,78etseq.;the ninth,68et seq.;wife's relations no kin to husband but are to son,61,noteKinsmen, duties of,18,42;next of kin marries“heiress,”23-7,35;his duty to redeem property in Israel,32,95;kinsmen accept heir,36,41,125-7;sanction disinheritance,61;liable for bloodshed,75et seq.;Hesiod's idea of,123κλαρῶται,130κλῆρος, its form,85et seq.;supported the οἶκος,88et seq.,110,121,127;need not be divided,47,89,93,97;no joint holding between father and sons,93;sold in case of need,94;in theory inalienable,94,113,124,127;allotted to new citizen,96;in Homer,102;held by tribesmen,108;of Hesiod,123κληροῦχοι,131et seq.Land, ownership of, proof of civic rights,83,96(seeκλῆροςandτέμενος)Lar=“lord,”12;laresof king,4Leases, for ever,134-6Levirate, not in Greece,27;in India,29;in Israel,30et seq.Maintenance of parents (seeParents);of οἶκος,110;the bond of,110,139;of the chief,114et seq.;122;in Ezekiel,119;of children at Sparta,125;gift of food to babe,125;derived from κλῆρος,127Manes, duties to, in India,19Marriage, of heiress,23-6;of near relations,29;of widow (seeLevirate)Octopus,125noteοἶκος, part of γένος,17;importance of continuity of,9,19-20,30,35,111,128;the unit of ownership of property,47,109;extent of,54-6,88-9;the householder in India,99;supported by its land,110,113,121;of Bouselos,55,62;power of head of,91-2Open field system, in Greece,85;in the islands,87;in Homer,88,104;its elasticity,118-9Parage, in Normandy, an undivided tenure,50[pg 147]Parents, maintenance of,18,48;after death,19Phratria, enrols legitimate sons,36-7;partly responsible for bloodshed,76Primogeniture, not the rule in Greece,90;nor in India,97et seq.;eldest son had certain rights or dignity,90et seq.,97et seq.;called ἠθεῖος,91,notePrytaneum,3,4,15,138Register, of phratria,36;of deme,38Ruth, as widow and ἐπίκληρος,31-4Sacrifices, object of,6,139,note;to the dead,8,9-12;of funeral cake in India,51et seq.;funeral rites at Athens,20;of householder in India,99;bond of common religion,13,53,138Stranger, abhorrence of,5,71,74;as guest,99(seeGuest);admission to tribe,67et seq.,96τέμενος, in Homer,103,113;allotted to princes and gods,102,106,118,122;called πατρώιος,106;helped to support prince,118-9Tonsure, in Greece,39;in India,40Tribe, its basis one of blood,4-5,138;possible development of,14-15;admission to,68et seq.,96(and seeCitizenship)Widow, could not inherit from husband,27-8;returned to her kin or guardian,28;when allowed to remain,28,note;the case of Tamar,30;of Ruth,31et seq.THE END.

Adoption, object of,35;out of unfortunate home,36;ceremony of,36-7

Adoption, object of,35;

out of unfortunate home,36;

ceremony of,36-7

Agora,2,3

ἀγχιστεία,32;its meaning,55;its limits,58-9;all within it liable for bloodshed,75et seq.;its tribal origin,143

ἀγχιστεία,32;

its meaning,55;

its limits,58-9;

all within it liable for bloodshed,75et seq.;

its tribal origin,143

Ancestor-worship,10,140;in Homer,5,7;in Israel,8,9;in Egypt,11;pre-Homeric,141,note

Ancestor-worship,10,140;

in Homer,5,7;

in Israel,8,9;

in Egypt,11;

pre-Homeric,141,note

ἀνεψιός seeἀγχιστεία

βασιλεύς, one of a class,107,114;honoured like a god,105-6,122;owned τέμενος,102,106,122;influenced the seasons,105,note;over-lordship not altogether hereditary,107;levied maintenance on their people,115,122;Solomon,116;household βασιλεύς92

βασιλεύς, one of a class,107,114;

honoured like a god,105-6,122;

owned τέμενος,102,106,122;

influenced the seasons,105,note;

over-lordship not altogether hereditary,107;

levied maintenance on their people,115,122;

Solomon,116;

household βασιλεύς92

Bastard, no place in family,95-6;allotment or gift for his maintenance,95-6

Bastard, no place in family,95-6;

allotment or gift for his maintenance,95-6

Blood, as basis of family,13;of tribe, &c.,4-5,138;its purity jealously guarded,67et seq.;acquisition of,68et seq.

Blood, as basis of family,13;

of tribe, &c.,4-5,138;

its purity jealously guarded,67et seq.;

acquisition of,68et seq.

Blood-fine, not within the tribe or kindred,42-4,77;in Wales, thegalanas,78et seq.;paid by whole family,79et seq.

Blood-fine, not within the tribe or kindred,42-4,77;

in Wales, thegalanas,78et seq.;

paid by whole family,79et seq.

Bloodshed, responsibility for,42;rested on ἀγχιστεία,75et seq.;within the kindred,44,77

Bloodshed, responsibility for,42;

rested on ἀγχιστεία,75et seq.;

within the kindred,44,77

Citizenship, admission to,71,96;qualification for, by three descents,73;basis of,138;confirmed to son of stranger,71,note

Citizenship, admission to,71,96;

qualification for, by three descents,73;

basis of,138;

confirmed to son of stranger,71,note

ἔγκτησις, grant of, to new citizen,97,note;123,note

ἐπίκληρος, succession found through her,23;she must marry next-of-kin,23-7;in Gortyn laws,26;where more than one,26;inherited for her issue,28;Ruth as,31,34;had right of maintenance from property,23-4

ἐπίκληρος, succession found through her,23;

she must marry next-of-kin,23-7;

in Gortyn laws,26;

where more than one,26;

inherited for her issue,28;

Ruth as,31,34;

had right of maintenance from property,23-4

Family (seeοἶκος), bound to the land,127et seq.;family estate in Santa Maura,86;head of family,91

Family (seeοἶκος), bound to the land,127et seq.;

family estate in Santa Maura,86;

head of family,91

Funeral,seeSacrifices

Gavelkind, in Kent,95

Guest, importance at sacrifice,99-100;hereditary guestship,110

Guest, importance at sacrifice,99-100;

hereditary guestship,110

Hearth,3,4;as basis of the family,13,17;in Prytaneum,4,15;initiation of heir to,89

Hearth,3,4;

as basis of the family,13,17;

in Prytaneum,4,15;

initiation of heir to,89

Heir, duties of,18-19,20;importance of male heir,21-3,98et seq.;daughter's son,23-7;always ranks assonof deceased,34et seq.,59et seq.;initiated to hearth,89;introduced to kindred,36;and to the deme,38-9;importance of introduction of,41,125-8;co-heir in Wales,51;law of succession,57et seq.;disinheritance,61;division among heirs,64et seq.,101;Ahab's 'inheritance' of Naboth's vineyard,114

Heir, duties of,18-19,20;

importance of male heir,21-3,98et seq.;

daughter's son,23-7;

always ranks assonof deceased,34et seq.,59et seq.;

initiated to hearth,89;

introduced to kindred,36;

and to the deme,38-9;

importance of introduction of,41,125-8;

co-heir in Wales,51;

law of succession,57et seq.;

disinheritance,61;

division among heirs,64et seq.,101;

Ahab's 'inheritance' of Naboth's vineyard,114

Hesiod, his κλῆρος,123;the needs of a farmer,109

Hesiod, his κλῆρος,123;

the needs of a farmer,109

Hestia,3,4,138;called“princess,”13

Hestia,3,4,138;

called“princess,”13

Inheritance, seeκλῆρος, andHeir

Kinship, grades of,48et seq.;in India,52;in Wales,49,67et seq.;the fourth degree,73,112;the seventh,78etseq.;the ninth,68et seq.;wife's relations no kin to husband but are to son,61,note

Kinship, grades of,48et seq.;

in India,52;

in Wales,49,67et seq.;

the fourth degree,73,112;

the seventh,78etseq.;

the ninth,68et seq.;

wife's relations no kin to husband but are to son,61,note

Kinsmen, duties of,18,42;next of kin marries“heiress,”23-7,35;his duty to redeem property in Israel,32,95;kinsmen accept heir,36,41,125-7;sanction disinheritance,61;liable for bloodshed,75et seq.;Hesiod's idea of,123

Kinsmen, duties of,18,42;

next of kin marries“heiress,”23-7,35;

his duty to redeem property in Israel,32,95;

kinsmen accept heir,36,41,125-7;

sanction disinheritance,61;

liable for bloodshed,75et seq.;

Hesiod's idea of,123

κλαρῶται,130

κλῆρος, its form,85et seq.;supported the οἶκος,88et seq.,110,121,127;need not be divided,47,89,93,97;no joint holding between father and sons,93;sold in case of need,94;in theory inalienable,94,113,124,127;allotted to new citizen,96;in Homer,102;held by tribesmen,108;of Hesiod,123

κλῆρος, its form,85et seq.;

supported the οἶκος,88et seq.,110,121,127;

need not be divided,47,89,93,97;

no joint holding between father and sons,93;

sold in case of need,94;

in theory inalienable,94,113,124,127;

allotted to new citizen,96;

in Homer,102;

held by tribesmen,108;

of Hesiod,123

κληροῦχοι,131et seq.

Land, ownership of, proof of civic rights,83,96(seeκλῆροςandτέμενος)

Lar=“lord,”12;laresof king,4

Lar=“lord,”12;

laresof king,4

Leases, for ever,134-6

Levirate, not in Greece,27;in India,29;in Israel,30et seq.

Levirate, not in Greece,27;

in India,29;

in Israel,30et seq.

Maintenance of parents (seeParents);of οἶκος,110;the bond of,110,139;of the chief,114et seq.;122;in Ezekiel,119;of children at Sparta,125;gift of food to babe,125;derived from κλῆρος,127

Maintenance of parents (seeParents);

of οἶκος,110;

the bond of,110,139;

of the chief,114et seq.;122;

in Ezekiel,119;

of children at Sparta,125;

gift of food to babe,125;

derived from κλῆρος,127

Manes, duties to, in India,19

Marriage, of heiress,23-6;of near relations,29;of widow (seeLevirate)

Marriage, of heiress,23-6;

of near relations,29;

of widow (seeLevirate)

Octopus,125note

οἶκος, part of γένος,17;importance of continuity of,9,19-20,30,35,111,128;the unit of ownership of property,47,109;extent of,54-6,88-9;the householder in India,99;supported by its land,110,113,121;of Bouselos,55,62;power of head of,91-2

οἶκος, part of γένος,17;

importance of continuity of,9,19-20,30,35,111,128;

the unit of ownership of property,47,109;

extent of,54-6,88-9;

the householder in India,99;

supported by its land,110,113,121;

of Bouselos,55,62;

power of head of,91-2

Open field system, in Greece,85;in the islands,87;in Homer,88,104;its elasticity,118-9

Open field system, in Greece,85;

in the islands,87;

in Homer,88,104;

its elasticity,118-9

Parage, in Normandy, an undivided tenure,50

Parents, maintenance of,18,48;after death,19

Parents, maintenance of,18,48;

after death,19

Phratria, enrols legitimate sons,36-7;partly responsible for bloodshed,76

Phratria, enrols legitimate sons,36-7;

partly responsible for bloodshed,76

Primogeniture, not the rule in Greece,90;nor in India,97et seq.;eldest son had certain rights or dignity,90et seq.,97et seq.;called ἠθεῖος,91,note

Primogeniture, not the rule in Greece,90;

nor in India,97et seq.;

eldest son had certain rights or dignity,90et seq.,97et seq.;

called ἠθεῖος,91,note

Prytaneum,3,4,15,138

of deme,38

Ruth, as widow and ἐπίκληρος,31-4

Sacrifices, object of,6,139,note;to the dead,8,9-12;of funeral cake in India,51et seq.;funeral rites at Athens,20;of householder in India,99;bond of common religion,13,53,138

Sacrifices, object of,6,139,note;

to the dead,8,9-12;

of funeral cake in India,51et seq.;

funeral rites at Athens,20;

of householder in India,99;

bond of common religion,13,53,138

Stranger, abhorrence of,5,71,74;as guest,99(seeGuest);admission to tribe,67et seq.,96

Stranger, abhorrence of,5,71,74;

as guest,99(seeGuest);

admission to tribe,67et seq.,96

τέμενος, in Homer,103,113;allotted to princes and gods,102,106,118,122;called πατρώιος,106;helped to support prince,118-9

τέμενος, in Homer,103,113;

allotted to princes and gods,102,106,118,122;

called πατρώιος,106;

helped to support prince,118-9

Tonsure, in Greece,39;in India,40

Tonsure, in Greece,39;

in India,40

Tribe, its basis one of blood,4-5,138;possible development of,14-15;admission to,68et seq.,96(and seeCitizenship)

Tribe, its basis one of blood,4-5,138;

possible development of,14-15;

admission to,68et seq.,96(and seeCitizenship)

Widow, could not inherit from husband,27-8;returned to her kin or guardian,28;when allowed to remain,28,note;the case of Tamar,30;of Ruth,31et seq.

Widow, could not inherit from husband,27-8;

returned to her kin or guardian,28;

when allowed to remain,28,note;

the case of Tamar,30;

of Ruth,31et seq.

THE END.

Back to Index Next