In Homeric society we find the same forces operative as in that of the Teutonic Heroic Age. The duty of protecting or avenging one's relatives is frequently mentioned. Thus in Od. XVI 97 f. the disguised Odysseus says to Telemachos: "Hast thou fault to find with thy brethren, for it is in them that a man trusts to do battle, even if a great quarrel takes place?" Telemachos replies (v. 115 ff.): "Nor have I fault to find with my brethren, in whom a man trusts to do battle, even if a great quarrel takes place. For our family has been reduced to one man by the son of Cronos, as I will tell thee. Arceisios begat one only son Laertes, and Odysseus again was the only son begotten by his father; but Odysseus begat me only and left me in his palace without profit to himself. Hence there are now innumerable enemies in our house."

The duty of vengeance is clearly recognised by Nestor in Od. III 196 ff.: "How good a thing it is for even a dead man's child to survive! For he (Orestes) also took vengeance on his father's slayer, the crafty Aigisthos, who killed his famous father." It was in order to escape such a fate that Theoclymenos besought Telemachos to take him on his ship (ib. XV 272 ff.): "I also have left my country, having killed a man of my own tribe (or 'people'). And in Argos, the pastureland of horses, he had many brethren and kinsmen who hold great authority among the Achaeans. I have taken to flight and so evaded death and black fate at their hands; for it is still my lot to wander among men. Now take me on thy ship, since I have come to thee as a fugitive and suppliant, lest they kill me outright; for I am sure they are in pursuit." We are reminded here of the story of Ecgtheo, the father of Beowulf, who fled for protection to the Danish king Hrothgar owing to a similar cause (Beow. 459 ff.). Another case of such exile occurs in Il. XIII 695 ff. (XV 334 ff.): "He (Medon) dwelt in Phylace, away from his own fatherland; for he had slain a man, the kinsman of his stepmother Eriopis, whom Oileus had to wife." We may compare also Il. XV 430 ff. where Hector slays "Lycophron, the son of Mastor, the Cytherian squire of Aias, who dwelt with him; for he had slain a man in divine Cythera."

Among the Homeric Greeks, as in northern Europe, compensation for manslaughter could be made to the dead man's relatives. Thus in Il. IX 632 ff. Aias says to Achilles: "And yet one accepts compensation from a man who has slain one's brother or for the death of a son. Hence it comes to pass that the one, when he has paid a large compensation, remains in his own land, while the other, after he has accepted the compensation, restrains his feelings and his proud spirit." Again, in the description of Achilles' shield we find a scene (ib. XVIII 497 ff.) representing a dispute over the payment of a wergeld. "The folk were gathered in the assembly place; for there a strife was arisen, two men striving about the blood-price of a man slain; the one claimed to pay full atonement, expounding to the people, but the other denied him and would take naught; and both were fain to receive arbitrament at the hand of a daysman[521]." In this case the transaction takes place before certain elders, one of whom is to receive a payment of two talents, apparently as a reward for bringing about an agreement. There is no mention of any payment to the king[522].

From the passage relating to Theoclymenos quoted above (v. 273: πολλοὶ κασίγνητοί τε ἔται τε) we may probably infer that the duty of vengeance extended beyond the brothers of the slain man; and evidence to the same effect is given by the story of Tlepolemos (Il. II 661 ff.). But it is not at all clear how many degrees of relationship were either involved in this duty or entitled to compensation. Indeed the poems give us very little information regarding the character of the kindred. Patronymic forms such as Ἀτρείδης[523] are very common and correspond in use to Anglo-Saxon forms such as Hreðling, Wonreding. But they are almost always used of individuals or of a pair of brothers (Ἀτρείδα, δοιοὶ Ἱππασίδαι). Collective names for families, such as Ἡρακλείδαι, Πελοπίδαι, seem not to occur in the Homeric poems[524]. Indeed the patronymic is nearly always derived from the name of the father. Cases where they are taken from the grandfather's name, e.g. Αἰακίδης for Achilles, appear to be quite exceptional. This is a feature in which Homeric usage differs not only from Teutonic but also, still more, from that of later times in Greece, where we frequently find families or kindreds bearing patronymic names derived from a remote ancestor. As examples we may mention the Aigeidai at Sparta and the Philaidai at Athens.

But the difference between Homeric and later usage in this respect does not seem to be one of nomenclature only. At Athens we find later an elaborate system of 'tribes' (φυλαί), phratries or 'clans' (φράτραι) and 'kindreds' (γένη), of which the last at all events were supposed to rest on a basis of blood-relationship, involving common religious rites. Divisions of a more or less similar type seem to have existed in the other Greek states. In the Homeric poems however we find extremely little evidence for anything of this kind. The clearest case is in Il. II 362 f., where Nestor instructs Agamemnon as follows: "Divide thy men according to tribes and clans, Agamemnon, that clan may render succour to clan and tribe to tribe[525]." In the battle scenes we hear little of any such organisation, though this may be due to the fact that attention is entirely concentrated upon the leaders. But it is worth noting that the word φρήτρη occurs only in this passage[526]. Again, φυλή does not occur at all, except possibly in the form καταφυλαδόν (Il. II 668), while φῦλον is a word of very vague significance, ranging from φῦλα ἀνθρώπων etc. to the φῦλον Ἀρκεισίου, i.e. the descendants of a man whose son is still alive[527]. The same is true also of γένος. Lastly, there is no evidence for any religious rites peculiar to certain families or clans.

It would be rash of course to conclude from this that the clan and family system of later times was unknown in the age of the poems; for in itself it bears every mark of antiquity. But there must be some reason for the neglect with which it is treated in the poems. If we examine individual cases we find that scarcely any heroes claim an ancestry of more than three generations. The Achaean families with the longest history are those of Agamemnon and Odysseus; but, if we are to believe post-Homeric tradition, the former changed its territories after the time of Pelops.

This brings us to the question of succession. In Ithaca the throne seems to pass in the regular paternal line; and, though there is really no king after the retirement of Laertes, it is generally expected that the young Telemachos will eventually take his place (Od. I 386 f., II 14). Similarly Nestor has succeeded his father Neleus, while Idomeneus apparently occupies the throne formerly held by his father's father, Minos. On the other hand, according to the story told by Glaucos (Il. VI 192 f.), Bellerophon, a stranger, received half the kingly rights in Lycia with the hand of the king's daughter. Moreover all post-Homeric authorities agree that Menelaos received the throne of Sparta by marriage, from his father-in-law Tyndareos. Similar stories are told of Tydeus, Telamon, Peleus, Teucros and many others[528]. It is to be observed that, though these stories do not occur in the Iliad and Odyssey, they do not conflict with any evidence to be found there. Many of them can be traced back to the seventh century, indeed probably to the eighth.

If we are to trust post-Homeric authorities it would seem that the wife remained in her parents' home quite as often as she went to that of her husband. This state of things however points to the prevalence of a cognatic organisation of society. In the case of Bellerophon indeed there can scarcely be any doubt; for the Lycians reckoned descent through the mother down to the time of Herodotus. The historian himself (I 173) remarks on the custom as strange and without parallel elsewhere—from which we may probably infer that it had disappeared altogether from Greece before his time. Yet in one Greek community we have evidence almost as explicit. According to Polybius, XII 5, the Epizephyrian Locrians stated that with them all ancestral honours were derived from women and not from men, and that even then (i.e. in the second century) their nobility traced their descent from certain women of 'the hundred families' who had taken part in the foundation of the colony. 'The hundred families' were those which before this time had been selected by the Locrians (i.e. the Hypocnemidian Locrians) as the families from which they were to choose the virgins who were to be sent to Ilion. This story seems to imply that cognatic organisation survived in Locris down to the beginning of the seventh century[529]. In other states[530], so far as I am aware, we find only traces of the former existence of such an institution. Some of these however suggest that the change may not have been of any very great antiquity[531].

The Homeric poems themselves contain some further evidence, which points in the same direction. We may note that a number of heroes are said to be sons of gods. But it can hardly be without significance that the Lycian prince Sarpedon (daughter's son of Bellerophon) is the only son of Zeus, who belongs to the story of the Trojan war, whereas in the earlier generations examples are comparatively common. In post-Homeric genealogies the succession of son to father seems to become less frequent the farther one goes back.

In regard to marriage customs the poems show a remarkable absence of uniformity. The story of Bellerophon is by no means the only case in which the wife remains at home, even if we leave out of account such marriages as those of Menelaos and Tydeus, upon which the poems themselves are silent. Alcinoos proposes a union of this kind to Odysseus (Od. VII 311 ff.)[532], and the wife of Iphidamas the son of Antenor appears to remain with her father (Il. XI 225 f.). On the whole however the other type seems to be decidedly more common. Then we have to take into account the use of the word ἔεδνα. It is commonly held that this originally denoted the 'bride-price' paid by the bridegroom to the relatives of the bride; and there is no doubt that the word is so used in several passages. In others however it may at least equally well denote presents made to the bride herself; occasionally indeed it appears to mean presents (i.e. a dowry) given by the bride's parents. By far the most prominent case of course is that of Penelope; and here the question is complicated apparently by a doubt as to the proper person entitled to bestow the bride—who is presumed to be a widow. Sometimes the decision seems to rest with her son, Telemachos, sometimes with her father—never with Laertes; but in the end she takes the matter into her own hands, after exacting presents for herself from all the suitors. It has been well suggested[533] that the ambiguity in the situation is due to a real change of custom. But I am by no means convinced that the ancient custom, now being superseded, was one of real purchase. It is made fairly clear (Od. I 396 ff., XV 518 ff., XXII 49 ff., etc.) that at least some of the suitors have ulterior objects in view. That the throne should be conveyed through Penelope seems to us no doubt illogical; for Odysseus himself had not acquired it by his marriage But, if we are right in believing that the type of marriage represented in the story of Bellerophon is earlier than the other, the situation depicted in the Odyssey is one for which ancient custom could not have made provision; indeed in such a situation traditional feeling might very well incline towards regarding the queen, even though a stranger, as the proper channel for conveying the succession. Add to this the practical consideration that Penelope is apparently the person actually in command of the treasury; and we have no reason, so far as I am aware, for doubting that treasury and kingdom were as closely bound up together in Heroic Greece as they were in the Heroic Age of the northern peoples[534]. It has often been remarked that the position of women in the Homeric poems appears to be one of greater influence and responsibility than anything we find in later times. But nowhere is this responsibility made so clear as in the absence of all evidence for the constitution of a regency when the king is away from home.