Art. II.—Notes on the Land-system of the Iliad.

Transactions and Proceedings of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Volume 22, 1889, Page 21

Art. II.—Notes on the Land-system of the Iliad. By Henry Belcher, Fellow of King's College, London, Rector of the High School, Otago. [Read before the Otago Institute, Tuesday, 8th October, 1889.] The general word for wealth springs from a radical ✓KT. Hence κυήμαυα, κυέαυα (κυέαρ), κυη̑σιç, κυέραç, πολνκυήμων, κ.υ.λ In the early reckoning of Wealth the notion of property in Land is not included. Thus, as noticed by Varro (L.L.), cattle (pec-ora) are the staple of wealth. Pec-unia is used of crops, goods in kind, and coined money. So νόμισμα, νομὸç, νόμοç, νέμω, numus, to denote custom, customary coin, custom in land, assigned land out of the common land. In Greek literature no coined money is mentioned prior to Hdt. i. 94, on which Rawlinson and others state that no coined money has been found in Assyrian or Lydian ruins. There is no reference to money as coined by the Jews prior to 1 Maccab. xv. 6. Wealth is reckoned, then in kind or cattle; not in land or money. So, a wealthy person is called— πολυκυήμων     πολύχαλκοç πολύμηοç     πολύκληροç πολύαρνι     πολύλήιοç πολυπάμων     πολβούυη ç πολύχρυσοç     ἀλφ∊σίβοια Many of these words are restored from oblique cases. Of these, three alone have any traceable reference to property in land: πολυκυήμων,πολυλήιοç, πολύκληροç. V. κυα̑σθαι, according to L. and S., is not used of property in land, in any place in Greek literature. It is not used of land-property in the Iliad. In Il. ix. 402 (wherein the form is Ionic) it is used of the capture of a town: Ἴλιον ἐκυη̑σθαι ∊ὐ̑ ναιόμ∊νον πυολί∊θρον. In Od. xxiv. 193 it is used of wining a wife: ἠ̑ ἄρα σὺν μ∊γάλῃ ἀρ∊υῃ̑ ἐκυήσω ἄκοιυιν (A wife of worth abundant hast thou surely gotten thee.—W. M.); The meaning of wealth vanishes from the noun in Babrius, Fab. lii.:— ὠ̑ παγκάκισυον κυημάυων υίδὴ κρώζ∊ιç πολυκυήμων is ၵπαξ λ∊γόμ∊νον in Homer, wherein the caution of Phrynichus (§ 206) may be noted: ἡμ∊ι̑ç οὐ υοι̑ç ἅπαξ ∊ἰρημένοιç προσέχομ∊ν υòν νου̑ν, ἀλλὰ υοι̑ç πολλάκιç κ∊χρημένοιç. The ἅπαξ in H. is Il. v. 613: ὁç ῥ᾽ἐμὶ Παισῳ̑ ναι̑∊ πολυκυήνωμ πολυλήιοç

Editors of H. (l.c.) make no remark; a parallel passage in Soph., Antig. 843, gives no help. The two epithets describe a wealthy man rich in chattels and standing corn. Examine the cognate ἀκυήμων—II. ix. 126 (same passage is repeated, ix. 264). The passage is said to be spurious. Paley thinks ἀκυήμων a post-Homeric word: quotes Theocr. xvi. 33, but does not notice ἀκυήμωνin this tract on Post-epic words in Homer. In Il. ix. 126 the whole sense is against the inclusion of land as property. There is a full enumeration of goods and cattle and slaves (cf. the vow of Ascanius in æn. ix. 260), the like of which if a man had he would not be ἀκυήμων ἐριυίμοιο χρυσοι̑ο. Next consider πολυλήιοç (cf. ἀλήιοç). L. and S. take this to signify wealthy in land on which corn is growing—rich in cornfields. Autenreith, s.v., gives “rich in harvests.” The passage quoted is Il. v. 613 (cf. above πολυκυήμων). The word is also ἄπ. λ∊γ The passage may comprise either mere redundancy of epithet, or identifies two kinds of property: property in goods (κυήμαυα), property in land-produce (λήϊον). The question arises, What is the meaning of -λήϊοç? λήϊον in H. is used of the uncut crop (segetes). Cf. Il. ii. 147: ὡç δ' ὄυ∊ κινήσῃ Zέφυροç βαθὺ λήϊον ἐλθών (As when the Zephyr cometh, and stirreth the lush corn, and with sudden rush sends the ears a-nodding.) Cf. also Il. xi., 560: κ∊ίρ∊ι υ' ∊ἰσ∊λθὼν βαθὺ λήϊον (sc. ὄνοç νωθήç). (The ass, heedless of blows, goes and browses on the lush corn.) (νωθήç may be an epitheton constans of the ass; or here the significance may be that, having once got into the midst of such fodder, he cannot be got to budge by blows, or anyhow;—if this be so, the epithet is proleptic.) If this be the meaning of λήιον, there is no trace of it in ἀλήϊοç as in Il. ix. 260, in ix. 125, and vi. 201. The scholiast explains, “ἐλλιπὴ βοσκημάυων.” In the passages cited the wealth is neither of cattle nor of land. Great wealth is indicated nevertheless. Seven tripods, ten talents of gold, twenty burnished cauldrons, twelve sturdy racers, seven maids skilled in fine needlework—Lesbian girls who in beauty excel all women: had a man such goods as these he were surely no pauper (ἀλήιοç). This famous passage has caught the fancy of Xen. (Sympos-iv. 45), and Ovid. (Her. iii. 31, 36), and Virgil (æn. ix. 260, seqq.). Translators evade ἀλήιοç. Paley thinks no satisfactory derivation possible. In any case there is no reference to

land in severalty in the passages wherein the word occurs. Although, then, the meaning of -λήιοç might have been illumined by the admitted meaning of λήιον, no such light is forthcoming. A possible connection with λ∊ία (λαία) has been suggested, and is very likely. Note, however, λ∊ία seems to be restricted to booty of cattle and movables, is rarely used of men, and in the nature of the case could not be used of land. Πολύκληροç is not found in Il., but κλη̑ροç occurs in Il. xv. 495, seqq., where we read that—The warrior dies no unseemly death who falls fighting for his country: ἀλλ' ἀλοχόὶ υ∊ σόη καὶ παι̑δ∊ç οπίσσω καὶ οἰ̑ κοὶ κλη̑ροç ἀκή;ραυοç (His wife, his children, his homestead, and his κληροç uninjured.) What is κλη̑ροç? Autenreith, s.v., thinks κλάω a cognate. Wharton agrees. In this case κλη̑ροç means a sherd, a broken twig, a morsel of stone, anything convenient for the casting of the lot. In Babrius, lxx. 2, the gods are said to marry κλήρἳ, and “Ὕβριç becomes the spouse of” Ἅρηç The main idea is allotment by chance. Cf. Il. vii. 175. Nine heroes cast lots which of them is to encounter Hector in the duel: ἐκ δ' ἔθορ∊ν κλη̑ρç κυνέηç ὃν ἄρ' ἤθ∊λον αὐυοί Aἴαμυοç. In the Dictt. the history of the word is traced until the getting of property in the ordinary course of heritage or commerce is reached. Cf. Demosthenes, 329, § 15: κηκληρονόμηκαç νὲμ Φίλωνοç υο̑κηδ∊συοῠ χρημάυων πλ∊ιόμων ἢ. π∊νυ∊υαλάνυων In historic times occurs the well-known instance of tenure by κλη̑ροç in the case of lands annexed by Athens. Evidence goes to show that a slice of arable, of pasture, and of woodland constituted the κλη̑ροç of the Athenian squatter. If the squatter (κληρο̑χοç) preferred his home in Athens he paid a heavy absentee-tax, which in every case amounted to the same sum. The tax tends to prove that, in the case of annexed land, pastures forests and fields were parcelled out into separate patches, and that a κλη̑ροç consisted of an aggregation of three such patches. The κλη̑ροç then within historic times denotes severalty of permanent tenure with rents appertaining, and a fixed tax in case of absenteeism. Bidgway (loc. cit.), Journal of Hellen. Stud., p. 331, Oct., 1885, holds that κληροç need mean nothing more than that the right to a portion in the common fields shall be preserved,

and that care shall be taken to protect the widow and orphans against those who would remove the landmarks. I notice that the distribution by the King of Phæakia of common land (cf. Od. vi. 9, 10), as well as the mode of distribution by lots (κλη̑ροι), comes within the scope of the system prevalent in Italy within historical times. Publicus ager is common land, formally surrendered by a foe after warfare (Liv. i. 38, 2). “Publicatur is ager qui ex hostibus captus sit,” is the definition of the jurist. Land thus brought in publicum was devoted to meeting State expenses. In this way the Roman Government was the ground-landlord of whole cities and countries. A State cannot farm the acres of a continent: hence the publicus ager was assigned, subject to resumption at will, on easy terms, usually at 10 per cent. of the gross value of the annual produce. This tithe was recoverable immediately by State officials. The occupation of publicus ager is called possessio; hence possessor is a tenant-at-will, one who does not hold permanent interest in any property. So Livy, passim, ii. 42, 2: “Id multos quidem patrum, ipsos possessores, periculo rerum suarum terrebat.” Cf. also ii. 61, 2; iv. 36, 2; vi. 5, 4; vi. 35, 5. The last place cited quotes part of the Licinian Land Bills of 377 seqq. B.C.: “Ne quis plus quingenta jugera agri possideret.” Possessio, although of the nature of tenancy at will, was alienable and transmissible as leasehold property. Publicus ager was sold, as by Appius Cæcus to defray the expenses of his engineering works and improvements, but never seems to have been given away in absolute gift; at any rate not in the earlier Roman days: nor does it appear that gentlemen in Rome were at liberty to settle on large tracts of public land according to their willingness to bear the tithe-charge. The area of the tenement was limited by many laws, while about 312 acres seems to have been the legal maximum of holding. This distinctive meaning of possessio holds good throughout the Latin period. “Possessio est usus agri aut aedificii, non ipse fundus aut ager.”—Paul. Diac. on Festus, p. 232. “Possessiones appellantur agri late patentes publici privatique, qui non mancipatione sed usu tenebantur, et ut quisque occupaverat, possidebat.” It seems from the above that possessio is akin to the Homeric κλη̑ροç (loc. cit.)—that is, the right of use, but not land or domain in freehold. Severalty in land-tenure with right of testament in land indicates severalty of homestead and residence. The farmer's

house and land, the landlord's house and land, are conceptions that have some correlation in fact. That a man should dwell in the midst of his land seems an appropriate arrangement. Society, as Ridgway points out, seems to be in the house-community stage. In Priam's house, Il. vi. 243, the whole of his family dwell together: ἀλλ'ὅυ∊δὴ Πριάμοιο δόμον π∊ρικαλλέ' ἵκαννν. * * * * * π∊νυήκονυ' ἤν∊σαν θάλαμοι ξήσυοιο λίθοιο. It contains fifty apartments built of polished stone. The sons of the monarch, his daughters, live with their spouses beneath a common roof. The passage in Virgil repeats the intimation afforded by the Iliad. A man's kinsfolk are ἐφέσυιοι, they belong to the same hearth. This may be an epithet surviving from an older time, but it is significantly appropriate to the conditions of the only known Trojan household. The term is also applied to the native Trojan as distinct from foreigners (ἐπίκουροι). In the Odyssey the house of Menelaos at Sparta, of Alkinoos in Phæakia, of Odusseus in Ithaka, are described; but this circumstantial detail is omitted: a point which, taken with other considerations, goes to show that the social life of the Iliad is remote from that of the Odyssey. This common house points to common land; and there is a fine passage in Il. xviii. 541, to which attention may now be directed: ἐνδ' ἐυίθη μ∊ιὸν μαλακήν πί∊ιραν ἄρονραν, ∊ὐρ∊ι̑αν υρίπολον, κ.υ.λ. The poet is describing the Scutum Achillis, and says the craftsman wrought into it “a loamy rich land, fallow, broad, and thrice ploughed (υρίπολον); and many ploughmen in the fallow drove their teams up and down, turning at the headland; and when they had done their turn, and had reached the top of the land, a man came forward, and gave to each into his hands a stoup of rich wine, while, others were doing their turn up the furrows and were driving to reach the headland of the deep-soiled field.” This is the famous Ploughing of the Fallow in the Scutum, and the conjecture is reasonable that it indicates a ploughing of the common land simultaneously by all interested on a day fixed by authority or custom. Doubtless the labour was begun by all at once, at an annual date, such as was, among our forefathers, Plough Monday. The word υρίπολον is bracketed into the text above, as deserving some consideration in detail. The customary translation “thrice ploughed” has been used; but this translation

is a matter for argument. Etymology shows π∊λ- and col- to be cognate stems. αἴπολοç, βούκολοç, polus, callis, currere, colere, carry with them the notion, active or passive variously, of movement. υρίπολ- is clearly indicative of movement thrice repeated, whether continuous or in interrupted succession. “Thrice ploughed” is in such case clearly admissible, although I do not recall an illustrative parallel instance of π∊λ- being used of ploughing. In this context Seebohm (p. 11) furnishes a suggestion: he is writing about the Manor of Hitchin. All the customs of the Manor are of great antiquity; the boundaries are marked according to a form used two thousand years ago, during the Roman occupation, and uninterruptedly from that time to the present period. The common fields of the Manor are six; and it is recorded that these common fields have immemorially been, and ought to be, kept and cultivated in three shifts by rotation—in tilthgrain, in etch-grain, and in fallow. This three-shift system is found established in China, where it has prevailed from time immemorial. It has prevailed in England up to the time of our grandfathers. England contains (say) ten thousand parishes; and up to 1844 a very large number of Enclosure Acts—perhaps about four thousand—have been passed. The Enclosure Acts, as is well known, dealt with common land, and put an end to both the tenure and the system of common cultivation. The custom was therefore very ancient, and has been very extensive. Now, in the Scutum the rich nature of the soil bars the need of increased ploughing. Sour and stiff soils require the plough to be run up and down them to admit air and sunlight, that the land may be sweetened: a good soil does not need such physic. It is dubious, also, whether triple ploughing has a very high antiquity, or whether such ploughs as Colonel Leake conjectures to have been used in the Homeric period are fit for the deep ploughing suggested by υρίπολομ and its context. It suggests itself to me that υρίπολομ is the three-shift system, indicated by an epitheton constans, and grouped with the epithets descriptive of the soil itself. If this suggestion be admissible, the famous Ploughing of the Fallow is a picture which may have been true of the Common Field of Hitchin a century ago. Note, in continuation of the main argument, a consideration based upon Il. xxii. 489: ἂλλοι γὰρ οἱ ἀπουρήαουσιμ ἀρούαç— On which Paley (in loco) makes the note: “ἀπουρήσουσιμ, ‘will take away,’ a future from ἀπουράω, or rather from an aorist ἀπουρ∊ι̑ν regarded as a present… The future does not occur again in Homer.”

Autenreith, s.v., says: “ἀπουρήσουσι, fut., eripient (-αὐράω). or ἀπουρίσσουσι, amovebunt terminos (οὐ̑ροç).” The passage is, then, “for others will take away his landmark; will intrude upon and usurp his land.” L. and S. adopt ἀπ—ουρίσσουσι as the reading in this place. Ridgway follows. The difficulty about ἅπαξ λ∊γόμ∊να felt by Phrynichus arises in the case of ἀπ-ουρήσουσι. The form is conjectural; the meaning is still more conjectural. The question is, What is οὐ̑ρον? In the Dictt. there are six words of this sound—οὐ̑ρον οὐ̑ροç οὐ̑ρον οὐ̑ροç οὐρὸç οὐ̑ροç—and under the head of the first οὐρομ we find in all Dictt. the following references:— Il. xii. 421–424: ἀλλ' ὡç υ' ἀμφ' οὒροισι δὸ' ἀνήρ∊ δηριάασθον μήυ' ἐν χ∊ρσὶν ἔχονυ∊ç, ἐπιξύνἳ ἐν ἀρούρῃ ὥ υ' ολίγἳ ἐνὶ χώρἳ ἐρίξηυον π∊ρὶ ἲσηç, ὡ̑ç ἄρα υούç διή∊ργον ἐπάλξι∊ç This is Englished by Lord Derby,— “As when two neighbours in a common field Each, line in hand, within a narrow space, About the limits of their land contend, Between them thus the rampart drew the line.” Another more significant passage is Il. x. 351: ἀλλ' ὄυ∊ δή ῤ ἀπήην ὅσσον υ' ἐπὶ οὐ#x0311;ρα πέλονυαι ᾑμιόνων (αὶ γάρ υ∊ βο#xEA71;ν προφ∊ρέσυ∊ραι ∊σίν λκέμ∊ναι ν∊ιοι#x0311;ο βαθ∊ίηχ πηκυὸν ἄρουρον). On which editors, as to οὐ#x0311;ρα πέλονυαι ἡμιόμωμ, are in difficulty. A third illustrative passage, Il. xxiii. 431, 443:— ὃσσα δè δίσκου οｐ#x0311;ρα καυωμαδίοιο πέλονυαι (So far as reach the casts of a well-hurled quoit.) In all these cases οὐ#x0311;ρον is a land-measure. Men are disputing about the οὐ#x0311;ρα of their land. (I do not think Lord Derby should be reckoned in evidence either way; his translation does not aim at critical accuracy). They hold the measures in their hands: Or they are playing quoits, and go a fixed cast called οὐ#x0311;ρον: Or mules are ploughing, and, being nimbler at the plough, they do in the same time more work than do the oxen; and it seems that the work in a fixed time (say a working day) between headland and headland—that is, the total width of the land ploughed—is called οὐ#x0311;ρον. Consider the circumstances and context of the following reference: Diomedes and Odusseus are prowling about at night; they meet Dolon, who is also out on a midnight

errand, and resolve to kill him. They step aside somewhat from the beaten track, and allow him to pass by. As soon, however, as he had got away from them an οὐ̑ρον they start to catch him. He immediately hears the thud of their feet, and stops to listen. Take it that οὐ#x0311;ρον is a furrow-length, surely this is an unwonted start to give a man, unless your furrow is very short: again, at a furrow-length sound would scarcely reach his ears. Not to press the words into too literal a mould, we may infer that, as a standard of measurement, οὐ#x0311;ρον means a shorter rather than a longer distance. In Od. viii. 120, seqq., a foot-race is described, and the successful competitor beats the others by the measure οὐ#x0311;ρον ἡμιόνοιιν—not a long distance, for they were all swift-footed; they stir up the dust of the plain as they go. Clearly the measure is a fixed, if somewhat loose, standard of reference, like pistol-shot, stone's-throw, lump of chalk, bit of string (fathom), bow-shot, ear-shot. So have I heard the great splashes of rain fresh-fallen on a sun-baked pavement compared in size to eighteenpence. The distance of an οὐ#x0311;ρον, either as a start or as a finish, cannot be great. Dolon gets an οὐ#x0311;ρον start, and the Phæakian athlete wins by an οὐ#x0311;ρον. The word clearly comes within the scope of a short measure of some kind. I take it to mean a measure of width. In a similar way our forefathers used “rod” or “rood”: so many furrows lengthways multiplied by so many rods breadthways make an acre. Our forefathers knew nothing about a standard-acre any more than they knew a standard-mile. An Irish mile is a painful distance for a weary traveller to contemplate; a German acre is a puzzling thing to calculate. The English, the Flemish, the German, the French ell present a pleasing variety: they take their rise from the length of a man's forearm, but how I do not know. οὐ#x0311;ρον may be cognate with the Ionic ∊ὐ#x0311;ροç—a word not found in the Iliad, once in the Odyssey. ∊οὐ#x0311;ροç is used of width on the grand scale, as e.g. of big rivers, but without any approach to definite significance. οὐ#x0311;ρον is used, however loosely, to indicate a unit of measure. Hence we explain the οὐ#x0311;ρον ἀρούρηç as the side-marks and not the end-marks of a field; the balks and not the headlands (υέλαον ἀρούρηç) of a man's share in the common field. If this be so, we arrive at an ancient system of landmarks or measurements arising out of common rights in common land. The width of the οὐ#x0311;ρον “will, of course, depend upon the length of the furrow. Now, a Furrow is a measure of length better known as Furlong. (Por-ca, according to Columella, was, in Spain, a measure of length: porca seems to have been a rustic word, and by false analogy is used to indicate a ridge. Colum., ii. 10, 6, used αὐλακίξ∊ιμ as equivalent to imporcare.

Im-porc-i-tor, qui porcas in agro facit arando: ad Virg., G. 1, 21. Furh, furuh, furhi, furrow. Similar words are lira, balc, rig, link, ridge—all indicating the action of the plough.). The furrow is of varied length, but quarantena, a late Latin word used in agriculture, goes to show that forty units of some unknown length constitute the furrow-long. All the ancient village fields of England are divided into acres, furlongs, and rods. The oldest English Bible uses æceras for fields. The acre is a furrow of 40 rods long multiplied by an οὐ#x0311;ροç of 4 rods: the ancient acres vary according to the lie of the ground cultivated. There is in some places in England a measurement of land called shot or lot, and many such are mentioned in the plan of Purwell Field, Hitchin (Seebohm, p. 2). These are called “long shots” and “short shots,” with regard to which Seebohm points out that the average length of the shot is roughly identical with the statute furlong of 40 poles. Aristarchus explains οὐ#x0311;ροç, οὐ#x0311;ρον (s. Il. x. 351) by reference to the fact that mules, being nimbler than oxen, will plough more land between starting-time and sunset. They are προφ∊ρέσυ∊ραι, and the οὐ#x0311;ροα in such a case are wider than the οὐ#x0311;ροα of oxen. Evening is ox-loosing time, the day is over when the day's work is over: this is the ancient basis of reckoning; while generally, in the history of nations, the day's work either of a yoke of oxen or of the men who work with the oxen has given rise to the words used in the measure of land. Thus actus, being the drive of the plough through the soil, is used to signify the balk between fields, and also a measure of 120 feet (40 yards): jugerum, containing so many actus, is the day's work of a yoke of oxen. Mappa is 40 perches by 4 perches, and is used of a day's work. “Yoke,” “virgate,” “bovate,” “carucate,” arise from a similar method of calculation. “Carucate” is a holding such as can be worked by a full plough-team of eight oxen; “virgate,” the work of two oxen; “bovate,” the work of one ox. What determines the measure? “This, too,” says Seebohm (p. 124), “is explained. According to Welsh law it was the measure of a day's co-ploughing, that is, twice the work done by an ox between starting-time and mid-day.” Hence we have in O. Fr. jurnel, L.L. jurnalis, Germ. morgen, all equivalent to an acre. It is necessary, in all these and similar references, to clear the mind of the influence exercised by the daily use of fixed standards or measures. All words are loosely used in the early stages of national life: it is vain to search for strictness of meaning in the words employed by men locally separated, although using the same speech, if separation is maintained by fear or by mountains. As the Homeric words of measurement

are few and scattered, so they are indefinite. They indicate both process and result: as actus signifies both a balk and a measure of length, so οὐ̑ροç, in II. xii. 421, seqq., is used of result, and is translatable “balk,” “ridge,” “rig,” or “link,” while in II. x. 351 it indicates a process: the number of furrows a yoke of mules can lay down in a day, measured breadthwise, is an οὐ̑ρομ, which may be thus translated “rod” or “rood.” The general argument, summarised, is as follows:— Wealth is reckoned in kind, not in land. The epithets descriptive of a wealthy man do not include the notion of land. Kλη̑ροç in the Iliad does not indicate severalty in land: κλη̑ροç may be illustrated by the Italian possessio. The Common House, II. vi. 243, indicates a probable common-land system. Tίπολον is held to refer to the three-shift system of tilling the soil. Oὐ̑ρομ is held to mean a balk or ridge in the common field. The scene in the Scutum Achillis is held to be a scene of common toil in a common field. The conclusion is that in the Iliad the land-system is most probably a common-field system, in which, however, the beginnings of severalty in land may be traced. This brings us to the Tέμ∊νοç. Grote and others have held that in the Scutum Achillis a full proprietary system is revealed. Grote (ii., p. 108) illustrates further from Od. vi. 9, 10: ἀμφί δ∊ υ∊ι̑χοçἔλασσ∊ πόλ∊ι καὶἐδ∊ίμαυο οἴκουç, καὶ νήουç ἐποίησ∊ θ∊ω̑ν, καὶ ἐδάσσαυ' ἀρούραç which William Morris translates,— “And he drew a wall around the city, and the houses he upreared, And the shrines of the gods he fashioned, and the fruitful acres shared.” Grote thinks here that the King of Phæakia is handing out land in inheritance, and that there was fixed property in land. ἐδάσσαυο does not carry so much with it. The words are quite consistent with the theory of allotment of land from the common land. The υέμ∊νοç is undoubtedly land assigned or land seized. It is cut off or enclosed primarily for sacred purposes, ultimately as private property. The features of the acquisition of landed property in the early stages of society are everywhere the same. Land is held in severalty either by acquisition of grant, or acquisition of seizure. The chieftain takes possession of choice bits of land: he subsequently asks his subjects to register his decision. So, in the scutum, the βασιλ∊ὺç stands like a fine old English gentleman viewing his young men and

maidens at work. At the same time the broad acres being ploughed in the compartment of the shield next to that depicting him and his υέμ∊νοç are not his. That he ultimately swallows the acres, ploughmen, and all, is matter of common historical knowledge. But in the Iliad his υέμ∊νοç; is a little patch which his subjects or his peers grant him out of the common stock. For him, and his descendants according to the spirit, ancient language finds it hard to coin a suitable name. Where is the word which to the Italian, or to the Greek, comes quite so glibly as to the Englishman his much-used word “landlord”? It is not dominus, nor possessor, nor herus, nor δ∊σπόυηç, nor κληρο̑χοç, nor βασιλ∊ύç.