(M108) But it must be borne in mind that though the κλῆρος was set apart in theory for the use and sustenance of a head of a family with all his descendants, and was supposed to be inalienable therefrom, there is no reason to suppose that there existed among the Greeks a system of joint holding between father and son. The ownership and management of the property vested in the head of the family. It is true that brothers did not always divide their inheritance on the death of their father, but their undivided right to their respective equal shares remained to each one and his descendants as an individual property, and they always seem to have had the expectation of an ultimate subdivision amongst the separate οἶκοι that had sprung into being.(218) (M109) The Gortyn Laws throw some light on the subject. As long as the father is alive, no man shall buy or receive in pledge from the son any of the father’s property. But what the son himself has earned, or inherited, he may sell if he like. So too the father may not dispose of the goods of the children which they have earned or inherited. Yet may a son’s prospective share in his paternal inheritance be sold to pay any legal fine he has incurred.(219) (M110) There is no joint holding here between father and son. The father is in undisputed possession, and nothing the son can do by private contract can affect his father’s occupation. But if the son had a right of maintenance from his father during the lifetime of both, his expectation of succession to an equal share with his brothers would give him, so to speak, a value in the public eye. In the event of his incurring a blood-fine, his father would presumably be obliged to pay it out of the patrimony; and when exaction of such penalties passed into the hands of a court, exception would hardly be made for long on behalf of the fine for murder over penalties for other crimes coming before the court. Although therefore for all ordinary purposes a son had no claim on the paternal estate beyond his maintenance, his right of succession might easily grow up in the eye of the law as an available asset capable of forfeiture with the theoretical assumption that the scapegrace was unfit to hold his position in the family.(220) His future portion, thus becoming deprived of a representative, might be wholly or in part confiscated to the State. There are many inscriptions confiscating to the State the goods of criminals who transgressed the laws therein; but Plato evidently contemplated the possibility of wiping out the individual without depriving his descendants of their inheritance.(221) In such a case as wife-murder, he says, the husband’s right of maintenance is extinguished from amongst his family, he should be banished and his name wiped out for ever, whilst his sons or relations enter upon the inheritance of his property _immediately_. No distinction is made by Plato, or in the Gortyn Laws in such a case between chattels and land.