November 21, 1895] 



NATURE 



51 



GREEK TRIBAL SOCIETY. 



On the Sirucittre of Greek Tribal Society. An Essay. By 

 H. E. Seebohm. (London: Macmillanand Co., 1895.) 



IN this scholarly and modest essay, the author has 

 collected some of the evidence relating to a certain 

 stage in the development of Greek society, the 

 existence of which rims some danger of being insuffi- 

 ciently recognised by students of ancient history. 

 " Greek" society to most people means, in the first place, 

 the society described in the Homeric poems ; in the 

 second, Athenian society from the fifth century down- 

 wards. These limitations of the field are the natural 

 outcome of the paramount importance of Homeric and 

 Athenian literature ; information as to the structure of 

 society in other parts of Greece and at other periods 

 of Greek history can, with a few exceptions, only be 

 gleaned from incidental references in Homer and the 

 Attic writers, and from the data afforded by comparative 

 anthropology. To a certain extent Mr. Seebohm's field 

 of observation may still seem to be somewhat confined, 

 and his work would have been more valuable had the 

 ievf facts known of the life of the less civilised parts of 

 ancient Greece been more extensively utilised. To this 

 end we could, perhaps, have spared some of the detailed 

 discussion of the better-known survivals of tribal institu- 

 tions in Athenian society of the fourth century. 



Within these limits, however, Mr. Seebohm's treatment 

 of the subject merits little but praise. His employment 

 of the comparative method is throughout judicious. 

 Outside the Greek world, he has utilised three main 

 sources of information — the Old Testament, the Ordin- 

 ances of Manu (a code going back in its present form 

 probably to the fifth or fourth century B.C.), and the 

 Welsh law. The selection, as he admits, is arbitrary, 

 particularly in the exclusion of the Roman system from 

 the field of comparison. But the highly-organised cha- 

 racter of the latter is a source of danger when it is used 

 for comparison with the looser structure under considera- 

 tion, and its exclusion is therefore somewhat of a relief. 



Most investigations of the structure of ancient political 

 systems must begin with Aristotle. His treatise on 

 *' Politics," however, deals with society in its highest 

 stage, with man's activity tov d (r^v, not merely tou (jiv 

 (Vfna. It is with the previous stage that we are 

 here concerned ; in fact, with what he calls " village " 

 life — the " village " being a convenient term for the 

 union of families, whether living close together or 

 not, just as the state, or political union, is the combina- 

 tion of "villages," whether within one city-wall or 

 scattered about a district. This " village " life has four 

 main characteristics. As society begins in the family, the 

 first and most important, on which all the others depend, 

 is the bond of kinship. Secondly, the body must be 

 organised, and this necessitates a government. The 

 permanence of the society is maintained in two ways — 

 by the cultivation of the land, and by the worship of the 

 gods ; in the first place those of the family, in the second 

 those of the community. As the village is merged in the 

 state, which reproduces on a larger scale, and therefore 

 in a less intense degree, the relations of early society, the 

 order of things is reversed. But the old relations continue 

 to exist within the larger group, and it is these still- 

 NO. 1360, VOL. 53] 



existing tribal elements that we have to trace in the 

 complex political society. 



Mr. Seebohm's work falls into two main parts, dealing 

 with the nature of kinship, and the relation of the family 

 to the land, thus approaching the subject from the point 

 of view of the first and third characteristics mentioned 

 above. Undoubtedly this is a more scientific method 

 than that (identified with the name of de Coulanges) 

 which commences with the religious union, or that 

 which lays most stress on the system of government. 

 Primitive man is not in the first instance religious ; his 

 religion is only one of the forces which he brings into play 

 to preserve his family or tribal unity ; and government is 

 another such force. The cultivation of the land, again, is 

 of the first necessity, unless the tribe subsists on plunder. 

 Any properly historical investigation should therefore 

 begin with these two matters. 



With regard to the nature of kinship, a great deal of 

 information can be extracted from the private speeches of 

 the Attic orators. Into this part of the subject, as we 

 have already said, Mr. Seebohm has gone very fully. 

 Two points seem to be of special importance, the 

 supremacy of the head of the family, and the limitation 

 of the " inner-circle " or dyxKrrfia, the group of blood- 

 relations, " responsible to each other for succession . . . 

 for vengeance and purification after injury received by 

 any member, and for all duties shared by kindred blood." 

 As regards the nature of the government of the group, 

 there is one feature which might perhaps have been 

 dwelt upon a little more than it has been ; that is, the 

 limitation of the supremacy of the head of the family. 

 Every household was ruled by its oldest member ; but at 

 the same time a passage from Plato, quoted by Mr. 

 Seebohm himself (p. 60), shows that certain measures, 

 such as the disinheritance of a member of the family, 

 could not be undertaken without the consent of the 

 kindred : " He who . . . has a mind ... to expel from 

 his family a son . . . shall collect together his own 

 kinsmen, extending to (first) cousins, and in like manner 

 his son's kinsmen by the mother's side, and in their 

 presence he shall accuse his son, setting forth that he 

 deserves at the hands of thetn all to be dismissed from 

 the family." This family-council is an i mportant factor 

 in tribal life, particularly as being the prototype of the 

 council of the city-state, which, as already remarked, 

 only reproduces on a larger scale the relations of the 

 previous stage of society. 



In limiting the ayx'-vrtia to the degree of great-grand- 

 son, Mr. Seebohm seems to be quite right, although 

 there are authorities who interpret TratSfs in the crucial 

 expression av^'^ioiv Trai8ts as meaning not merely children, 

 but descendants. The evidence afforded by the litigation 

 between the members of the family of Bouselos, which is ex- 

 cellently described on pp. 62^., seems to make this clear. 

 The closeness of family relations in Greece gave rise 

 to a curious state of things as regards the position of 

 the illegitimate child. The position of the vodos 

 is perhaps not quite clearly stated by Mr. Seebohm. 

 In one sense he had no place in the kindred. He could 

 not be admitted to the phratria without the consent of 

 the true son. The laws of Solon allowed no right of 

 inheritance to the bastard, except in the case of failure of 

 legitimate heirs. (It is true that the scholiast on the 



