On The Structure of Greek Tribal Society: An Essay Part 7

All are Sapindas who offer the cake to the same ancestors.

(M63) The head of the family would himself offer or share with all his descendants in the offering of the one cake to his great-grandfather, his grandfather, and his father. And if this pa.s.sage is taken in conjunction with the one quoted just above, the number sharing in the cake-offering, limited as in the text at the seventh person from the first ancestor who receives the cake, is just sufficient to include the great-grandson of the head of the family, supposed to be making the offering.

The group, thus sharing the same cake-offering, would in the natural course be moving continually downwards, generation by generation as the head of the family died, thereby causing the great-grandfather to pa.s.s from the receivers of the cake-offering to the receivers of the water libation, and admitting the great-grandson's son into the number of Sapindas who shared the cake-offering. And at no time would more than four generations have a share in the same cake offered to the three nearest ancestors of the head of the family.

(M64) The Samanodakas, or pourers of the water libation appear to have been similarly grouped.

"Ignorance of birth and name" was in Wales considered to be equivalent to _beyond fifth cousins_. According to the Gwentian Code, "there is no proper name in kin further than that"-_i.e._ fifth cousins.(139) And this tallies exactly with the previous quotation from Manu limiting the water libation to three generations of ancestors beyond those to whom the cake is due, which, as has been seen, includes fifth cousins.

And it must be borne in mind that fifth cousins are great-grandsons of the great-grandsons of their common ancestor, or two generations of groups of second cousins.

(M65) It was extremely improbable that a man would see further than his great-grandchildren born to him before his death. And it might also occasionally occur in times of war or invasion that a man's sons and grandsons might go out to serve as soldiers, leaving the old man and his young great-grandchildren at home.

If the fighting members of the family were killed, the great-grandsons (who would be second cousins or nearer to each other) would have to inherit directly from their great-grandfather: and thus, especially in cases where the property was held undivided after the father's death, we can easily see that second cousins (_i.e._ all who traced back to the common great-grandfather) might be looked upon as forming a natural limit to the immediate descendants in any one ?????, and as the furthest removed who could claim shares of the ancestral inheritance.

After the death of the great-grandfather or head of the house, his descendants would probably wish to divide up the estate and start new houses of their own. The eldest son was generally named after his father's father,(140) and would carry on the name of the eldest branch of his great-grandfather's house, and would be responsible for the proper maintenance of the rites on that ancestor's tomb. He would also be guardian of any brotherless woman or minor amongst his cousins, each of whom would be equally responsible to him and to each other for all the duties and privileges entailed upon blood-relations.h.i.+p.

Thus seems naturally to spring up an inner group of blood-relations closely drawn together by ties which only indirectly reached other and outside members of the ?????.

(M66) In the fourth century B.C. this compact group limited to second cousins still survived at Athens, responsible to each other for succession, by inheritance or by marriage of a daughter; for vengeance and purification after injury received by any member, and for all duties shared by kindred blood.

This close relation was called ????ste?a, and all its members were called ????ste?? _i.e._ any one upon whom the claim upon the next-of-kin might at any time fall.

The speech of Demosthenes against Makartatos affords considerable information as to the const.i.tution of the family-group or ?????. The five sons of Bouselos,(141) we are told, on his death divided his substance amongst them, and each started a new ????? and begat children and children's children.(142) The action, which was the occasion of the speech, lay between the great-grandsons of two of these five founders of ?????, Stratios and Hagnias, and had reference to the disposal of the estate of the grandson of the latter, which had come into the hands of the great-grandson of Stratios.

One might have supposed that the descendants of Bouselos, with their common burial ground(143) and so forth, would have ranked as all in the same ????? under their t.i.tle of Bouselidai. But it is clear from this speech of Demosthenes, that too many generations had already pa.s.sed to admit of Bouselos being considered as still head of an unbroken ?????, and that his _great_-great-grandsons were subdivided into separate ????? under the names of their respective great-grandfathers, Stratios, Hagnias, &c.

(?? e?s?? ?? t?? St?at??? ?????, ?? d? t?? ?????? ??dep?p?t?

??????t?).(144)

- 2. Limitations In Respect Of Succession Outside The Direct Line Of Descent.

(M67) The Gortyn law quoted above in the previous section goes on:-

v. "If (a man or woman die and) they have no children, the deceased's brothers and brother's children or _grandchildren_ shall have the property. If there are none of these, the deceased's sisters, their children or _grandchildren_. If there are none of these, to whom it descends of whatever grade they be, they shall inherit the property."

This clause takes the evidence one step further, and it is noticeable how the right of inheritance is determined by the great-grandchild of the common ancestor. In the direct line, a man's descendants down to his great-grandchildren inherited his estate. In dealing with inheritance through a brother of the deceased the heirs.h.i.+p terminates with the _grandchild_ of the brother, who would be great-grandchild of the nearest common ancestor with the previous owner of the estate. If there is no brother, the child of the cousin limits the next branch, as will be seen.

(M68) Isaeus(145) describes the working of the then-existing (c. 350 B.C.) law of inheritance at Athens as follows:-

The law gives "brothers' property" (i.e. property without lineal succession) to

1. _Brothers_ by the same father, or brother's children, for these are related to the deceased in the nearest degree;

2. _Sisters_ by the same father, or sister's children;

3. _First cousins_ by the father's side as far as _cousin's children_ (d?d?s? t?? ????ste?a? ??e????? p??? pat??? ????

_??e???? pa?d??_).

Failing these, recourse is had back again into the family (e?? t?

????? p???? ?pa????eta?) and the law makes those related through the _mother_ of the deceased, masters (??????) of the family (and inheritance) in the same order as on the father's side from the beginning.

That is to say, failing first cousins once removed, the inheritance goes back and begins again at the mother of the deceased, who however, being a woman, can only inherit on behalf of her issue, present or prospective.(146) If she has married again and has a son (half-brother to her deceased son) he would inherit. Failing her issue, her brother and so on to first cousin's children of the deceased, through his mother, would have the inheritance.

Failing these, the nearest kinsman to be found on the father's side, of whatsoever degree, is to inherit.

(M69) The law as stated by Demosthenes(147) coincides with this:-

"If there are no sons, brothers by the same father (shall inherit): and their true born children, if there are any, shall have the share of their father: if there are no brothers or brother's children the issue of the latter in the same way shall partake: males and children of males shall have preference (over females) if they are born of the same (parents), even if they are further off by birth (???e?) [_i.e._ are a generation lower down].

If there are none on the father's side as far as _cousin's children_ (???? ??e???? pa?d??), the relations on the mother's side in the same way shall have possession (??????? e??a?). But if there are none on either side _within these degrees_, the nearest of kin on the father's side shall have possession."

Whenever this law is quoted the limit of relations.h.i.+p laid down therein for the immediate ????ste?a is always that of ??e???? pa?de?, or sons of first cousins, who inherit from their first cousins once removed (_oncle a la Bretagne_, or Welsh uncle as this relation has been called).

Occasionally the patronymic form ??e??ad?? is used, apparently with the same signification, though properly ??e??ad?? would mean sons of two first cousins, _i.e._ second cousins.(148)

(M70) It appears from the evidence reviewed hitherto, that any great-grandson could inherit from any grandson of a common ancestor, and the conclusion also seems to be justified, that the group of great-grandsons were considered to divide up their right to inherit once for all, and that having done so, with respect to that inheritance they were considered to have begun a new succession. To put it differently, in case of the death of one of these second cousins, after the final division of their inheritance had taken place, the rest of the second cousins would have no right to a share in his portion; an heir would have to be found within his nearer relations. Thus, they share responsibilities towards any of their relations within the group and higher up in their families, and also stand shoulder to shoulder in sharing such burdens as pollution and so on, but are outside the immediate ????ste?a with respect to each other's succession. The reason for this will perhaps be more apparent as the argument proceeds.

That the grandson of a first cousin was outside the ????ste?a is clear from the speech of Demosthenes already mentioned,(149) where the plaintiff, who originally stands in that relations.h.i.+p to the deceased whose inheritance is in dispute, is adopted as son of his grandfather (first cousin of the deceased), in order to come within the legal definition of ??e???? pa??.

That the son of a second cousin was also without the pale is directly stated in several pa.s.sages in Isaeus.

(M71) It must be remembered that by "inheritance" is meant the a.s.sumption of all the duties inc.u.mbent on the ????ste??, and that the man who "inherited" took his place for the future as son of the deceased in the family pedigree, and reckoned his relations.h.i.+p to the rest of the ?????

thenceforth from his new position, in the house into which he had come.(150)

(M72) Now if it is true that to the great-grandson was the lowest in degree to which property could directly descend without entering a new ?????, and if that great-grandson was also looked upon as beginning with his acquired property a new portion of the continuous line of descent; any one, who "inherited" from him and ranked in the scale of relations.h.i.+p as HIS SON, would necessarily fall outside the former group and would be considered as forming the nearest relative in the next succeeding group.

This, it seems, is the meaning of the language of the law which limits the ????ste?a to the children of first cousins who could inherit from their parent's first cousins, and still _retain their relations.h.i.+p as great-grandsons_ of the same ancestor. Whereas any one taking the place of son to his second cousin would be one degree lower down in descent, and pa.s.s outside the limit of the four generations. The law makes the kinsmen therefore exhaust all possible relations.h.i.+ps _within the group_ by reverting to the mother's kindred with the same limitation before allowing the inheritance to pa.s.s outside or lower down.

(M73) In confirmation of this view the following pa.s.sage may be quoted from _Plato's Laws_:-

"He who in the sad disorder of his soul has a mind, justly or unjustly, to expel from his family a son whom he has begotten and brought up, shall not lightly or at once execute his purpose; but first of all he shall collect together his own kinsmen, extending to (_first_) _cousins_ (???? ??e????), and in like manner his son's kinsmen by the mother's side,(151) and in their presence he shall accuse his son, setting forth that he deserves at the hands of them all to be dismissed from the family (?????)."(152)

Before dishonouring one of the family and so bereaving it of a member owing duties which, by his disinheritance, may fall into abeyance or be neglected, the parent calls together all to whom his son might perhaps ultimately become the only living representative and heir, and who might at some future time be dependent on him for the performance of ancestral rites. That this was in Plato's mind when he wrote is shown by the next sentence, in which he provides for the possibility of some relation already having need of the young man and being desirous to adopt him as his son, in which case he shall by no means be prevented. The concurrence of all relations in such a position was therefore necessary.

In other cases where Plato mentions similar gatherings of the kin but for different purposes, he extends the summons to _cousin's children_. But here it can be seen they would have no place. They would be second cousins to the disgraced youth; they might have to share privilege or pollution with him, but had no claim on him for duties towards themselves. He would be "cousin's son" to his father's first cousins-the limit of such a claim in the ????ste?a.

(M74) In the speech of Isaeus concerning the estate of Hagnias, a real second cousin is in possession of the estate. He won the case at the time and died in possession, and an action against his son Makartatos for the same property is the occasion of one of the speeches of Demosthenes. To fully understand the relations.h.i.+ps referred to in these cases, the accompanying genealogical tree of the descendants of Bouselos may be of a.s.sistance. It will also serve as an example of how a kindred hung together, and how by intermarriage and adoption the name of the head of an ????? was carried on down a long line of male descendants.