Relatives and friends were always expected to espouse the cause of the injured. Even wrongdoers could count on the assistance of their kinsmen. Odysseus in his character of Cretan refugee wondered why Telemachus was not aided in his troubles by his brothers: οἶσί περ ἀνὴρ μαρναμένοισι πέποιθε, καὶ εἰ μέγα νεῖκος öρntai. And later, disguised as a beggar he said to the suitors, "Many an infatuate deed I did, giving place to mine own hardihood and strength, and trusting to my father and my 3 brethren."" Within his own household the master punished his servants even to the extent of inflicting death. And like the Cyclopes each man θεμιστεύει παίδων ἠδ ̓ ἀλόχων. It was the duty of the father to avenge the wrongs of those who were under his protection, including the servants." Of self-help in obtaining redress for the killing of relatives there are a number of instances. Thirteen homicides are mentioned apart from the slaying of the suitors and of the followers of Aegistheus and Agamemnon." The typical wanderer from his native country is the fleeing homicide;' and the typical trial scene pictured on the shield of Achilles arises out of a homicide. There is no trace in the poems of the later conception that homicide involves the pollution both of the slayer and of those who associated with him. Eumaeus the swineherd comes close to this conception, so far as the slayer himself is concerned, when he refuses the wager of the disguised Odysseus involving his death at the hands of Eumaeus if his prophecy regarding the return of his master is not fulfilled: ξεῖν', οὕτω γάρ κέν μοι ἐϊκλείη τ' ἀρετή τε 1 Od. xvi. 97 ff. 8 Odysseus punished with death the goatherd and the faithless maidservants. 4 Od. ix. 114 ff. Amyntor cursed his son and drove him into banishment for debauching his concubine (Il. ix. 447 ff.). Other instances of punishment inflicted are noticed in the general discussion of homicide. One of Odysseus' charges against the suitors was that they had debauched his female servants. 6 Od. iv. 536. 7 Il. xxiv. 480. When Odysseus desires to conceal his identity and account for his wandering from Crete he pretends that he slew a man (Od. xiii. 259). 8 Od. xiv. 402 ff. 3 The suitors even propose to seek the counsel of the gods regarding the contemplated murder of Telemachus.' Outside of the circle of the dead man's kinsmen and friends' there is no indication of any popular sentiment against ordinary homicide. It would be hard to imagine a more cowardly murder than the fictitious slaying of the son of Idomenous by Odysseus. And yet Eumaeus receives the self-confessed murderer, as he supposed, with all the respect due a stranger in accordance with the prevailing customs. There are a number of homicides mentioned who were living as honored members of communities to which they had come as exiles. The slaying of parents, however, met with universal condemnation. Phoenix, the aged companion of Achilles, tells of his feud with his father and of his design to slay him. But owing to his fear of "the people's voice and the many reproaches of men," who would call him parricide, he refrained.* In later Greek story Orestes slew his mother Clytemnestra; but in Homer it is neither stated nor necessarily implied that he was responsible for her death. So the honor he won for avenging his father's murder does not imply public approval of matricide under any circumstances. And we may be sure that the wife who compassed the death of her husband would be roundly condemned. Menelaus has nothing to say of Clytemnestra's share in the plot against Agamemnon; Aegistheus is alone responsible for his death. Nestor, too, seems to lay the blame of her treachery to her husband upon Aegistheus and the poîpa beŵv, though he does call her σTUYEρn. Agamemnon's spirit speaks bitterly of her, and says she has brought disgrace not only upon herself but upon her whole sex.' As a rule men shrank from slaying a guest. Heracles' murder of Iphitus is aggravated by the fact that Iphitus was his guest. And the refusal of Eumaeus to accept Odysseus' wager which has already been quoted affords further evidence of this prevailing sentiment." 1 Od. xvi. 402. 5 2 Ibid. iii. 310; iv. 535. Ibid. xiii. 259 ff. 7 Ibid. xi. 429 ff. * Ibid. xxi. 27 f.: ὅς μιν ξεῖνον ἐόντα κατέκτανεν ᾧ ἐνὶ οἴκῳ, | σχέτλιος, οὐδὲ θεῶν ὅπιν αἰδέσατ' οὐδὲ τράπεζαν || τὴν ἤν οἱ παρέθηκεν. 9 Ibid. xiv. 402 ff. 2 The idea that murder is a menace to society is modern; in Homer it is regarded as the concern of the relatives alone and such partisans as they can assemble. Public sentiment not only tolerated blood-feuds, but even demanded that men should avenge the death of their kinsmen. Shame and disgrace were the portion of him who failed to take vengeance on the slayer of brother or son, while honor and glory awaited him who performed this duty.' And fortunate were they who left behind them near kinsmen to punish their slayers. Some scholars, influenced by the later Athenian practice of confining the institution of legal proceedings against a slayer within certain limits of relationship, have sought for traces of a similar practice in Homer. Leist' attempts to show that the blood-feud did not extend beyond cousins; other kinsmen and relatives by marriage participated only as assistants. To make his point he is obliged to translate era by "cousins" in one passage, and "brothers" in another. Naturally the nearest relatives took the leadership if they were in a position to do so. There is no doubt that if Menelaus had returned home earlier he would not have waited for Orestes to avenge Agamemnon.5 But in the absence of near relatives distant kinsmen and even friends would readily take up the blood-feud. The question as to the right to exact vengeance could arise in practice only in cases where an agreement to accept blood-money was reached. Such an agreement could satisfactorily be made only with someone who could give a reasonable guarantee that the slayer would not be molested. In the only specific instance of an agreement to accept a blood-price the relationship is not mentioned.' 1 Od. xxiv. 433: λώβη γὰρ τάδε γ' ἐστὶ καὶ ἐσσομένοισι πυθέσθαι, ] εἰ δὴ μὴ παίδων τε κασιγνήτων τε φονῆας || τισόμεθ'. Cf. Orestes Od. i. 298. 2 Od. iii. 196: ὡς ἀγαθὸν καὶ παῖδα καταφθιμένοιο λιπέσθαι || ἀνδρός. Cf. Il. xiv. 485. 3 Leist Gräco-italische Rechtsgeschichte 42; kaolyvηtol te ětai te Od. xv. 273: ěraι καὶ ἀνεψιοί (Ιl. ix. 464). 4Lipsius Attisches Recht 7: "Der Kreis der zur Blutrache verpflichten Verwandten erscheint nicht genau begrenzt; zunächst sind es natürlich Söhne, Brüder, Väter, aber auch Vettern und wenigstens an einer Stelle auch die entfernteren Verwandten." Among the more distant relatives may be mentioned grandnephews and greatgrandnephews (Il. ii. 665). * Od. iv. 546 f. : ἢ γάρ μιν ζωόν γε κιχήσεαι, ή κεν ̓Ορέστης || κτείνεν ὑποφθάμενος. Of. Od. iii. 309. 6 Od. xxiii. 119. Cf. Achilles and Patroclus. 7 Il. xviii. 498. Homicide amongst relatives was commonly settled by banish ment; and the exile seems to have been in no danger if he afterward met a kinsman of himself and his victim. There must have been a number of such possibilities on the expedition against Troy. Medon, the illegitimate son of Oileus, who slew his stepmother's brother, must have met his half-brother Ajax, the nephew of his victim.' But sometimes a family feud arose and the life of the slayer was in danger. Thus Tleptolemus, who slew his greatuncle, fled with a large number of followers owing to the threats of his relatives: ἀπείλησαν γάρ οἱ ἄλλοι | υἱέες υἱωνοί τε βίης 'Нpakλneins. Althea is said to have called down curses on her son Meleager, who had slain her brother; but in spite of her desire for his death he was neither slain nor banished." 2 In the case of homicides outside of the family the first instinct of the slayer was to flee. The more important the victim the more serious was the predicament of the slayer: δεινὸν δὲ γένος βασιλήιόν ἐστι κτείνειν. Even if the slain man was a humble person with few to avenge him the only safety was in flight. The fate of the various homicides mentioned in the poems seems to indicate pretty clearly that voluntary banishment was the usual issue. Eight of the thirteen went into exile. These figures are, of course, not entirely conclusive, because there is but little occasion for mentioning those who fell victims to the vengeance of the enraged kinsmen, or those who paid the blood-price. When men of rank were concerned in a homicide the resulting feud might involve so many as to amount to civil war. Tleptolemus, to avoid a disastrous feud, gathered his faction together and founded a settlement in Crete." Civil war would have been the result of the feud between Odysseus and the relatives of the suitors had they not become reconciled. When once the fugitive got away he did 1Il. xv. 332 ff. 4 Od. xvi. 401; xxiii. 118ff. 2 Ibid. ii. 665. 3Ibid. ix. 565. "I include in this list Odysseus in his character of Cretan exile (Od. xiii. 259). The others are as follows: Medon, Il. xiii. 696; xv. 332; Lykophron, ibid. xv. 431; Epigeus, ibid. xvi. 573; Patroclus, ibid. xxiii. 85 ff.; an unnamed Aetolian, Od. xiv. 378; Theoclymenus, ibid. xv. 271; Tleptolemus, Il. ii. 655 ff.; all these were banished. Aegistheus was slain. The unnamed slayer in the trial scene paid blood-money. Heracles (Od. xxi. 27), Meleager (Il. ix. 565) and Orestes were not molested. Il. ii. 655. not seem to be in any danger. Twice the fleeing slayer is called a suppliant. But what he asks for is not protection but shelter, or assistance in continuing his flight. There is no instance of any attempt to molest a fugitive in his place of banishment. Theoclymenus, it is true, professed to fear pursuit, but apparently his fears were groundless.' The lot of the murderer banished for life must often have been hard, but this feature is never mentioned in Homer. The spirit of Patroclus speaks bitterly of his banishment though he found in Peleus a noble patron and in Achilles a loving comrade.' Aegistheus is the only murderer who suffered death. He had committed a dastardly murder, and Nestor suggests that if Menelaus had slain him he would have denied him funeral rites. But it is too much to infer that a slain murderer was ever in danger of being treated as Achilles proposed to treat Hector. Menelaus himself gives no hint of such an intention had he forestalled Orestes in slaying Agamemnon's murderer. Three homicides paid no penalty. Heracles slew a stranger whose death could have been avenged only by war. Meleager's distinguished services in saving his city from sack probably enabled him to defy the machinations of his incensed mother; the punishment of Orestes by avenging furies is unknown to Homer." 5 3 The acceptance of blood-money seems to have been comparatively rare. Apart from the trial scene pictured on the shield of Achilles, which arose out of an agreement to settle a homicide for a blood-price, there is no specific case. A man who has settled with the slayer of a brother or a son for a large sum is cited in a simile of the Iliad (ix. 632–35) as the highest type of commendable, though perhaps unusual, self-restraint. We do not know what considerations induced relatives to accept blood-money. There is 1Il. xvi. 573; Od. xv. 271. 2 Il. xxiii. 85 ff. 3 Od. iii. 256 ff.; iv. 547. 4Od. xxi. 28; cf. Il. xvi. 58 59: τὴν ἂψ ἐκ χειρῶν ἕλετο κρείων Αγαμέμνων || Ατρεί δης ὡς εἴ τιν' ἀτίμητον μετανάστην for the position of a stranger. Il. ix. 565 ff. 6 Murderers are spoken of in one passage as men seized by a grievous curse: s d' ὅτ ̓ ἂν ἄνδρ' ἄτη πυκινὴ λάβῃ, ὅς τ' ἐνὶ πάτρῃ || φῶτα κατακτείνας ἄλλων ἐξίκετο δῆμον (Il. xxiv. 480-81). The arn is best taken as that which caused the homicide. The notion of an following a homicide seems to belong to a later period. But Homer does mention curses called down upon wrongdoers (Il. ix. 453 ff.; 565 ff.; Od. ii. 135). |