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.
Isaeus75 mentions a case where a wife inherits from her deceased brother a farm and persuades her [pg 035] husband to emancipate their second son in order that he may carry on the family of her brother and take the property.
In another passage76 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 οἶκος of their brother became ἔρημος, is described as shameful (αἰσχρῶς).
In Demosthenes77 a man behaving in similar wise is stigmatised as ὑβριστής.
Herein lay the reason that adoption became so favourite a means in classical 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 οἶκος of his father to the οἶκος he was chosen to represent was so real that he lost all claim to inheritance in his original family, and henceforth based his relationship and rights of kinship 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 οἶκος, 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 [pg 036] father were adopted into another οἶκος 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.
The inheritance of property being only an accessory to the heirship,80 the ceremony of adoption consisted of an introduction to the kindred and to the ancestral altars, and an assumption of the responsibilities connected therewith.
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 φρατρία at Athens, in it seems to have been accumulated a great number of the survivals of tribal sentiment.
The adoption at Athens took place at the gathering of the phratores in order that all the kin might be present (παρόντων τῶν συγγενῶν).81 The adopter must lead his son to the sacrifices on the altars82 and must show him to the kinsmen (συγγενεῖς or γεννῆται) and phratores: he must give assurance on the sacrifices that the young man was born in lawful wedlock from free citizens. This done, and no one questioning his rights, the assembly proceeded to vote83 and if the vote was in his favour, then and not till then he was enrolled in the common register (εἰς τὸ κοινὸν γραμματεῖον) 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 kinship.84
[pg 037]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
The ceremonial given in the Gortyn laws is similar:—
The adopted son gets all the property and shall fulfil the divine and human duties of his adoptive father88 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 οἶκος, i.e. had not provided for his succession and by certain legal ceremonies been readmitted to his former family, he [pg 038] was considered of no relationship 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 οἶκος, leaving a son in his place and that son died, he could not return and take the property thus left without heir direct.91
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:—
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
The introduction into the deme which took place at the age of eighteen at Athens, including the enrolment in the ληξιαρχικόν γραμματεῖον, seems to have been a registration of rights of property and an assumption of the full status of citizen. The word ληξιαρχικός is [pg 039] defined by Harpocration as meaning “capable of managing the ancestral estate (τὰ πατρῷα οἰκονομεῖν).” The word λῆξις 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.
Plutarch94 states that it was the custom at coming of age to tonsure the head and offer the hair to some god, and describes the young Theseus as adopting what we know as the Celtic tonsure, thenceforth called after his name.
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 god he cuts his [pg 040] 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
Theophrastus100 mentions as a characteristic of the man of Petty Ambition that he will “take his son away to Delphi to have his hair cut (ἀποκεῖραι),” 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 assembled people to drink.
The age at which the hair was cut seems to have varied. The Ordinances of Manu102 give the following instructions:—
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.
The public introduction to the kindred, combined [pg 041] 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. Isaeus104 says that all relations (προσήκοντες), all the phratores, and most (οἱ πολλοί) of the demesmen would know whom a man married, and what children he had. This, in addition to the oath (πίστις) of the father or of the mother105 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
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
[pg 042]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 (οἰκία). 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 (μετανάστης) is said to have no value (he is ἀτίμητος), no fine is exacted for his death.
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, [pg 043] 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 (ἤνασσε) fairest Boudeion of old, but having slain a good man of his kin (ανεψιόν), 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
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 Solon118 it [pg 044] was forbidden to take payment in compensation from the murderer:—
Plato119 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. Plato120 says:—
In the case of a suicide, the hand that committed the crime was to be cut off and buried separately.
In Isacus122 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 (οἱκεῖοι) not to allow any of Thoudippos' people (τῶν Θουδίππου) 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.
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 (ξυγγένια).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.
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.