OF THE UN IVE.R.S I TY Of ILLINOIS 879 C81 v . 4 classics Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2017 with funding from University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Alternates https://archive.org/details/developmentofathOObots Cornell Xdntverstt^ lltbaca, IFlew Jiiorh CORNELL STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY EDITED BY BENJAMIN IDE WHEELER, CHARLES EDWIN BENNETT, GEORGE PRENTICE BRISTOL, AND ALFRED EMERSON No. IV THE ATHENIAN CONSTITUTION By GEORGE WILLIS BOTSFORD, Ph.D. PUBLISHED FOR THE UNIVERSITY BY GINN & COMPANY 1893 THE DEVELOPMENT OF THF ATHENIAN CONSTITUTION BY GEORGE WILLIS BOTSFORD, Ph.D. PROFESSOR OF GREEK IN BETHANY COLLEGE Cornell Studies in Classical Philology, No. IV Copyright, 1893, By CORNELL UNIVERSITY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. (€bc ?ltbenaeum pros? GINN & COMPANY, BOSTON, U.S.A. 2>7 9 C 8 | V* PREFACE. I wish to thank Professor George E. Howard, of the Leland Stanford Junior University, for the interest in the study of political and social institutions, which came to me from his instruction, and for the encouragement and help which I have constantly received from him. I also owe a great debt of gratitude to Professor Benj. I. Wheeler, of Cornell University, joint-editor of the Cornell Studies, for his valuable assistance in the preparation of the present number. He has suggested literature, has given his judgment on critical points, has read manuscript and proof with patient care, and has aided and encouraged me in many other ways. I cherish for him as a scholar, teacher, and friend feelings of sincerest respect and love. Dr. A. G. Laird, of Cornell University, has rendered valuable service in the tedious work of verifying citations. Mr. G. W. Harris, librarian of the Cornell University Library, and Mr. W. H. Tillinghast, of the Harvard University Library, are remembered for their kind favors. GEO. W. BOTSFORD. CONTENTS. CHAPTER I. PAGE The Patriarchal Theory i CHAPTER II. The Aryan Gens 27 CHAPTER III. The Grecian Gens 68 CHAPTER IV. The Phratry and Phyle 90 CHAPTER Vo The Four Ionic Phylae 102 CHAPTER VI. The Basileia m CHAPTER VII. The Oligarchy Before Draco 129 CHAPTER VIII. The Draconian Timocracy 138 CHAPTER IX. The Solonian Revolution 157 Vlll CONTENTS. CHAPTER X. PAGE The Tyranny 184 CHAPTER XI. The Cleisthenean Constitution, and its Development to the Battle of Salamis 193 CHAPTER XII. From the Battle of Salamis to the Beginning of the Pelopon- nesian War 212 Bibliography 235 / Index 243 THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ATHENIAN CONSTITUTION. CHAPTER I. THE PATRIARCHAL THEORY. It was the belief of the ancients that the family was the primitive society out of which the state developed . 1 They were led to this view partly by observing that the institutions of their state and family were throughout of a similar charac- ter, 2 — as were also the relations sustained by the individual to family and state, — but more directly by the fact that each ascending group in the gentile organization of the ancient city had, as its protecting deity and centre of its common religious life, an eponymous (name-giving) hero, from whom the mem- bers of the respective groups were supposed to have derived their lineage . 3 Thus Aristotle 4 says: “That society which 1 Not only did the philosophic thinker hold this view, but the ordinary man constantly acted on the belief that the state was but a large family, and that ties of a like nature bound him to these two societies. For illustration of this, read any of the Attic orators touching the public obligations and services of the individual. 2 That the institutions of the state are largely those of the family, the former being developed from the latter, will be fully established, it is hoped, in the following pages. 3 When a new organization of the state took the place of the old, eponymous heroes were selected for the tribes, in case of the Cleisthenean organization, by the oracle at Delphi; Aristotle, Ath. Pol., ch. 21. This seems to indicate that no other theory of the state than the one above proposed was conceivable or, at least, acceptable. Furthermore, the Athenians clung thus closely to the primitive theory of the state, even after the opportunity for an improved conception had been given in the fictitious nature of the Cleisthenean tribe ; cf. Pseud. Dem. Epitaph. §§ 30-1 ; Rohde, Psyche, pp. 158-9, 164. 4 Politics, I. 2, p. 1252 b, 12 ff. 2 THE ATHENIAN CONSTITUTION. nature has established for daily support is a household (o ?*os). . . . But the society of many households for lasting and mutual advantage is called a village (kw^), naturally composed of members of one family, whom some call o/zoyuAaKre?. . . . When many villages join themselves perfectly together into one society, that society is a state (ttoAis).” Plato 1 and Cicero 2 present the same view. Arguments based on the character and institutions of the state are equally cogent to the mod- erns . 3 That proof, on the contrary, which depends upon the religious belief as to the genesis of the city from a single ancestor through the family, clan, and phratry has for us but little value. We must replace it, therefore, by an inquiry into the development of the city, in accordance with the recognized methods of historical investigation. The Aryan 4 household (or family), as it appears at the dawn of history, possessed a political, social, and religious organiza- tion which rendered it capable of an isolated, independent existence, and was held in partial subjection only by the superior power of the city. The tendencies were centrifugal, the family possessed large individuality and freedom of action, and the ties of kindred and home were stronger than love of country {city) or loyalty to the king. Thus the Greek house was monarchical in government , 5 — its pater was priest and 1 Laws, book III. pp. 680-1 ; Jowett’s Trans., 3 Vol. V. pp. 60-1. 2 De Officiis, I. 17. 3 Maine, Ancient Law, pp. 118 ff . ; Early Law and Custom, ch. III. Spencer, Principles of Sociology, I. p. 730. Bluntschli, Theory of the State, pp. 182-9 > he says, “ But even in the Aryan nations the beginnings of the state are con- nected with the bond of the family and the tribe.” Fustel de Coulanges, Ancient City, p. hi ff. Thumser, Die griech. Staatsalterthiimer, pp. 28 ff. Grote, ch. X. of his History of Greece (small edition), I. p. 561. Buchholz, Die homerischen Realien, II. 1, p. 6. Curtius, Alterthum und Gegenwart, I. p. 360. Petersen, Ueber die Geburtstagsfeier bei den Griechen, p. 343. Philippi, Beitrage zu einer Geschichte des att. Blirgerrechts, p. 5. Muller’s Handbuch, 2 IV. pp. 18-20. Leist, Altarisches Jus Gentium, p. 113. Krauss, Sitte und Brauch der Sudslaven, pp. 1-2, 21, 32-3, and n. 1. Rohde, Psyche, pp. 13, 231. 4 The term “Aryan” is used throughout this treatise in the sense in which it is employed by anthropologists, — to correspond with “Indo-European” (not “ Indo-Iranian ”) of the linguists. 6 Aristotle, Politics, I. 7. 1, p. 1255 b, 19. THE PATRIARCHAL THEORY. 3 king, — while a considerable judicial authority, afterwards ex- ercised by the central government, was, in the Homeric age, vested in the near kin . 1 Thus the kinsmen of a murdered man wreaked vengeance in person, accepted a compensation in money, or voluntarily offered their case to the arbitration of the state. The initiative was taken by the anchisteis ; the clansmen, phrateres , and king were helpers. The Roman house- hold is a more striking example of a society organized on the monarchical principle and tending to isolation and independ- ence. The Roman pater was, in a stricter sense, priest, judge, and king. He had power of life, death, and sale over his children, lasting while he lived. His authority was antagonistic to that of the state. The latter could not, therefore, have created the patria potestas , but finding it already existing, a sovereignty within its borders, tolerated this institution because unable to suppress it, and succeeded in modifying it only in the course of centuries . 2 Th e patria potestas, then, seems to point to a time when the family was an independent community under the absolute rule of its pater ; while agnation, cutting off the wife from her kin, gave to woman an inferior place and promoted isolation. The Patriarchal Theory, resting on this strong basis, would be further strengthened, if an example could be found of a family actually existing in remote antiquity as a separate and autonomous community, and if the genesis of higher units could be traced from it as a beginning. The advocates of this view have thought that this first point of growth existed in the patriarchal family as we see it, e.g., among the Hebrews . 3 From the family of Abraham developed the tribes and finally the city and kingdom. Another example of the isolated family is found in the Homeric picture of life among the Cyclopes. These are a pastoral people with “neither gatherings for council nor 1 Anchisteis, or descendants of the same great-grandfather. 2 Fustel de Coulanges, Ancient City, p. in. 3 Maine, Ancient Law, p. n8, “There is no doubt, of course, that this theory was originally based on the scriptural history of the Hebrew patriarchs in lower Asia.” 4 THE ATHENIAN CONSTITUTION. oracles of law, but they dwell in hollow caves on the crests of high hills, and each one utters the law to his children and his wives, and they reck not one of another .” 1 While these examples of the patriarchal family are, indeed, non-Aryan, there are reasons for believing that it existed also among the Aryans in a period preceding that of the clan. It is natural to assume an epoch in history marked by a tendency to sep- arate into families, even though men were formerly grouped in tribes. This epoch begins when grazing becomes the chief occupation of man . 2 It is easy to see how such a tendency would arise in a country where pasturage was scarce 3 and at a time when the notion of property began to gain distinctness . 4 The instinct of self-preservation, overcoming the tendency to independence and to the individual acquisition of wealth, led finally to an undivided property and a combination of the sons on the death of the father instead of the formerly prevalent separation. Thus the gens arose. Certain writers, as McLen- nan 5 and Morgan, attempt to displace this theory by the view that the gens is older than the family. They call attention to the statement that the gens is heterogeneous as to kinship , 6 and endeavor to account for this quality by assuming a period 1 Od. IX. 1 1 2-5. This picture is probably, in part at least, from actual life; yet the elements of reality contained in it seem to have been gathered from non- Aryan sources, for the Cyclopes have not the Aryan religion ; — “ they pay no heed to Zeus, lord of the Aegis nor to the blessed gods ” and they honor not the guest and suppliant ; Od. IX. 275 ff. 2 Spencer, Principles of Sociology, I. p. 724. 3 Genesis, xiii. 5 ff. 4 Spencer, Principles of Sociology, I. p. 717. McLennan, Studies in Ancient History, ch. VIII. Morgan, Ancient Society, part I. ch. I.; part II. ch. XIV.; part III. pp. 383-508. (Development of the several typical families of history.) These writers have attempted the reconstruction of primitive Aryan history from data supplied by non- Aryan sources. Their method is open to question and its results are wholly unsatisfactory. I mention these authors as representative “anthropologists ” well known to the English reader. Bachofen (Das Mutterrecht) and Lubbock (The Origin of Civilization and the Primitive Condition of Man), were among the earliest to win fame in this field of investigation. 6 Studies in Ancient History, pp. 127 ff. 0 Pollux, VIII. hi. THE PATRIARCHAL THEORY. 5 antecedent to that of the monogamic family when kinship was reckoned through females only, assuming at the same time a general prevalence of exogamy during the same period. Under such conditions the gens would not be composed of a number of distinct and entire households, but of fractions of house- holds ; clansmen would not be kinsmen, but the utmost heter- ogeneity of relationship would characterize this group. There is no ground whatever for such an hypothesis. Some gentes are indeed spoken of as heterogeneous . 1 This quality, how- ever, did not belong to all the gentes, and was not in any instance prominent enough to influence the conception of the ancients as to their origin. Besides, the heterogeneity, real or apparent, may be explained satisfactorily in the following manner. In the first place, entire families were adopted into the gens. A proof that such a custom may of itself account for the heterogeneity of the gens will appear when we come to consider the nature of the Cleisthenean deme. It may be stated here that the deme exhibited as to kinship of its mem- bers the greatest possible heterogeneity ; yet such was the influence of pre-existing conditions upon the minds of the Athenians that they could not regard the deme otherwise than as a gens, and gave to it accordingly an essentially family character. If this is true of the Cleisthenean period, how much more must it have been true in the earliest times, when men still lived in villages, and bounded their sympathies by their kinship. The people of Attica, for example, were a mix- ture of races. Noble families came thither from many parts of Greece 2 and were incorporated by adoption into the village communities. The villagers were glad to receive these strangers, since it increased their wealth and military power . 3 1 Pollux, VIII. hi, referred to above. 2 Curtius, History of Greece, I. p. 322 ff. His chief authority here is Thuc. I. 2. 3 Thucydides, I. 2-6. But when there was no longer need of military strength, the admission of strangers was stoutly resisted. Krauss, Sitte und Brauch der Siidslaven, p. 29. 6 THE ATHENIAN CONSTITUTION. New families of a community were regarded as relatives, though, of course, no relationship could be traced till a real connection should perchance be formed by intermarriage. I suspect, however, that this is not the cause of that hetero- geneity which is so great a stumbling-block to some. Rather it rises from the idea of the cognate family, which was a closely related body of kinsmen within the gens and with most sharply defined limits. Individuals outside of the circle, though within the same gens, were regarded as kinsmen only in a relatively faint degree. And when the synoecism of Attica took place, and the gennetae became widely dispersed, so as to make intermarriage impracticable, there is no wonder that men forgot the more distant kinship, the cognate family practically superseding the gens . 1 Again, as a basis for the theory of heterogeneity, Morgan tells us further that the gentes were as a rule exogamous down to historical times, e.g., in Greece . 2 I have not found the slightest trace of a prohibition of intermarriage of near kins- men among the Greeks, except in a few cases of special near- ness, as between parent and child. Such intermarriage of near relatives was the rule among both the East Dorians 3 and the Ionians. Among the Romans, marriage within the sixth degree of relationship was considered sinful . 4 Beyond this, we know of no restriction at Rome ; and this of itself is not sufficient evidence to prove exogamy of the gens. There was in ancient India a considerable variety of restrictions as to the 1 Philippi, Geschichte d. att. Biirgerrechts, p. 191. Among the South-Slavo- nians, where the gentile system remains to-day as a living organism, the feeling of kinship extends even to the phyle, while in the phratry it is surprisingly vital. The members of the House-community are, in almost all cases, of kindred blood. Krauss, op. cit., pp. 20-1, 33, 40, 75. 2 Morgan, Ancient Society, p. 224. He has derived all his information, it appears, from Grote. 8 Laws of Gortyn. This speaks merely of heiresses ; but when the custom of marrying an heiress to her nearest kinsman has arisen, exogamy, if it once prevailed, cannot long survive. 4 Schrader, Sprachvergleichung und Urgeschichte, p. 385 (first ed.) thinks that this was not a primitive restriction. THE PATRIARCHAL THEORY. 7 intermarriage of near kin. Ordinarily the statement occurs of a prohibition of intermarriage between Sapindas (Greek An- chisteis ). 1 This is usually accompanied by a prohibition also within the gotra , or gens . 2 The first is apparently the older usage, the second being an outgrowth from it in accordance with the principle that “usage which is reasonable generates usage which is unreasonable ,” 3 — a principle which has a wide application in the genesis of Hindoo customs. In the Aryan period there seems to have been no restriction except in cases of special nearness . 4 The Aryan gens was not, therefore, exogamous. Hence the objection cannot be made to the theory of development from family to gens that “the family does not enter whole into the gens .” 5 The same authority which declares that the city is made up of a cer- tain number of gentes declares also that the gens is com- posed of a certain number of families . 6 Cases of polygamy, polyandry, and promiscuity among the Aryan nations, treated by McLennan as survivals from pre-monogamian stages of development, prove on closer inquiry to be later growths under the influence of peculiar conditions . 7 Leist holds the 1 Gautama, IV. 3. 5. 2 Apastamba, II. 5. 11. 15; Vasishtha, VIII. 1. 3 Maine, Ancient Law, p. 18. 4 For further data leading to this conclusion, see Schrader, Sprachvergleichung und Urgeschichte, p. 2 566 n. Cf. Weber, Indische Studien, X. pp. 75 ff. Zimmer, Altindisches Leben, p. 323, regards the restriction enjoined by the Dharma5astra as a development from a far narrower restriction. In the Rigveda, marriage between brother and sister is considered sinful (Rv. X. 10) ; yet Hindoo mythology gives many examples of such unions ; Zimmer, loc. cit. 5 Morgan, Ancient Society, p. 469. 6 Gilbert, Handbuch, I. p. 111, n. 1. 7 Leist, Graeco-italische Rechtsgeschichte, p. 78, n. r\ Altarisches Jus Gentium, p. 419, n. 8 ; p. 123. Cf. Delbriick, Die indogermanischen Verwandtschafts- namen, Band XI. der Abhandl. d. phil.-histor. Classe d. kgl. sachs. Gesellsch. d. Wiss., 1889, p. 545, who proves definitely that polyandry did not exist in Aryan times, that peculiar conditions brought it into being in Sparta. Zimmer, Altin- disches Leben, p. 325, declares that it was impossible among the ancient Hindoos. Later, however, an occasional example occurred, Delbriick, op. cit., p. 588. 8 TIIK ATHENIAN CONSTITUTION. view that monogamy was the earliest form of marriage, Aryan and human, and that promiscuity was a degradation from it among men who passed their lives in indolence or in hunt- ing, fishing, and war, abandoning the maintenance and su- pervision of children to the women of the tribe . 1 This theory is probable in itself, and explains the known facts more satis- factorily than any other proposed. The Aryans were, for the most part, unaffected by the common degradation and main- tained, therefore, as a rule, the monogamic marriage. If Leist’s view is correct, as it seems to be, all gentes which have had an organic growth must have sprung from fam- ilies . 2 Evidence in favor of the Patriarchal Theory of a positive nature and bearing greater conviction is yet to be adduced. Those gentes which are mentioned as heterogeneous, whose members were unable to discover any relationship in blood with each other and whose ancestors were said to be fabulous heroes, arose before the dawn of history. We are prevented thus from tracing their origin and growth with the certainty and precision of eye-witnesses. Yet could these differ in nature materially from those which arose in historical times, and whose development we are able to trace ? A good ex- ample of the latter class is the gens of the Buselidae at Athens. It consisted of five houses sprung from a real an- cestor ; its members were bound together by the ties of a common name, blood and worship ; it wanted only autonomy 1 Altarisches Jus Gentium, p. 123. 2 There were gentes of later formation, arising from various causes, which were largely or wholly fictitious. Hearn, Aryan Household, pp. 297-8 ; Krauss, Sitte und Brauch der Siidslaven, pp. 57-8. The view above presented may be considered well established for the Aryan race as far back as the evidence afforded by the comparative study of language reaches. Bopp, Kuhn and Fick, the three eminent authorities on Indo-European philology, support this theory, while no student of any prominence in this field has ever believed in “ Mutter- recht.” Delbriick, op. cit ., pp. 386-8, offers convincing evidence in favor of the Patriarchal theory. Cf. Schrader, Sprachvergleichung und Urgeschichte, p. 546. THE PATRIARCHAL THEORY. 9 to make it a perfect gens . * 1 II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. Again, among the South-Slavo- nians the members of a House-community are in almost all cases related in blood . 2 A House-community is composed of several families and corresponds closely to a gens. Its mem- bers can trace their kinship with one another, especially since the community never grows large, — so as to contain over seventy souls or thereabout, — but readily divides into several new communities . 3 These new communities still retain for one another the feeling of kinship, still deliberate in common concerning the welfare of the whole, still hold certain property in common. A union of such related communities is called a “Brotherhood” ( bratstvo , par/ota ). 4 Were these communities 1 Buselus had five sons ; these grew up and became the heads of families ; thus five households grew out of the one household of Buselus ; Demosthenes, XLIII. 19. This group of families retained for one another a feeling of kinship, and was called a gens (ytvos) ; Dem. XLIII. 20. The families composing it were called households ( oJkol ). It possessed all the characteristics of a gens, its mem- bers being bound together by the following ties : I. The possession of a common name, the patronymic Buselidae ; Dem. XLIII. 79. II. The possession of a common burial place ; Dem. XLIII. 79 ; cf. LVII. 28. III. Mutual rights of inheritance according to propinquity ; Dem. XLIII. 3, 51-2. IV. a. Right to marry an heiress ; Dem. XLIII. 54-5. b. Duty of endowing a destitute orphan girl ; Dem. XLIII. 54-5. V. Duty of performing (or assisting at) the nomizomena and worship of the dead ; Dem. XLIII. 62-4, 66-7. VI. Duty of providing against the extinction of the several households ; Dem. XLIII. 74-5. VII. Duty of vengeance in case of homicide ; Dem. XLIII. 57-8. It is evi- dent that this gens differed in no respect from those which existed before the city. If it had been autonomous and depended on its own strength for protection, it might have grown much larger. But disintegration set in early. While three (or four) of these families intermarried and thus maintained with each other the closest relations (Dem. XLIII. 23, 55, 73), the household of Stratius did not intermarry, and had a separate tomb (Dem. XLIII. 79-80), and became thus, in time, cut off from all those privileges and duties connected with the gentile bond. See e.g., Dem. XLIII. 56. From this we may understand how the ties of blood within the gens may be weakened and finally forgotton. 2 Krauss, Sitte und Brauch der Siidslaven, p. 75. 8 Krauss, loc. cit., and pp. 111-4. 4 Krauss, Sitte und Brauch der Siidslaven, p. 33 and n. 1 ; also p. 40; cf. Zimmer, Altindisches Leben, p. 160. IO THE ATHENIAN CONSTITUTION. autonomous and self-protecting, they would naturally hold to- gether longer, and with increase in size would come inability to trace kinship of member with member. At the same time the ancestor would be placed much farther back into the past than he really belonged and the events of his life hidden beneath a rich growth of legend . 1 When this should be accomplished, we should have the gens as described by the ancient writers. It would be a fruitless task to attempt a representation in detail of the family in the period of its isolation. It would be useless in its results, even granting such a thing to be possible ; for in the history of the Aryan races, in the remotest times of which we have knowledge, we are obliged to deal with families as component members of the gens, and not as isolated units. Long before the dawn of history, the family had de- veloped into the gens in the manner to be explained hereafter. I shall endeavor here to give a brief consideration of the Aryan family as it existed within the tribe in the earliest times of which we have any knowledge. The Aryan family was in the main monogamic 2 and under the control of the father. A man desiring a housekeeper and 1 Krauss, op. cit., p. 42. 2 A strictly monogamic family is not to be assumed, in view of all the facts. As Schrader, Sprachvergleichung und Urgeschichte, pp. 2 559-60, has observed, traces of polygamy occur among most of the Aryan races at the dawn of their history : for the Vedic Hindoos, Zimmer, Altindisches Leben, pp. 323-5; for the ancient Per- sians, Hdt. I. 135 ; for the Gauls, Caesar de Bel. Gal. VI. 19 (the interpretation of this passage is doubtful); for the ancient Germans, Tacit. Germ. XVIII. (polygamy is here exceptional); for the modern South-Slavonians, Krauss, Sitte und Brauch der Siidslaven, p. 229. On the other hand, if polygamy had been wide- spread it would have impressed itself more distinctly upon early Aryan society, which, in point of fact, rests wholly on a basis of monogamy. In many cases, polygamy is seen clearly to be of later growth, e. g ., among the South-Slavonians, — to avoid extinction of family through childlessness. There was probably no law or sentiment against polygamy in the beginning; but the method of procuring wives — by robbery or purchase — made it, for the most part, impracticable for any but the powerful or the wealthy to procure more than one wife, cf. Delbriick, Hie indogermanischen Vewandtschaftsnamen, pp. 386-8; Starcke, Die primitive Familie in ihrer Entstehung und Entwickelung, Leipzig, 1888 ; Schrader, Sprach- vergleichung und Urgeschichte, pp. 2 534—5- THE PATRIARCHAL THEORY. slave, obtained a wife for that object by robbery or purchase. In the case of strong, warlike gentes robbery was the usual means, and the wives under such circumstances were taken from neighboring clans. Weaker gentes were obliged to pro- cure their wives by purchase either from within or from without the gens . 1 It follows from these conditions that the father was proprietor of wife and children, and had powers of life, death, and sale over all under his authority. This power he maintained only so long as he possessed the necessary physical strength. When old and weak he was liable to be put to death by his mature sons . 2 The mother enjoyed hardly more influence than the child. She must work constantly to support the family, — she cannot eat with her husband, but must wait till he is satisfied and then eat what remains . 3 At her husband’s death, she was killed on his grave . 4 The children were the father’s property and differed little from slaves. They continued under their father’s authority till his death or old age and then the sons took the property to them- selves. Sometimes it was divided equally among the brothers; but more often the eldest gained the upper hand and compelled his brothers to serve him. If such a family held together 1 It is wrong to suppose that all gentes were exogamous, or that near relatives were, as a rule, forbidden to intermarry. This will be discussed in the following chapter. 2 This holds for the ancient Germans, Scandinavians, and Vedic Hindoos; Zim- mer, Altindisches Leben, pp. 326-8. Among the South-Slavonians, old people were treated with great disrespect and neglect; Krauss, Sitte und Brauch der Siid- slaven, pp. 94-5; cf. p. 81. 3 This was the custom among the South-Slavonians, Krauss, op. cit., p. 96, and among the ancient Greeks, since Homer speaks of the women taking their meals in their own apartments. 4 Schrader, Sprachvergleichung und Urges chichte, p. 565. This was the custom among the Thracians (Hdt. V. 5), the Germans (Zimmer, op. cit., p. 330), the Slavs (Zimmer, loc. cit.), occasionally occurred among the Greeks (Paus. IV. 2), may have existed among the most ancient Hindoos, and seems to have been Aryan (Zimmer, op. cit., pp. 329, 331). The object of this cruel usage was probably to make the life of the father dear to the household. Whatever form of ancestor-worship existed at this time must have been grounded upon fear rather than upon love and piety. 2 THE ATHENIAN CONSTITUTION. long, it became a gens. Daughters were prized less highly than sons, since they were useless in war and the chase. Warlike gentes found it more economical to obtain their wives by robbery than to rear them from childhood, — hence the prevalence of infanticide of females among such gentes. 1 Relationship was necessarily agnatic. 2 The wife was cut off from her kindred and was to them as one that is dead. Her relatives were enemies of her husband’s gens. At this early period there was no love of country, since the gentes were nomadic or half-nomadic; there was no ancestor-worship of the noble type found among Greeks and Hindoos, while men put to death their aged parents. Selfishness was, in general, the rule of life. Yet there must have been some affection be- tween parents and children, some love of brother for brother, else no development of higher moral principles had been possible. Such in outline was the primitive Aryan family. The next stage in its growth will now be considered. There are strong reasons for believing that this stage is represented in its main features by the House-community as it exists to-day among the South-Slavonians. 3 The organization and general character of this type of family is as follows. The South-Slavonian House-community consists of not more than 65-70 members, all related within the fourth or fifth degree (agnatic). 4 The government is monarchical, 5 the house-father wielding practi- 1 Schrader, Sprachvergleichung und U rgeschichte, pp. 562-4. Among the ancient Hindoos “to have daughters was a sorrow”; Zimmer, Altindisches Leben, p. 320. The house and name depend upon sons not daughters; Krauss, Sitte und Brauch der Siidslaven, p. 472. 2 There was an Aryan name for father’s brother but not for mother’s brother; Schrader, op. cit., p. 539. Cf. Delbriick, Die indogermanischen Verwandtschafts- namen, pp. 586-8. Again, no common Aryan designation existed for son-in-law (Schrader, op. cit ., p. 542), nor for any of the wife’s relatives, id., pp. 543-4. Thus no kinship was acknowledged between the families of husband and wife. Cf. Delbriick, op. cit., p. 382. 8 Schrader, op. cit., p. 569. 4 Krauss, op. cit., p. 75. Most families are far smaller than this. 0 Krauss, op. cit., p. 80. THE PATRIARCHAL THEORY. 3 cally almost unlimited authority. There is, indeed, a family council, made up of the adult males, before which the house- father must lay all business of importance ; yet it rarely happens that anyone here opposes his will . 1 He is never called proprietor, — but manager, elder, or the like, — and has no more right to the property than the other grown up men . 2 His duties are as follows: he supervises the labors of the members personally, admonishes the culpable, keeps order in the house, and settles quarrels among those under his authority. He represents the whole family and each of its members before the courts, protecting them from every injustice. He must himself act impartially towards all. On the other hand, noth- ing of importance in the family may be undertaken without his consent, and to him must be accorded the highest honor and respect by all the members of the Community. He is treas- urer also of the common funds and may expend money to meet the needs of the household . 3 He has the right to nominate his successor. In most cases his oldest son or younger brother is thus appointed. But if he dies without making a nomina- 1 The council generally meets after supper ; — in winter, around the kitchen fire, in summer, under a tree in the court; Krauss, op. cit., p. ioi. The business gener- ally has reference to the giving out of a maid in marriage, construction of build- ings, or any important financial matter. The house-father first states the question and advises as to what ought to be done. Rarely does anyone speak unless invited to do so; id. pp. 101-2. “When an older man speaks, a younger should keep silent,” is a Slavonian proverb; id. p. 102. No vote is taken, but there must be unanimity; id. p. 102. If any man dissents, he is overwhelmed by the per- suasions of his relatives both male and female; id. p. 103. 2 Krauss, op. cit., p. 79: “ Er ist bloss der Erste unter mehreren Him Gleichbe- rechtigten .” Schrader, Sprachvergleichung und Urgeschichte, p. 571, is of the opinion that to restore the Aryan family, we must substitute for this limited authority the severe potestas of the Roman type. While this seems true for the primitive Aryan family, there was probably a considerable weakening of the potestas in many tribes before the separation of the races. A patria potestas of the Roman type must not be assumed for the early Greeks, Slavonians, Hindoos, and Germans. 3 Krauss, op. cit., pp. 88-9. As special honors are mentioned his right to wear better clothes than the others and to serve his children before the others at table. 14 TIIE ATHENIAN CONSTITUTION. tion, the oldest man of the community generally succeeds, if qualified. 1 The house-father is liable to deposal under the following circumstances : 2 1. When he has reached the age of 60. At this time of life he generally resigns voluntarily. 2. When he by his conduct brings shame upon the family : e.g., when he is convicted of a crime or of drunkenness, or spends the public money extravagantly or selfishly. 3. When he shows partiality. 4. When he is afflicted by some chronic sickness which hinders him in the performance of his duties. There is also a house-mother who was originally the wife of the father ; yet she is often passed by in favor of the most intelligent and prudent woman of the household. The house- mother superintends the women in their work, appointing to each her task. No one is allowed to sit idle. She sees that the guests are well entertained and that they have sufficient food and drink. 3 No expenses may be incurred without the house-father’s approval. Her influence in the family is great, and she also enjoys in return for her labor, certain honors and privileges. 4 Each member of the community is obliged to render un- conditional obedience to the head of the house, to require the same of his wife, to care for house property as if it were his own, to live in peace and concord with his fellows. He has a right to take part in the consultations of the family, to give his opinion and vote, to have decent clothing for himself, wife, 1 In the latter case, the eldest calls the council, announces the death of the chief, and advises to consult as to a successor. Then the next to the eldest arising advises to hold to the ancient customs and to consider the eldest as chief. Then follow the ceremonies of paying respects to their new chief ; Krauss, op. cit., pp. 85-6. 2 Krauss, op. cit., p. 86. The deposal is made in the council under the lead of the eldest (after the chief). 8 Krauss, op. cit., pp. 89-90. 4 Krauss, op. cit., p. 90. THE PATRIARCHAL THEORY. 15 and children, and a little money for pet indulgences, and oc- casionally to entertain guests. Himself, wife and children may share in the religious privileges of the community, and may expect protection and just treatment. Expenses for the marriage of son or daughter are provided for by the house- hold. 1 If he goes abroad to seek his fortune and fails, he is at liberty to return to his community. 2 The marriage ceremonies of the South-Slavonians have, as it appears, grown out of the custom of capture, on the one hand, and the institutions of hearth-worship and ancestor- worship on the other. 3 The father, or nearest male relative, gives the maiden in marriage into the power of her husband. 4 The custom of robbery has, for the most part, ceased at this stage, and the relations between the two families are peaceful and friendly. 5 The object of marriage from the standpoint of the male is to have a housekeeper and a mother of his children. 6 The youth becomes a man at marriage, and takes, accordingly, an independent standing in the community. 7 There was formerly among the South-Slavonians a prohibition of intermarriage within the phratry {brats tv 6 ) ; yet this prohi- bition did not originally exist, and has now again fallen into 1 Krauss, Sitte und Brauch der Sudslaven, p. 101. 2 Id., p. 99. 3 The bridegroom and party, arriving at the house of the bride’s father, find the doors barred, and must purchase admission; Krauss, op. cit., p. 394. In Bulgaria it is customary at the bridegroom’s door to throw a man’s girdle about the bride and attempt to draw her into the house. She at first resists, but finally, receiving a promise of something which she desires, allows herself to be drawn in ; id., p. 449. For ceremonies connected with the hearth, id., pp. 395, 386 ; cf. Zimmer, Altindisches Leben, p. 312; Rigveda X. pp. 85, 38. 4 In Croatia, the bridegroom slaps the bride’s ears to show that he is her master. Krauss, op. cit., p. 385; cf. Rigveda X. 85, 24-5. 6 Kinship through marriage is not recognized, — the South-Slavonians call their wife’s kinsmen 11 friends” ; Krauss,*?/. cit., p. 14. This holds for the Aryans in common ; Delbriick, Die indogermanischen Verwandtschaftsnamen, p. 591. As time went on a kinship developed; id. See also Schrader, op. cit., p. 545. 6 Krauss, op. cit., pp. 496, 493. Cf. Zimmer, op. cit., pp. 318-9, for Vedic India. 7 Krauss, op. cit., p. 490. l6 THE ATHENIAN CONSTITUTION. disuse . 1 The wife is mistress within the house (where this exists apart from the community), and even of her aged parents-in-law ; 2 yet remains distinctly inferior to her hus- band . 3 She drudges to support the household, and is rewarded with little affection and kindness from her lord . 4 Monogamy is the rule, but if the wife is sterile, another may be chosen . 6 The present Slavonian custom permits the widow to marry again ; yet here there has taken place a great change from early Aryan usage . 6 Children are under the absolute power of the father . 7 Sons are especially prized, since on these alone depend the continu- ance of family and name . 8 Children must respect and obey 1 Krauss, Sitte und Brauch der Siidslaven, p. 40. Intermarriage within the eighth and ninth degree, male line, and within the fourth degree, female line, is now considered a sin and shame; id., p. 336. Other impediments to marriage are bodily defects : blindness, stinking breath, impotence, etc.; toe. cit. 2 Krauss, op. cit., pp. 479, 481, 494-5. Cf. Rigveda, X. 85, 46. 3 South-Slavonian proverbs : “ he who whips not his wife is no man ” ; “ the bitch may bark, the wife must hold her tongue”; “a man of straw is equal to a a woman of gold”; Krauss, op. cit., 94, 483. The inferiority of the wife appears also from the fact that no Aryan word existed to designate husband and wife as a pair; Delbriick, op. cit., p. 440. 4 Selfishness of husband, Krauss, op. cit., pp. 527-8; often desires the death of his wife, and refuses to be comforted if she recovers from sickness; id., p. 528. She has no voice in the management of the house; id., p. 94. She is not adviser and friend in any high sense; id., p. 499. “A prudent wife is a great blessing,” — a proverb which must have arisen in comparatively late times, and does not represent the opinion prevalent to-day. She is regarded merely as a grown-up child; id., p. 501. 5 Krauss, op. cit., p. 229. Cf. pp. 530, 533, 553. Apastamba, XI. 5. 11, 13, probably goes back to the earliest times. Polygamy was permitted in primitive times, but could not have been extensive; Schrader, Sprachvergleichung und Urgeschichte, p. 560; Zimmer, Altindisches Leben, pp. 324-5. 0 The widow must not marry again; Delbriick, op. cit., p. 555. It was the Slavic wife’s duty to kill herself on the death of her husband; Zimmer, op. cit., P- 33 °* 7 “The father is master of their lives as God of their souls”; Krauss, op. cit., p. 471. Yet his power is undoubtedly less severe now than in early Aryan times. 8 Krauss, op. cit., p. 472, 540-1. No wish is expressed in the Vedic songs for the birth of a daughter. Cf. Atharva-Veda, VI. 11. Infanticide of daughters is com- mon; Krauss, op. cit., p. 544; Zimmer, op. cit., p. 319. THE PATRIARCHAL THEORY. 7 their parents , * 1 support them in old age, perform for them the funeral rites, and hold them in remembrance before God and the world. 2 The eldest is most prominent among the sons, and generally steps into the place of the deceased father . 3 Where sons are wanting, adoption is resorted to. The adopted son must renounce family name, patron saint, and kinship with his father for corresponding connections with the family which he enters. 4 An heiress is allowed to choose her own husband, if there are no male relatives within the household to perform this service for her . 5 It constantly happens that House-communities of this kind separate, for various reasons, into their component families . 6 1 Krauss, Sitte und Brauch der Sudslaven, pp. 84, 94. 2 Krauss, op. cit., pp. 470-1. 3 This applies only when the father is at the head of the community. In other cases, the mature sons are, at the death of the father, on an equal footing. For prominence of eldest son, Delbriick, op. cit., p. 578. Eldest son took the place of the deceased father ; Zimmer, Altindisches Leben, p. 328. 4 Krauss, op. cit., p. 470. The Slavonian customs of adoption are remarkably sim- ilar to those of the Greeks, Hindoos, etc. The patron saint has now taken the place of the family gods of pagan times. 5 Krauss, op. cit., p. 468. If she has relatives, she chooses one of these. Cf. Bii- cheler und Zitelmann, Das Recht von Gortyn, p. 150, for the Greeks. Under any other circumstances the maid must wait at home for a wooer ; Krauss, op. cit., p. 201 ; Zimmer, op. cit., p. 305. It is esteemed a great misfortune not to get a husband ; Krauss, loc. cit. ; Rigveda, I. 123, n; VII. 25 ; Atharva-Veda, VI. 60 ; III. 18. An exaggerated value is laid on maidenly purity ; Krauss, op. cit., p. 197. 6 Krauss, op. cit., p. in, gives the following reasons for separation : 1. The women do not agree. Their quarrels are probably not confined to the female sex. 2. Private property arises in the Community. This is now a frequent cause of separation, but in early Aryan times it must have occurred far more rarely. 3. Injustice on the part of the ruler or his wife. It is likely that sensitiveness to this wrong has increased with the lapse of centuries. 4. When a soldier has many children, whom the Community does not wish to support. This cause has come in with the changed environment of the Community. 5. When one of the members is lazy or a thief, he is excluded. When the offense is light he is allowed to retain his property ; and this causes a partial division. A grave crime may exclude a man, with confiscation of property. 6. When the Community grows too large. 8 THE ATHENIAN CONSTITUTION. In one sort of division, the families move into separate houses, at some distance from one another, that a wider extent of space may be occupied, yet still retain their property in common. 1 In another sort, each family takes its share of property and thus becomes a new House-community exactly like the old. The new House-communities, thus arising, still retain for one another a feeling of kinship, occupy a continuous territory, hold some property in common, and deliberate in a general assembly concerning the welfare of the whole. The union of House-communities is called a “ Brotherhood ” ( bratstvo , Gk. (f>paTpLa). New Brotherhoods may be. formed in this manner at any time. 2 These vary greatly in size, containing from 30 or 50 to 700 or 800 fighting men, a bratstvo of 200 warriors being sufficiently strong to secure respect. 3 The bratstvenici are bound together not only by the sentiment of common origin and blood, but also by the common worship of a protecting deity from whom all the members of a bratstvo claim descent. Since the introduction of Christianity, a patron saint has taken the place of the deity ; but the eponymous hero is still cele- brated in song though shorn of his divine qualities. 4 In every bratstvo there still remains the periodical festival in honor of the hero ancestor (or patron saint), which keeps alive the 1 Krauss, Sitte und Brauch der Siidslaven, p. 114. 2 Krauss, op. cit ., p. 33 ; cf. n. 1. Common property : church, grave-yard, mills, pastureland, id., p. 40. Members of a bratstvo regard each other as kinsmen, and formerly would not intermarry. Furthermore, they help one another on every occasion of need. If a man’s house burns, his fellows ( bratstvenici ) contribute to the re-building. If a man wishes to marry but cannot afford it, his fellows help him. If, on the other hand, he wishes to sell real-estate, he must offer it first to his bratstvenici ; if these do not care to purchase, to the members of the other bratstva of his tribe, — he is not allowed to sell it to a stranger ; id., p. 40. 8 Krauss, op. cit., pp. 33, 40. A brave man counts for nothing in a weak bratstvo ; id., pp. 33-4. Members of a bratstvo try to maintain its honor and will not marry into an inferior bratstvo ; id., p. 41. 4 They celebrate the hero ancestor of their bratstvo in an epic poem of mythical contents ascribing to him all manner of wondrous deeds and placing him as far back as possible in the past ; Krauss, op. cit., p. 42. THE PATRIARCHAL THEORY. 19 phratric idea even where, for various reasons, it is growing faint . 1 The bratstvenici are bound together also by the blood- feud, which prevails to a remarkable extent even at the present day . 2 Every bratstvo has an assembly in which the heads of the component House-communities enjoy equal rights of speech and suffrage . 3 In war the bratstvenici stand together in one band 4 under their elective military chief . 5 A bratstvo sometimes consists of a single village, but more frequently of several villages . 6 7 When it grows large it becomes a tribe ( phyle , plane'), its component House-commu- nities at the same time developing into bratstva ? The district occupied by a pleme is called a zupa , 8 and its ruler zupan. 1 Krauss, Sitte und Brauch der Siidslaven, pp. 51-4. 2 When a member of a bratstvo is killed by a member of another bratstvo , the fellows of the murdered man wreak vengeance on the murderer, if he can be found ; if not, on the father, brother, or son ; if none of these can be found, on one of his bratstvenici ; Krauss, op. cit., p. 139. When compensation is allowed, it is paid by the entire bratstvo of the offender ; id., pp. 39-40. The phratric name is borne by every member as a protection against murder, since no one would be likely to kill a man who was known to belong to a strong bratstvo ; id., p. 47. 3 Krauss, op. cit., pp. 38-9. The other adult males of the bratstvo may attend the assembly and cry “yea” and “nay.” All questions of importance come before the assembly. For Germany and India, see Zimmer, Altindisches Leben, p. 174. 4 Krauss, op. cit., p. 39. For India, Rigveda, X. 84, 3 ; VII. 79, 2; V. 61, 1. For the ancient Germans, Tacitus, Germania 7. For the ancient Greeks, Iliad, II. 362-4. For the ancient Italians, Leist, Graeco-italische Rechtsgeschichte, pp. 139 f - 6 Krauss, op. cit., p. 38. It is evident that anciently the leadership of the bratstvo was hereditary (id., p. 35), as is the present office of knez (king) in some phratries. But the elective military official ( glava , steresina) has in many bratstva gained the upper hand in administrative functions. 6 Krauss, op. cit., p. 39. Sometimes several bratstva are represented in one village. The village is recognized as the seat of a family, — hence the name of most vil- lages are patronymic; id., p. 23. 7 Krauss, op. cit., pp. 20-21, 2. Partially fictitious tribes — those made up of sev- eral bratstva which are not branches of an original bratstvo — occur rarely; id., p. 57. Sometimes a bratstvo for protection enters a foreign pleme ; id., p. 58. 8 This word signified originally “household,” then “ village-community,” then “district” and especially “district occupied by a tribe.” The word “zupan” (tribe-leader) has had a similar development from its original meaning “house- holder” or “house-father” ; Krauss, op. cit., pp. 18-19. Vi^pati has gone through a similar development among the Hindoos ; Zimmer, op. cit., p. 17 1. 20 THE ATHENIAN CONSTITUTION. Each zupa contains at least one stronghold in some easily de- fended spot (as on a steep hill ), 1 which formerly served also as the religious and political center of the tribe . 2 The duties of the zupan were originally administrative, judicial, military, and probably religious ; 3 but in the course of time the military functions passed into the hands of the military chief ( Pole- march , Herzog , Vojvodci). The appointment of the latter was made by the zupan and ratified by the people. Sometimes he came to be also the chief civil magistrate . 4 The zupan’s income was originally derived from a portion of the public land set apart for his use, and from free gifts of his subjects . 5 The political institutions of the Slavic tribe have undoubtedly developed from those of the household , 6 and the idea of com- 1 Krauss, op. cit ., p. 22. Cf. ’AKpoiroXis of the Greeks. For India, Manu, VII. 70, 7 1 ; Institutes of Vishnu, III. 6. 2 Krauss, op. cit., p. 22. Here the elders of the tribe met for deliberation and from here they were accustomed to set out for war. Cf. the samiti (tribal-assem- bly) of the Hindoos; Zimmer, op. cit., p. 174. Assemblies of Attic tribes continued through historical times. 3 Krauss, op. cit., pp. 26, 22. Cf. the r&jan of the Hindoos ; Zimmer, op. cit., p. 158. The latter was originally hereditary (id., p. 162), but later some elective monarchies arose, in which the king was probably chosen from some noble family or gens (id., pp. 162-3) as among the South-Slavonians ; Krauss, op. cit., pp. 30-31. The king was in ancient India protector of the people (Rigveda, III. 43, 5), must be respected and obeyed (Rigveda, I. 69, 1 ; IX. 7, 5), held chief command in war (Zimmer, op. cit., p. 165) and offered sacrifice for the tribe at critical moments, as before a battle ; id., pp. 165-6. 4 Krauss, op. cit., p. 25. 6 Krauss, op. cit., p. 27. These gifts were afterward fixed by law, and other sources of income added. The Germans did not pay their chief fixed tributes, but free gifts; Tacitus, Germania, XV. So the Hindoos; Rigveda, X. 173. This is true also of the Homeric Greeks, as will appear hereafter. As among the Slavs, so among the Germans and Hindoos, voluntary gifts generally developed to fixed tribute; Zimmer, Altindisches Leben, p. 166. 6 This is indicated partly by their character, partly by their names and finally by the fact of development, clearly demonstrated, from family to tribe. As to names, cf. e.g., zupan, already discussed. In the Croatian Chronicle, the entire state is called didina (“grandfather’s estate”); Krauss, op. cit., p. 24. The ancient I lindoo monarchy developed from rule of the father ; Zimmer, op. cit., p. 162. So of the Romans; Mommsen, History of Rome, I. pp. 96-7. THE PATRIARCHAL THEORY. 21 mon blood, worship, and property, though comparatively faint, is yet vital . 1 Kindred tribes sometimes united for temporary objects. In this case the king of the most powerful tribe is regarded as the king of the confederacy . 2 Such a leader is not to be compared with the king of a state of the more developed type, but stands among his fellow tribe-kings as primus inter pares . 3 This is the highest political development at- tained by the Aryans before the separation of the races, and by most of the South-Slavonic tribes down to the present time . 4 We have now discussed the South-Slavonic family with sufficient detail for our present purposes, and have pointed out those modifications which it has undergone from early Aryan times. Making allowance for these remarkably few and slight modifications, we may conveniently term it the “Early Aryan family,” and may regard it as the second stage in the development of the household on Aryan ground. We have traced also the growth of family to tribe as it is now actually taking place among the South-Slavonians, and as it 1 Christianity has obscured the ancient religion. At present the common prop- erty of the tribe consists mostly of forest and pasture lands ; Krauss, op. cit., pp. 62-3. The tribe formerly had the right to decide (through its chief) whether a stranger should be admitted to any one of its component bratstva and to bring into the common property the real estate of an extinct Community ; Krauss, op. cit., p. 29. 2 No permanent union of tribes in Aryan times was effected. For ancient Ger- mans and Vedic Hindoos, see Zimmer, Altindisches Leben, p. 158. The Homeric kings were, in the main, tribe-kings as will appear from ch. III. of this treatise. For the South-Slavonian tribes, see Krauss, Sitte und Brauch der Siidslaven, pp. 2 > I5-3L 57-63* 3 Krauss, op. cit., p. 21. 4 Schrader, Sprachvergleichung und Urgeschichte, pp. 583-4, is of the opinion that the kingship (of the state, permanent union of the tribes) developed in con- nection with the migration of the races, and that the South-Slavonians had no opportunity to advance to this conception, since they remained nearest to the primitive home of the Aryan race. 22 T1IE ATHENIAN CONSTITUTION. undoubtedly did take place in early times in all the branches of the Aryan race . 1 The organization and institutions of the early Aryan family underwent modifications in certain direc- tions before the period of migration. Before the close of the early Aryan stage there had developed through the House- community a family with strictly defined limits, whose members were bound together by the tie of blood for the fulfilment of mutual duties and obligations. This family consisted of all the descendants — through the male line — -of the same great- grandparents. From it were separated the illegitimate child, the outcast, the emancipated son, the daughter given out in marriage ; to it were admitted the adopted son and the wife who came from another family. Thus, marriage dissolved the kinship of the bride with the family of her birth and brought her — but not her father’s relatives — into kinship with her husband’s household. In the course of time, however, a kinship was developed between households connected by marriage, the wife was no longer cut off from her kinsmen in blood, her children came to be regarded as belonging in a certain sense to both families, and the two families — now cognate in relationship — began to overlap each other, like two intersecting circles. This group of cognate relationship began probably before the separation of the races but was not completed till long afterwards . 2 Closely connected with the widening of kinship is the elevation of woman and of the ideal of home life. The noble sentiment and high moral tone of the 1 Cf. Zimmer, Altindisches Leben, pp. 159-60. 2 Schrader, op. cit., p. 550, grants the possibility of placing the beginning of this development in Aryan times. His tendency is to place the beginnings of human improvement as late as possible. For the organization of the family in its wider sense (the Anchisteis), see Delbriick, Die indogermanischen Verwandtschaftsnamen, p. 591. It may be well here to present a few of the facts which indicate a widen- ing of the idea of kinship : 1. As to the Slavs : “The Polians showed much respect for their parents and their relations, and to their daughters-in-law, fathers-in-law, and brothers-in-law.” McLennan, Patriarchal Theory, p. 76. The right of private revenge was limited by the code of Jaroslav, 1017 A.D., to “the brother, the son, the father, the brother’s THE PATRIARCHAL THEORY. 23 latter as portrayed in Homer * 1 and the Vedas 2 lead us to sus- pect that a considerable improvement along this line had been made on Aryan ground . 3 At the same time there took place a weakening of the father’s potestas 4 and a development of the separate family . 5 This conduced to the growth of individuality in the household and to a close union in helpfulness and affection . 6 son, and the sister’s son,” id., p. 85. These facts prove the absence of strict agnation among the Slavs. 2. As to the Germans and Hindoos : we have the authority of Tacitus (Ger- mania, XX.) for the fact that a sister’s sons were as highly esteemed by their uncle as by their father, and that this tie was even more sacred and binding than that between father and son. Delbriick, op. cit ., p. 589, observes that this bond is merely one of kind feeling (“ gemuthlich ”), since the inheritance follows the male line. The existence of this kind feeling, however, and the fact that maternal uncles stand next in succession after brothers and paternal uncles prove that strict agna- tion did not exist among the Germans at this time. Yet it is not a survival of Mutterrecht , but a development from agnation. In India, the history of this change may be traced : in ancient India the father’s brother was respected more than the mother’s brother ; but in the middle period of her history (“ im indischen Mittelalter ”) the mother’s brother had crowded the father’s brother from his place; Delbriick, op. cit., pp. 589, 586-8. 1 Cf. Od. IV., VI.; also the meeting of Hector and Andromache in Iliad VI. 2 Zimmer, Altindisches Leben, p. 316. 3 For the Slavonians : “Instead of being in perpetual tutelage, Olga (a widow) was her son’s guardian and regent of the kingdom with all the powers of a sovereign ”; McLennan, Patriarchal Theory, p. 79. Several similar cases occur in Homeric Greece. Indeed, it appears that the perpetual tutelage of woman belongs to the Romans alone. 4 The Hindoos (Manu, VIII. 299-300), Greeks, Germans (McLennan, op. cit., p. 252 ff) and South-Slavonians (Krauss, Sitte und Brauch der Siidslaven, p. 79) knew nothing of the patria potestas of the Roman type. It is likely here that an early weakening took place. 5 In Aryan times, the son’s family remained in close connection with the father’s family — generally a local nearness; Delbriick, op. cit., p. 590. The father and son had property together, although living in separate houses. Among the ancient Hindoos, Greeks, and Romans, the “joint family” had become exceptional; Schr f ader, Sprachvergleichung und Urgeschichte, pp. 569-70. 6 The son should obey his father and be like-minded with his mother ; the wife should speak to her husband in honey-sweet words of friendship; Atharva-Veda, III. 30, 2. Brother should not hate brother, nor sister, sister; id. 3. The father is master, but all should render willing obedience; Zimmer, op. cit., p. 316. The 24 THE ATHENIAN CONSTITUTION. Progress in the directions above indicated was materially aided by the development in the early Aryan family of the idea of divine law. This idea was a product of Aryan religion, — more particularly, of ancestor-worship * 1 and hearth-worship. These two forms, if not identical, are similar in character, and may be designated by the one term, house-worship . 2 The general effect of this worship was to make of the house a temple, to promote respect for parents, to enhance the value of women and children, whence came greater regard for their well-being, to add the tie of religion to that of blood, to render sacred the duties and obligations of house has now become the “ protected place ” (kuca) among the South-Slavonians ; Krauss, op. cit., pp. 72-3. 1 Schrader, Sprachvergleichung und Urgeschichte, pp. 613-5, is of the opinion that ancestor-worship arose after the separation of the races ; yet there are sub- stantial reasons for placing it earlier. Relics of ancestor-worship are found among nearly if not quite all of the Aryan races ; Hearn, Aryan Household, pp. 45-6, 59- 60. Among the Romans it was so deeply seated in the earliest times as to lead us to believe that ages had elapsed since its origin. Among the Vedic Hindoos, the fathers ( pitaras ) dwell with the gods and receive almost divine honors ; Zimmer, Altindisches Leben, p. 413. They are often called on for protection, and are worshiped with offerings and libations ; Rigveda, X. 15; Zimmer, loc. cit. The life of the Vedic Hindoos does not appear to be far removed from that of the common Aryans. For ancestor-worship in primitive Greece, see Packard, Studies in Greek Thought, p. 35, and J. H. Wright, in his review of the same, Am. Journ. of Phil. VIII. p. 88, n. 1. “ On the strength of evidence from the grave-mon- uments of Peloponnesus and of Attica lately made available, the word ‘ possibly ’ should be erased from the statement that the primal impulse to worship produced among the ancestors of the Greeks ‘ possibly a worship of the dead.’ This wor- ship, of which these monuments are the record, could hardly have sprung up on the soil of Greece.” Rohde (Psyche), from a study of these monuments and of Homer and Hesiod, has now established the fact of ancestor-worship for primitive Greece beyond a doubt. Schrader is therefore wrong in regarding it as a develop- ment later than Homer. For ancestor-worship among the primitive Germans, see Rohde, op. cit., pp. 31-2 ; among the South-Slavonians, Krauss, op. cit., pp. 51 ff. It is likely that this worship existed in a crude form from the most primitive Aryan times, but did not till long after become a power for the moral education of society. 2 The ancestor was never worshiped on an altar (/Solo's, such as is used for sacrificing to the gods), but on a hearth (iox^P a ) > Pollux, I. 8; Rohde, Psyche, p. 33 and n. 2. This shows the close connection between ancestor-worship and house-worship. THE PATRIARCHAL THEORY. 25 all within the consecrated circle of the family. The idea of divine law did not become sufficiently prominent to influ- ence society before the close of the Early Aryan stage of history. Two periods may be thus distinguished : the first is the Rta period (or period of natural law) ; the second, the Dharma period (or period of divine law ). 1 The first period includes the two stages in the history of the Aryan family above set forth, viz., the Primitive Aryan and the Early Aryan. The Dharma period includes but one stage of family history, viz., the Later Aryan , 2 to be considered in the following chapter. As to when the later Aryan period begins there is much difference of opinion. In view of all the facts, it is well to place its beginning not long before the separation of the races, while its full development was attained centuries afterwards. Moreover, it is only for certain of the Aryan races, notably for the Hindoos, Greeks and Romans, that our information warrants us in asserting a full development of the idea of divine law — to the extent that it colored and moulded all the legal and political institutions of these races . 3 In the following chapter the Later Aryan family will be presented with reference especially to the Hindoos, Greeks, Romans and Slavonians. The object of this is to throw as much light as possible upon the early Grecian family and gens, 1 Further explanation of these terms will be given in the following chapter. 2 I have applied the terms “ Primitive ” “Early,” and “Later” with the purpose merely of indicating as definitely as possible the lines of progress which the family appears to have followed. Families of the Primitive type undoubtedly existed among the less favored Aryans even after the separation of the races. In like manner, the Early type has continued to the present day, e.g., among the South- Slavonians. The development of a new form of society did not exclude the old, but the new and the old continued thereafter side by side. At the time of par- tition, there existed two principal types of the family, thus distinguishing two grades of society. The Early type prevailed among the common classes, while the Later family existed only among the nobility. 3 The idea of divine law belonged undoubtedly to the common Aryan stock and was the parent of common Aryan institutions, e. g., that of blood-vengeance. Among the South-Slavonians it certainly moulded, if it did not create, the customs of marriage, adoption, etc. 26 THE ATHENIAN CONSTITUTION. to bring to the solution of problems arising in the study of these as many known factors as possible. House-worship developed within the family. The common sacra of the gens — a mere enlargement of the family — need for their origin no special explanation. The same may, indeed, be said of phratry and tribe, where these have developed organic- ally from the family. But as we ascend the gentile scale, we observe a growing tendency to create factitious groups. Neighboring gentes belonging to the same tribe united to form a phratry, whether on the basis of a similarity of religious rites, readily assumed as indicative of a relationship in blood, or whether on the basis of local contiguity and an identity of interest. Members of this larger group in the latter case as in the former regarded one another as kinsmen (as the term paTpia, bratstvo , indicates). Finally the tribe yielded to the prevailing tendency, and received in its legal, social, and political institutions the impression of the divine law. Beyond this the Aryans, before the separation of the races, did not advance . 1 We shall trace on Greek soil the development of the city, and shall find that to the very end of their classic history the Greeks were in bondage to two ideas : first, that the city is the ultimate limit of political unity, and second, that the city is a family, into the enjoyment of whose privileges none may enter except by birth or adoption. 1 Leist, Graeco-italische Rechtsgeschichte, p. 105. CHAPTER II. THE ARYAN GENS. , (a) The Aryan Household. The Aryan household, in its wider signification, was com- posed of the cognate parents (father and mother), the legiti- mate sons (or adopted son), the grandsons and great-grandsons with the lawful wives of all these, the unmarried daughters, sons’ daughters and grandsons’ daughters, — a brotherless daughter being, in all cases, esteemed equal to a son . 1 It included also property 2 and slaves . 3 It was customary for the son at marriage to depart from the paternal roof and from the father’s authority and to enter a new dwelling built for his use . 4 He still belonged by agnation to the house of his father and was liable to all the obligations of its members. Although he was from the time of marriage the possessor of a hearth and a free member of the gens, his house did not become fully inde- pendent in religious and property matters till the death of the father 5 and the final division of the property . 6 When it was 1 That the household included definitely these persons will appear in the course of this chapter. Cf. Mommsen, History of Rome, I. ch. V. p. 88. For the four generations, see Isaeus, VIII. 32 ; Law