Part 7 (1/2)

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;