If it is a lifeless thing that has caused death, it shall solemnly be cast out before witnesses to acquit the whole family from guilt.(126) Amongst the Israelites, treating of homicides _amongst themselves_, compensation was forbidden in like manner. Numbers xxxv. 31. “Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer which is guilty of death: but he shall surely be put to death. “... The land cannot be cleansed of blood that is shed therein but by the blood of him that shed it.” Let us complete this subject with the following story told by Herodotus:(127)—Adrastus, having slain his brother, flees to the court of Croesus. There he becomes as a son to Croesus and a brother to Atys, Croesus’ son. This Atys Adrastus has the terrible misfortune to slay, thereby incurring a three-fold pollution. He has brought down upon himself the triple wrath of Zeus Katharsios, Ephestios, and Hetaireios: he has violated his own innocence, his protector’s hearth, and the comradeship of his friend. In despair he commits suicide. CHAPTER III. THE EXTENT OF THE BOND OF KINSHIP. Arctior vero colligatio est societatis propinquorum: ab illa enim immensa societate humani generis in exiguam angustumque concluditur. _Cicero_. § 1. Degrees Of Blood-Relationship; The Ἀγχιστεία. (M54) Such being the character of the burden of mutual responsibility borne by members of kindred blood, it remains, if possible, to obtain some idea of how this responsibility became narrowed and limited to the nearest relations, and what was the meaning underlying the distinction drawn between certain degrees of relationship. When examining the more detailed structure of the organisation of the kindred, considerable light seems to be thrown upon survivals in Athens by comparison with the customs of other communities, which were undergoing earlier stages of the same process of crystallisation from the condition of semi-nomadic tribes into that of settled provinces or kingdoms. (M55) In the Gortyn Laws we read:— iv. 24. “The father shall have power over the children and the property to divide it amongst them.... As long as they (the parents) are alive, _there is no necessity for division_.... If a man or woman die their children, or grandchildren, or great-grandchildren, shall have the property....” The headship of the οἶκος and the ownership of the property vested in the parent as long as he lived and wished to maintain his power. Even after his death, unless they wished it, the sons need not divide up amongst themselves, but could live on with joint ownership in the one οἶκος of their deceased father. The eldest son would probably take the house itself, _i.e._ the hearth, with the duties to the family altars which devolved upon him as head of the family.(128)