On The Structure of Greek Tribal Society: An Essay Part 4

"Now Boaz went up to the gate and sat down there, and behold the near kinsman of whom Boaz spake came by, unto whom he said, 'Ho, such an one! turn, aside, sit down here,' and he turned aside and sat down. And he took ten men of the elders of the city and said, 'Sit ye down here,' and they sat down. And he said unto the near kinsman, 'Naomi that is come again out of the country of Moab selleth the parcel of land which was our brother Ehmelech's: and I thought to disclose it to thee, saying, "Buy it before them that sit here and before the elders of my people." If thou wilt redeem it, redeem it; but if thou wilt not redeem it, tell me that I may know; for there is none to redeem it beside thee, and I am after thee.' And he said, 'I will redeem it.' Then said Boaz, 'What day thou buyest the field of the hand of Naomi thou must buy it also of Ruth the Moabitess, _the wife of the dead, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance_.' And the near kinsman said, 'I cannot redeem it for myself _lest I mar my own inheritance_; take thou my right of redemption on thee; for I cannot redeem it.' "

The rendering of the Vulgate of the kinsman's reply is more easily understood:-"I yield up my right of near kins.h.i.+p: for neither ought I to blot out the continuance (_posteritas_) of my family: do thou use my privilege, which I declare that I freely renounce."

"And he drew off his shoe. And Boaz said unto the elders and unto all the people, 'Ye are witnesses this day that I have bought all that was Elimelech's ... Chilion's and Mahlon's of the hand of Naomi. Moreover Ruth, the wife of Mahlon, have I purchased to be my wife to _raise up the name of the dead_ upon his inheritance, that the name of the dead be not cut off from among his brethren and from the gate of his place: ye are witnesses this day.' And all the people that were in the gate and the elders said, 'We are witnesses ... May thy house be like the house of Perez whom Tamar bare unto Judah' &c."

Now Boaz was sixth in descent from this Perez whose mother Tamar, as quoted above, had been in much the same position as Ruth.

It is interesting to read further that the son born of this marriage of Ruth and Boaz is taken by the women of Bethlehem to Naomi, saying, "_There is a son born to Naomi_," emphasising the duty of the heiress to bear a son, not into her husband's family, but to that of her father.

The story of Ruth is not, therefore, an exact example of the custom of levirate. But it ill.u.s.trates incidentally the unity of the family. The sons of Elimelech died before the family division had taken place, and the house of Elimelech their father was thus in jeopardy of extinction. If Naomi had come within the proper operation of the levirate, the next of kin ought to have married _her_, but by her adoption of Ruth as her daughter, she gave Ruth the position of heiress or ?p???????, whilst the heir born to Ruth was called son, not of Ruth's former or present husband, but of Elimelech and (by courtesy) of Naomi, Elimelech's widow, through whom the issue ought otherwise to have been found.

- 4. Succession Through A Married Daughter: Growth Of Adoption: Introduction Of New Member To Kinsmen.

(M41) But if the heiress was already married and had sons, she need not be divorced and marry the next of kin, though that still lay in her power. It was considered sufficient if she set apart one of her sons to be heir to her father's house. But she must do this absolutely: her son must entirely leave her husband's house and be enfranchised into the house of her father. If she did not do this with all the necessary ceremonies, the house of her father would become extinct, which would be a lasting shame upon her.

Isaeus(75) mentions a case where a wife inherits from her deceased brother a farm and persuades her husband to emanc.i.p.ate their second son in order that he may carry on the family of her brother and take the property.

(M42) In another pa.s.sage(76) the conduct of married sisters in not appointing one of their own sons to take his place as son in the house of their deceased brother, and in absorbing the property into that of their husbands, whereby the ????? of their brother became ?????, is described as shameful (a?s????).

In Demosthenes(77) a man behaving in similar wise is stigmatised as ???st??.

(M43) Herein lay the reason that adoption became so favourite a means in cla.s.sical times of securing an heir. It became almost a habit among the Athenians who had no sons, to adopt an heir-often even the next of kin who would naturally have succeeded to the inheritance.(78)

The transfer of the adopted son from the ????? of his father to the ?????

he was chosen to represent was so real that he lost all claim to inheritance in his original family, and henceforth based his relations.h.i.+p and rights of kins.h.i.+p from his new position as son of his adoptive father.

This absolutely insured the childless man that his successor would not merge the inheritance in that of another ?????, and made it extremely unlikely that he would neglect his religious duties as they would be henceforth his own ancestral rites.

Sometimes, it seems,(79) sons of an unfortunate father were adopted into another ????? so as not to share in the disgrace brought upon their family. In such a case presumably their father's house would be allowed to become extinct.

(M44) The inheritance of property being only an accessory to the heirs.h.i.+p,(80) the ceremony of adoption consisted of an introduction to the kindred and to the ancestral altars, and an a.s.sumption of the responsibilities connected therewith.

(M45) The process was the same as for the proclamation of the true blood of a son, and was exactly in accordance with tribal instincts.

Whatever the history of the f?at??a at Athens, in it seems to have been acc.u.mulated a great number of the survivals of tribal sentiment.

(M46) The adoption at Athens took place at the gathering of the phratores in order that all the kin might be present (pa???t?? t?? s???e???).(81) The adopter must lead his son to the sacrifices on the altars(82) and must show him to the kinsmen (s???e?e?? or ?e???ta?) and phratores: he must give a.s.surance on the sacrifices that the young man was born in lawful wedlock from free citizens. This done, and no one questioning his rights, the a.s.sembly proceeded to vote(83) and if the vote was in his favour, then and not till then he was enrolled in the common register (e?? t? ??????

??aate???) of the phratria in the name of son of his adopted father. As a father could not without reason disinherit his true-born sons, so the phratores could not without reason refuse to accept them to the kins.h.i.+p.(84)

If any of the phratores objected to the admission of the new kinsman, he must stop the sacrifices and remove the victim from the altar.(85) He would have to state the grounds of his objection, and if he could not produce good reasons, he incurred a fine. If there was no objection, the unsacrificial parts of the victim were divided up and each member took home with him his share,(86) or joined in a feast provided by the father of the admitted son.(87)

(M47) The ceremonial given in the Gortyn laws is similar:-

x. 33. "The adoption shall take place in the agora when all the citizens have a.s.sembled, from the stone from which speeches are made. And the adopter shall give to his own brotherhood (?ta??e?a) a victim-for-sacrifice and a vessel of wine (p??????)."

The adopted son gets all the property and shall fulfil the divine and human duties of his adoptive father(88) and shall inherit as in the law for true-born sons. But if he does not fulfil them according to law, the next of kin shall take the property. He can only renounce his adoption by paying a fine.

The adopted son thus introduced was considered to have become of the blood of his adoptive father, and was unable to leave his new family and return to his original home unless he left in the adoptive house a son to carry on the name to posterity. As long as he remained in the other ?????, _i.e._ had not provided for his succession and by certain legal ceremonies been readmitted to his former family, he was considered of no relations.h.i.+p to them and had no right of inheritance in their goods.(89)

An adopted son could not adopt or devise by will, and if he did not provide for the succession by leaving a son to follow him, the property went back into the family and to the next of kin of his adopted father.(90)

If he did return to his former ?????, leaving a son in his place and that son died, he could not return and take the property thus left without heir direct.(91)

(M48) Adoption amongst the Hindoos took place in like manner before the convened kindred. The adopting father offered a burnt-offering, and with recitation of holy words in the middle of his dwelling completed the adoption with these words:-

"I take thee for the fulfilment of my religious duties; I take thee to continue the line of my ancestors."(92)

The adopted son should be as near a relation as possible, and when once the ceremony had taken place, was considered to have as completely lost his position in his former family as if he had never been born therein.(93)

(M49) The introduction into the deme which took place at the age of eighteen at Athens, including the enrolment in the ????a??????

??aate???, seems to have been a registration of rights of property and an a.s.sumption of the full status of citizen. The word ????a?????? is defined by Harpocration as meaning "capable of managing the ancestral estate (t? pat??a ??????e??)." The word ????? is used by Isaeus for the application, by others than direct descendants, to the Archon for the necessary powers to take their property.

It appears to have been at this period that the young man left the ranks of boyhood and dedicated himself to the responsibilities of his life.

(M50) Plutarch(94) states that it was the custom at coming of age to tonsure the head and offer the hair to some G.o.d, and describes the young Theseus as adopting what we know as the Celtic tonsure, thenceforth called after his name.

"The custom still being in existence at that time for those quitting childhood to go to Delphi and dedicate(95) their hair to the G.o.d, Theseus also went to Delphi (and the place is still called after him the Theseia, so they say) and _shaved the hair of his head in front only_ (??e??at? t? p??s?e? ????) Homer says the Abantes do:(96) and this kind of tonsure (?????) is called 'Theseis' because of him. Now the Abantes first shaved themselves in this manner, not in imitation of the Arabs(97) as some have it, nor even in emulation of the Mysians, but being a warlike people and fighting hand to hand, ... as Archilochos testifies. For this reason Alexander is said to have ordered his Macedonians to shave their beards...."

This cutting the hair as token of dedication to any particular object or deity was of common occurrence. Achilles' hair was dedicated as an offering to the river Spercheios in case of his safe return.(98) Knowing that this is impossible, in his grief at the death of Patroklos, with apologies to the G.o.d he cuts his flowing locks and lays them in the hand of his dead friend.

Pausanias declares that it was the custom with all the Greeks to dedicate their hair to rivers.(99)

Theophrastus(100) mentions as a characteristic of the man of Petty Ambition that he will "take his son away to Delphi to have his hair cut (?p??e??a?)," showing that this venerable custom had by that time become pedantic and an object of ridicule.

According to Athenaeus,(101) when the young men cut their hair they brought a large cup of wine to Herakles and, pouring a libation, offered it to the a.s.sembled people to drink.

The age at which the hair was cut seems to have varied. The _Ordinances of Manu_(102) give the following instructions:-

"The Kecanta (tonsure-rite) is ordered in the sixteenth year(103) of a Brahman, in the twenty-second of a Ksatriya, and in two years more after that for a Vaicya."

But whenever the actual tonsure was performed, it seems to have been a very widely spread custom, symbolical in some way of devotion to a deity or kindred, or to some particular course of life.

Its importance in this place, however, lies in its being one of the special acts relating to the admission to tribal status, and to the devotion, so to speak, of the services of the individual to the corporate needs of his tribe or kindred.