One: PA aT er aie etttatititraretetres
14 Core tie
Pe Ct
PCa Few hy o
Lea a
reer) 4 D ND Ceo)
M) hed wi
Donon) Y CRC RTC)
OOICAR OL
ore)
RY ARETE TERR Re) POO n ere eh ior woe)
RRR ROLLINS ear tents Deca
Doe eeay OO re ney) ern Oe NTI NW}
ae ow
" o 5 Souk Ce
Cee Go ORO ken ‘ Caer e hin} ae
wee hole p Oa er ey on DOR Ce WOR ey
xy Key 0) ey fon ‘ O : Ct)
Oo ee ee iene) ey
eee 4“
Joes ere es a diewis ddan eo ¢ Peete lt seed a bers ae eA ek badd yhhy ‘ ee
DO en) een) by
O00 ROR eee Pree ke nh
Crea Cae ya eld " ,
D ) ey we va ER 14 mee id
Te) 5
om) yep A Dee ye)
Wn mn) CRON
Cen)
ay i
PR en yi fi One) 4 a}
eae ATR Oks heeee ah ge
A Aira) PR
OCR EPR RY Oe iy eT Mu) DOORS RRC Pee ea neh i irl We i
Eee TAT OUD TOUR A Laer iy Coen ye re een ee ele) rare
ae Sry Ha AP wy) PRK D De ene ee en ee Bram My ONES ne eT) DROOL) ON Ba)
YOU non 4 Cua: Ce oe ene eo Cee Oe oe) Da) a
Ca) Sh ee aa
SOAR a ne x
RN ion aR Ie SOP NRCS MR ae Te BPR Onn en Te ee
i i
a ow rie) f
ae CHAT)
CR ON TEN
we) Chet Pe eee OND Rae aD ORO Tae ee} UEP ey) Nan
Lune ey
Wan
rete: Ab
De TLE RN eee
REE SCRE) Noe aE PET) ;
Goa POOR eR KR GAD PANava
eC ee
eae Dae
f Sey
enya
Pere Kn} eK}
LMU NUP ee) Coie
Sica fat (5) Ran) )
Re aR CORY . ay erhn eNO oe
NOU ICR Phen hsarni ny
Ai
Sey MER RR) Otro Rhy ah
ot
DOOR <4 en COTM ra
ery]
AHR RIN Po Py it
D er LADD AO TEE RS z )
rea
Cent Sei i ie
ne SU
ie on PAR EC WOM ee yO Ce Ron Pence f
i POCrr Sr ere nL
PRR US U CTS RR S “ eee ie DO Cn ete) Oo ROC. DORIC Cn i} De CU Hie fen COM eee ne) Deer Reese chek Cea cnc Ure eee ex)
4
bad edd de Chase + Y)
OCR
oy CORR kcc ec
ries SOR hy
Con
Sn
i CREE) ae a
; 0 é pt
Pee yh
Cee eP YK Teh Pe Sy ey
Air ee
Cao
Ons ne
j . EMRE EN ey i er
Daan Tee An)
en eT
Ss ON
A
‘th (XR Peek tcy
we
om)
ren) a
9 Ca GuUas
anon eA TAY OR
en
\ ON OT RNa TY
oe OR Ory ROC
Orr COOC rN a Ore eer a ery Shand
Ca Ny
ewe
CORIO RRA)
fy} x oe
DO
oe rer a
DON no non
RnR
nag
<4. 9 we ti SORIA UR Hg Par
gre
f aa Cie rer enc
Boog ROKR Oona MO)
Oat tan Sy Uae A i CRC LL Hy ‘alain Watarns oy ae
a
Per er ey ae Cee)
OOOO a De nana wen
ou EN p
cen
Ror eats PA A CT) Re CO eT
On
UTR gE DER RRR a aa ay ne 4 Aina pau wree x F uae tare OU sa
t *
Leh ‘
Cie ROHL Noa NL
Way et
Pe eC
Hea
Coe ae? pa Ea, i ae a
oars rs Mi ni ) oe ng wp Cn pene)
AON SINC Ray Cee aU Cae G
Pew ir Py itis Pita
,
A Re te Hts Sra DUM
it Ren eM
f HST i Y
% ee)
Pia hey oe 5
j meen Aner BUD Ry YY
ai ea
ny in
aoe
ri
wy DON ernie
Q Sonn tts
SL ace ae
ay
bad Ae Onn
- e
oy ei ANG CUM an iy
Lag Benet HOMER TOR UeN Wits eld he Mon La eth ets Hee MA
iAP ok i ra
EAN
Ai cee
Y Any bien
SUC Ty STEAK ene a AT
anny
by H NA AL ah
Oey NE Or matte} DR Gn nae
“4 Syn)
a
RSA Rar i PaatR :
Bie ees Wola Cee petite
rn
D RENO re
Chor en Soe ei ee NN D : ix
Melee AR eS iN Man eee
iy yy Ma Rea
Kr wa Lhe
PRR IE I ert eh
EN ats Ai}
*:) D
n
AJ i ang Sond Roi 7 Dh U
,
aS eA a
Nolinsinoice SA eet TS BADE: 9
Wis) pave} ot
q
We
Pian) Ht
peor eyo
Perrin jeatey helt? Ta
mes Sener} Wh eral
Or a hc
Oe tt OLR meno) pe mR ee Waray eA
Oe
ey
en HAD ay we
Pert = eS
ne ed * wa
Cee RI) Oy Sa Ane ee eens Poe cer
R b YH norte
i h Weta at
orton ere tr el
run cont ge
Ory 1, er) a
oa Muha
Berry
Cees kt Ce ey
Were) REX oD
ea
ehh
enn
eo een rn NE
pti Ob ori relay hrc oi
een ia rion ie iy
OR eRne mre =
ey TRAN Lea Ae
oy Core eies
Ooi Oot
eNit ala:
Orr ore it
tener et ON
~ re
i Vette hee 7
Bin oY CU
beehe
vat eS
- ¢
=7 Toh et eetket
ket
So RAR AIAN
ae
os
porroes
4 ARLE, a eae os ASIN NSC SER ETS RUN RR OP
Soe Hace y frosty erg SS Sol eects PS ayers Rec aeENI NY Seat et athe
Speer Da
ae
eter uier sateen One ong ein
ay
Dviceanetae i pu
eerenr bas beoiee
DOGO NTO O torn DiC ig poe *
hae ih
ttt) alias
OR aOR ted J pea beset tar
sty
a
Linge Ls
oh Pte a Like pete
i eats
aia
Chics bsitpaantdai ree
Palade?
ee
in A)
can Ai
aed
Seria
ine
Sanat
Sores ates
i ae
ert BON
ie Sey Cee,
a
Oi co
a
i
rr eeenereetenee eer sore ABE
tant
ree gedir'y
che alg pws
ats diet liek ‘ ise
Sepa s ar e Dettingen eer rereetan stared Serene fi # intr veacete abe kb Are
A web r ese 8 Be Ge
Ronen ena aren ee
apne helsedatarer ehnehenlegeltaheh
sre alate a= Ronee
; 7, , I
Paes MnO ace Ma i Weel 4” ie a 4 j vine Wh Abe Lae tly,
’ ' oh ’ ’ - } ,
| erie dh athe a i, J i oy ae is a Mal dyed HH! ;
A {
Me sat x:
crue wa, + 7 al ih A ; ‘
’ : >? ; m 7 ne
' : 1 ei ae os ¢ ’ ; a va CA
ry : : | : ‘ , ; ; 7 . i ¥ ; ‘ i a) i 4, a! b A i i i : Vey) mh y i \ A. a :
Sele 3 ee ae ee 7 .
SMITHSONIAN
CONTRIBUTIONS TO KNOWLEDGE.
VOL. X VIL.
‘ EVERY MAN IS A VALUABLE MEMBER OF SOCIETY, WHO, BY HIS OBSERVATIONS, RESEARCHES, AND EXPERIMENTS, PROCURES
KNOWLEDGE FOR MEN.—SMITHSON,
CLEY Of WASHING EON: PUBLISHED BY THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION.
MDCCCOLXXI.
th
: a Ps : ‘9 touaiey re
+ oa een
io o cf .
ADVERTISEMENT,
Tuts volume forms the seventeenth of a series, composed of original memoirs on different branches of knowledge, published at the expense, and under the direction, of the Smithsonian Institution. The publication of this series forms part of a general plan adopted for carrying into effect the benevolent intentions of JAMES SurrHson, Esq., of England. This gentleman left his property in trust to the United States of America, to found, at Washington, an institution which should bear his own name, and have for its objects the “increase and diffusion of knowledge among men.” This trust was accepted by the Government of the United States, and an Act of Congress was passed August 10, 1846, constituting the President and the other principal executive officers of the general government, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Mayor of Washington, and such other persons as they might elect honorary members, an establishment under the name of the “S1THsoNIAN INSTITUTION FOR THE INCREASE AND DIFFUSION OF KNOWLEDGE AMONG MEN.” The members and honorary members of this establishment are to hold stated and special meetings for the supervision of the affairs of the Institution, and for the advice and instruction of a Board of Regents, to whom the financial and other affairs are intrusted.
The Board of Regents consists of three members ea officio of the establishment, namely, the Vice-President of the United States, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the Mayor of Washington, together with twelve other members, three of whom are appointed by the Senate from its own body, three by the House of Representatives from its members, and six persons appointed by a joint resolution of both houses. To this Board is given the power of electing a Secretary and other officers, for conducting the active operations of the Institution.
To carry into effect the purposes of the testator, the plan of organization should evidently embrace two objects: one, the increase of knowledge by the addition of new truths to the existing stock; the other, the diffusion of knowledge, thus increased, among men. No restriction is made in favor of any kind of knowledge ; and, hence, each branch is entitled to, and should receive, a share of attention.
iv ADVERTISEMENT.
The Act of Congress, establishing the Institution, directs, as a part of the plan of organization, the formation of a Library, a Museum, and a Gallery of Art, together with provisions for physical research and popular lectures, while it leaves to the Regents the power of adopting such other parts of an organization as they may deem best suited to promote the objects of the bequest.
After much deliberation, the Regents resolved to divide the annual income into two parts—one part to be devoted to the increase and diffusion of knowledge by means of original research and publications—the other part of the income to be applied in accordance with the requirements of the Act of Congress, to the gradual formation of a Library, a Museum, and a Gallery of Art.
The following are the details of the parts of the general plan of organization provisionally adopted at the meeting of the Regents, Dec. 8, 1847.
DETATS, OF PAE WIR ST PAIR O iby Ck SealivAgNe
I. To INCREASE KNOWLEDGE.—It is proposed to stimulate research, by offering rewards for original memoirs on all subjects of investigation.
1. The memoirs thus obtained, to be published in a series of volumes, in a quarto form, and entitled “Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge.”
2. No memoir, on subjects of physical science, to be accepted for publication, which does not furnish a positive addition to human knowledge, resting on original research; and all unverified speculations to be rejected. :
3. Each memoir presented to the Institution, to be submitted for examination to a commission of persons of reputation for learning in the branch to which the memoir pertains; and to be accepted for publication only in case the report of this commission is favorable.
4. The commission to be chosen by the officers of the Institution, and the name of the author, as far as practicable, concealed, unless a favorable decision be made.
5. The volumes of the memoirs to be exchanged for the Transactions of literary and scientific societies, and copies to be given to all the colleges, and principal libraries, in this country. One part of the remaining copies may be offered for sale; and the other carefully preserved, to form complete sets of the work, to supply the demand from new institutions.
6. An abstract, or popular account, of the contents of these memoirs to be given to the public, through the annual report of the Regents to Congress.
ADVERTISEMENT. : .
Il. To tncrEAsE KNnow.epcEe.—Z/t ts also proposed to appropriate a portion of the income, annually, to special objects of research, wnder the direction of suitable
persons.
1. The objects, and the amount appropriated, to be recommended by counsellors of the Institution.
2. Appropriations in different years to different objects; so that, in course of time, each branch of knowledge may receive a share.
3. The results obtained from these appropriations to be published, with the memoirs before mentioned, in the volumes of the Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge.
4. Examples of objects for which appropriations may be made :—
(1.) System of extended meteorological observations for solving the problem of American storms.
(2.) Explorations in descriptive natural history, and geological, mathematical, and topographical surveys, to collect material for the formation of a Physical Atlas of the United States.
(3.) Solution of experimental problems, such as a new determination of the weight of the earth, of the velocity of electricity, and of light; chemical analyses of soils and plants; collection and publication of articles of science, accumulated in the offices of Government.
(4.) Institution of statistical inquiries with reference to physical, moral, and political subjects.
(5.) Historical researches, and accurate surveys of places celebrated in American history.
(6.) Ethnological researches, particularly with reference to the different races of men in North America; also explorations, and accurate surveys, of the mounds and other remains of the ancient people of our country.
I. To pirruse Knowience.—It is proposed to publish a series of reports, giving an account of the new discoveries in science, and of the changes made from year to year in all branches of knowledge not strictly professional.
1. Some of these reports may be published annually, others at longer intervals, as the income of the Institution or the changes in the branches of knowledge may indicate.
2. The reports are to be prepared by collaborators, eminent in the different branches of knowledge.
vi ADVERTISEMENT.
3. Each collaborator to be furnished with the journals and publications, domestic and foreign, necessary to the compilation of his report; to be paid a certain sum for his labors, and to be named on the title-page of the report.
4. The reports to be published in separate parts, so that persons interested in a particular branch, can procure the parts relating to it, without purchasing the whole.
5. These reports may be presented to Congress, for partial distribution, the remaining copies to be given to literary and scientific institutions, and sold to indi-
viduals for a moderate price.
The following are some of the subjects which may be embraced in the reports :—
I. PHYSICAL CLASS. . Physics, including astronomy, natural philosophy, chemistry, and meteorology. . Natural history, including botany, zoology, geology, &e.
. Agriculture.
m™ oc Do
. Application of science to arts.
II. MORAL AND POLITICAL CLASS.
. Ethnology, including particular history, comparative philology, antiquities, &e. . Statistics and political economy.
. Mental and moral philosophy.
. A survey of the political events of the world; penal reform, &c.
co SI co OH
Ill. LITERATURE AND THE FINE ARTS.
9. Modern literature. 10. The fine arts, and their application to the useful arts. 11. Bibliography. 12. Obituary notices of distinguished individuals.
If. To pirrusz KNowLepcr.—It is proposed to publish occasionally separate treatises on subjects of general interest.
1. These treatises may occasionally consist of valuable memoirs translated from foreign languages, or of articles prepared under the direction of the Institution, or procured by offering premiums for the best exposition of a given subject.
2. The treatises to be submitted to a commission of competent judges, previous to their publication.
ADVERTISEMENT. wil
DETAILS OF THE SECOND PART OF THE PLAN OF ORGANIZATION.
This part contemplates the formation .of a Library, a Museum, and a Gallery of Art.
1. To carry out the plan before described, a library will be required, consisting, 1st, of a complete collection of the transactions and proceedings of all the learned societies of the world; 2d, of the more important current periodical publications, and other works necessary in preparing the periodical reports.
2. The Institution should make special collections, particularly of objects to verify its own publications. Also a collection of instruments of research in all branches of experimental science.
3. With reference to the collection of books, other than those mentioned above, catalogues of all the different libraries in the United States should be procured, in order that the valuable books first purchased may be such as are not to be found elsewhere in the United States.
4, Also catalogues of memoirs, and of books in foreign libraries, and other materials, should be collected, for rendering the Institution a centre of bibliogra- phical knowledge, whence the student may be directed to any work which he may require.
5. It is believed that the collections in natural history will increase by donation, as rapidly as the income of the Institution can make provision for their reception ; and, therefore, it will seldom be necessary to purchase any article of this kind.
6. Attempts should be made to procure for the gallery of art, casts of the most celebrated articles of ancient and modern sculpture.
7. The arts may be encouraged by providing a room, free of expense, for the exhibition of the objects of the Art-Union, and other similar societies.
8. A small appropriation should annually be made for models of antiquity, such as those of the remains of ancient temples, &e.
9. The Secretary and his assistants, during the session of Congress, will be required to illustrate new discoveries in science, and to exhibit new objects of art; distinguished individuals should also be invited to give lectures on subjects of
general interest.
In accordance with the rules adopted in the programme of organization, the
memoir in this volume has been favorably reported on by a Commission appointed
Sill ADVERTISEMENT.
for its examination. It is however impossible, in most cases, to verify the state- ments of an author; and, therefore, neither the Commission nor the Institution can be responsible for more than the general character of a memoir.
-
The following rules have been adopted for the distribution of the quarto volumes of the Smithsonian Contributions :—
1. They are to be presented to all learned societies which publish Transactions, and give copies of these, in exchange, to the Institution.
2. Also, to all foreign libraries of the first class, provided they give in exchange their catalogues or other publications, or an equivalent from their duplicate volumes.
3. To all the colleges in actual operation in this country, provided they furnish, in return, meteorological observations, catalogues of their libraries and of their students, and all other publications issued by them relative to their organization and history.
4. To all States and Territories, provided there be given, in return, copies of all documents published under their authority.
5. To all incorporated public libraries in this country, not included in any of the foregoing classes, now containing more than 10,000 volumes; and to smaller libraries, where a whole State or large district would be otherwise unsupplied.
OFFICERS
OF THE
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,
Ex-officio PRESIDING OFFICER OF THE INSTITUTION.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,
Ex-officio SECOND PRESIDING OFFICER.
SALMON P. CHASE,
CHANCELLOR OF THE INSTITUTION.
JOSEPH HENRY,
SECRETARY OF THE INSTITUTION.
SPENCER F. BAIRD, ASSISTANT SECRETARY. RICHARD DELAFIELD,
PETER PARKER, FKXxEcuTIvE COMMITTEE. JOHN MACLEAN,
SCHUYLER COLFAX, SALMon P, CHASE, . Matruew G. Emery, . Lyman TRUMBULL, Garrett Davis, HANNIBAL HAMLIN, JAMES A. GARFIELD, . Luxe P. Pouann, . SAMUEL 8. Cox,
Wittiam B. Astor,
TueoporE D. Wootsry, .
Louis AGAssiz, JoHN MACLEAN, RicHARD DELAFIELD, .
Peter PARKER,
REGENTS.
Vice-President of the United States.
Chief Justice of the United States. Mayor of the City of Washington. Member of the Senate of the United States.
cc ce ce ce “cc “
ce ce 66 ce cc ce
“cc ce “ ce 74 ce Citizen of New York.
“ of Connecticut.
“of Massachusetts.
“of New Jersey.
“of Washington.
6 “ce
MEMBERS
Unysses 8. GRANT, ScHUYLER CoLrax, Hamitton Fisx, GeEoRGE 8. BouTwELL, W. W. BELKNAP, . GrorcEe M. Roseson, . J. A. J. CRESWELL, Amos T. AKERMAN, . Satmon P. CHASE,
ce
?
M. G. Emery, .
EX-OFFICIO OF THE INSTITUTION.
President of the United States. Vice-President of the United States. Secretary of State.
Secretary of the Treasury. Secretary of War.
Secretary of the Navy.
Postmaster- General.
Attorney- General.
Ohief Justice of the United States. Commissioner of Patents.
Mayor of the City of Washington.
iy
HONORARY MEMBER. - | | “il Diy 2 oe . j
vy i 7)
a
; ea 7 : #. colidereene a ay Ma if, Cotumsus C. DELANo. The Secretary of the Interior. ,
~ o-
-
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
PAGE ARTICLE I. Inrropuctrion. Pp. 14. Advertisement . : 2 , iii List of Officers of the Smithsonian Institution ARTICLE II. Systems or Consancuiniry AND AFFINITY OF THE HuMAN Famity. By Lewis TH. Morean. Accepted for Publication, January, 1868. Pub- lished June, 1870. 4to pp. 602. Fourteen Plates and six Diagrams.
‘pogo Beek" ar) then 8 ae / wm ie
7
~
vi 7 +h wi he
cent
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO KNOWLEDGE. Se eS =
peo bMS
CF
CONSANGUINITY AND AFFINITY
Cy THE
el Wr ie AL Ne EY A. ME Ey,
BY
LEWIS H. MORGAN.
_ _ nae 4 | Laem eo i : } : / f —_ rhe "DY OR ah eek ele Sie wae Re ace _. °j hi) a | Beet) ( 7 7 . E 7 : ee siht Gwe ha | at ; 7 i 1D hss ' em teyehiok t ay ; : 7 Sa 2 : ; . uf ion Wo Ae Made Aber
x i ; 7 ia .@ A ier, © era aa ‘Seve ” BE Ciera io iia
axl? 4&, ain
bee EE reel, OOS me i 7
rath Ac Peas ry
ah ‘ - Le : . ; i wei a : a S
. y . ee The ,
/ ° : —_— a hs ess a :
SDV ER PIS EME NY.
Tue present memoir was first referred to a commission consisting of Professor “J. H. McIlvaine and Professor William Henry Green, of Princeton, New Jersey, who recommended its publication, but advised certain changes in the method of presenting the subject. After these modifications had been made, it was submitted to the American Oriental Society, and was by it referred to a special committee, consisting of Messrs. Hadley, Trumbull, and Whitney, who, having critically examined the memoir, reported that it contained a series of highly interesting facts which they believed the students of philology and ethnology, though they might not accept all the conclusions of the author, would welcome as valuable contributions to science.
JOSEPH HENRY, Secretary S. I.
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, 1870.
( iii )
ae . 7 7 at =f cs 1 } i ay 7 5 ‘ > Sn - _ fi is * - i a! Y el ee i bi & * af a o a = ‘yy
4a _ , j "Cvs aie Pu oh
ir 5 ote ie epd
ry z : ao Lh ¢@ a Z nm p> PAT eS . ee re ite
a 7 ‘rae patie | 4 it Sein eet vies va I | Ve q29 ~~ Jie vhee iit
ln Bits 4) 7 ie Glen
; aw Sy / 3 re on ae s. 2 - Ei: ; A Ha =
wera. nee 17 s
&
iaiy ive ¢ B gay ?ie?® bam ary ae,
cae ey NPE ue ; > ae
| js a ati
re a ha care " > i hy / ao bs slit} areal i
et er)
.
4
i ae ‘ al +
. ® qiamte whi er . 7 ise. “1 a = 4 a ; i idle ee
ee
aa os >
PREFACKE.
Purtotoay has proved itself an admirable instrument for the classification of nations into families upon the basis of linguistic affinities. A comparison of the vocables and of the grammatical forms of certain languages has shown them to be dialects of a common speech; and these dialects, under a common name, have thus been restored to their original unity as a family of languages. In this manner, and by this instrumentality, the nations of the earth have been reduced, with more or less of certainty, to a small number of independent families.
Some of these families have been more definitely circumscribed than others. The Aryan and Semitic languages have been successfully traced to their limits, and the people by whom they are severally spoken are now recognized as families in the strict and proper sense of the term. Of those remaining, the Turanian is rather a great assemblage of nations, held together by slender affinities, than a family in the Aryan or Semitic sense. With respect to the Malayan it approaches nearer to the true standard, although its principal divisions are marked by considerable differences. The Chinese and its cognates, as monosyllabic tongues, are probably entitled upon linguistic grounds to the distinction of an independent family of languages. On the other hand, the dialects and stock languages of the American aborigines have not been explored, with sufficient thoroughness, to determine the question whether they were derived from a common speech. So far as the comparisons have been made they have been found to agree in general plan and in grammatical structure.
The remarkable results of comparative philology, and the efficiency of the method upon which as a science it proceeds, yield encouraging assurance that it will ultimately reduce all the nations of mankind to families as clearly circum- scribed as the Aryan and Semitic. But it is probable that the number of these families, as finally ascertained, will considerably exceed the number now recognized. When this work of philology has been fully accomplished, the question will remain whether the connection of any two or more of these families can be determined from the materials of language. Such a result is not improbable, and yet, up to
the present time, no analysis of language, however searching and profound, has
ay)
vi PREFACE.
been able to cross the barrier which separates the Aryan from the Semitic lan- guages,—and these are the two most thoroughly explored,—and discover the pro- cesses by which, if’ originally derived from a common speech, they have become radically changed in their ultimate forms. It was with special reference to the bearing which the systems of consanguinity and affinity of the several families of mankind might have upon this vital question, that the research, the results of which are contained in this volume, was undertaken.
In the systems of relationship of the great families of mankind some of the oldest memorials of human thought and experience are deposited and preserved. ‘They have been handed down as transmitted systems, through the channels of the blood, from the earliest ages of man’s existence upon the earth; but revealing certain definite and progressive changes with the growth of man’s experience in the ages of barbarism. ‘To such conclusions the evidence, drawn from a comparison of the forms which now prevail in different families, appears to tend,
All the forms thus far discovered resolve themselves, in a comprehensive sense, into two, the descriptive and the classificatory, which are the reverse of each other in their fundamental conceptions. As systems of consanguinity each contains a plan, for the description and classification of kindred, the formation of which was an act of intelligence and knowledge. They ascend by the chain of derivation to a remote antiquity, from which, as defined and indurated forms, their propagation commenced, Whether as organic forms they are capable of crossing the line of demarcation which separates one family from another, and of yielding evidence of the ethnic connection of such families, will depend upon the stability of these forms, and their power of self-perpetuation in the streams of the blood through indefinite periods of time. For the purpose of determining, by ample tests, whether these systems possess such attributes, the investigation has been extended over a field sufficiently wide to embrace four-fifths and upwards, numerically, of the entire human family. The results are contained in the Tables.
A comparison of these systems, and a careful study of the slight but clearly marked changes through which they have passed, have led, most unexpectedly, to the recovery, conjecturally at least, of the great series or sequence of customs and institutions which mark the pathway of man’s progress through the ages of barba- rism ; and by means of which he raised himself from a state of promiscuous inter- course to final civilization. The general reader may be startied by the principal inference drawn from the classificatory system of relationship, namely, that it originated in the intermarriage of brothers and sisters in a communal family, and that this was the normal state of marriage, as well as of the family, in the early part of the unmeasured ages of barbarism. But the evidence in support of this
conclusion seems to be decisive. Although it is difficult to conceive of the ex-
PREFACE. Vil
tremity of a barbarism, which such a custom presupposes, it is a reasonable presumption that progress through and out from it was by successive stages of advancement, and through great reformatory movements. Indeed, it seems probable that the progress of mankind was greater in degree, and in the extent of its range, in the ages of barbarism than it has been since in the ages of civilization; and that it was a harder, more doubtful, and more intense struggle to reach the thresh- old of the latter, than it has been since to reach its present status. Civilization must be regarded as the fruit, the final reward, of the vast and varied experience of mankind in the barbarous ages. ‘The experiences of the two conditions are successive links of a common chain of which one cannot be interpreted without the other. ‘This system of relationship, instead of revolting the mind, discloses with sensible clearness, ‘the hole of the pit whence [we have been] digged” by the good providence of God.
A large number of inferior nations are unrepresented in the Tables, and to that extent the exposition is incomplete. But it is believed that they are formed upon a scale sufficiently comprehensive for the determination of two principal questions: First, whether a system of relationship can be employed, independently, as a basis for the classification of nations into a family ? and, secondly, whether the systems of two or more families, thus constituted, can deliver decisive testimony concern- ing the ethnic connection of such families when found in disconnected areas? Should their uses for these purposes be demonstrated in the affirmative, it will not be difficult to extend the investigation into the remaining nations.
In the progress of the inquiry it became necessary to detach from the Turanian family the Turk and Finn stocks, and to erect them into an independent family. It was found that they possessed a system of relationship fundamentally different from that which prevailed in the principal branches of the Southern division, which, in strictness, stood at the head of the family. The new family, which for the reasons stated I have ventured to make, I have named the Uralian. At the same time the Chinese have been returned to the Turanian family upon the basis of their possession, substantially, of the Turanian system of consanguinity. Still another innoyation upon the received classification of the Asiatic nations was ren- dered necessary from the same consideration. That portion of the people of India who speak the Gaura language have been transferred from the Aryan to the Tura- nian family, where their system of consanguinity places them. Although ninety per centum of the vocables of the several dialects of this language are Sanskritic, against ten per centum of the aboriginal speech, yet the grammar as well as the
system of relationship, follows the aboriginal form.’ If grammatical structure is
t Caldwell’s Dravidian Comp. Gram. Intro. p. 39.
Vili PREFACE.
the governing law in the classification of dialects and stock languages, and this is one of the accepted canons of philology,’ then the “ Dialects of India,” as they are called in the Genealogical Table of the Aryan Family of Languages, do not, for this reason, properly belong in that connection, but in the Turanian. ‘Their system of relationship, which has followed the preponderance of numbers or of the blood, is also Turanian in form, although greatly modified by Sanskritic influence. The Sanskritic people of India, notwithstanding their Aryan descent, and the probable purity of their blood to the present day, have been, in a linguistic sense, absorbed into an aboriginal stock. Having lost their native tongue, which became a dead language, they have been compelled to adopt the vernacular idioms of the barbarians whom they conquered, and to content themselves with furnishing, from the opulent Sanskrit, the body of the vocables, whilst the remainder and the gram- mar were derived from the aboriginal speech. If they are ever rescued from this classification it must be affected through reasons independent of their present lan- guage and system of consanguinity. LEWIS H. MORGAN.
Roonester, New York, January, 1866.
Acknowledgments.
For the materials, out of which the Tables were formed, I am indebted upon a scale which far outruns my ability to render a sufficient acknowledgment. The names attached to the list of schedules will afford some impression of the extent to which correspondents in foreign countries must have been taxed, as well as wearied, in studying through the intricate and elaborate forms they were severally solicited to investigate, and to develop in a systematic manner upon a schedule of printed questions. Without their co-operation, as well as gratuitous labor, it would have been impossible to present the Tables, except those relating to the American Indian nations. Each schedule should be received as the separate contribution of the person by whom it was made, and the credit of whatever information it contains is due to him. Without intending to discriminate, in the least, amongst the number of those named in the Tables, I desire to mention the fact that much the largest number of the foreign schedules were furnished by American missionaries. ‘There is no class of men upon the earth, whether considered as scholars, as philanthro- pists, or as gentlemen, who have earned for themselves a more distinguished repu- tation. Their labors, their self-denial, and their endurance in the work to which
* Miiller’s Science of Language. Scribner’s ed., p. 82.
PREFACH. 1x
they have devoted their time and their great abilities, are worthy of admiration. Their contributions to history, to ethnology, to philology, to geography, and to religious literature, form a lasting monument to their fame. The renown which encircles their names falls as a wreath of honor upon the name of their country.
I am also indebted to S. B. Treat, D. D., Secretary of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions; to Hon. Walter Lowrie, Secretary of the Board of Missions of the Presbyterian Church; to J. G. Warren, D. D., Secretary of the American Baptist Missionary Union; and to Rev. Philip Peltz, Secretary of the Board of Missions of the American Dutch Reformed Church, for their co-operation, and for the facilities which they afforded me during a protracted correspondence with the missionaries of their respective boards.
In an especial manner I am indebted to the Smithsonian Institution for efficient co-operation in procuring materials for this work.
To the late Hon. Lewis:Cass, Secretary of State of the United States, and to his immediate successor, Hon. William H. Seward, I am also under very great obliga- tions for commending this investigation to the diplomatic and consular representa- tives of the United States in foreign countries; and for government facilities whilst conducting with them an equally extended correspondence.
Among many others whom I ought to mention I must not omit the names of my friends J. H. Mcllvaine, D. D., of the College of New Jersey, who has been familiar with the nature and objects of this research from its commencement, and from whom I have received many important suggestions; Chester Dewey, D. D., of the University of Rochester, now an octogenarian, but with undiminished relish for knowledge in all its forms, whose friendly advice it has been my frequent privilege to accept; and Samuel P. Ely, Esq., of Marquette, at whose hospitable home on Lake Superior the plan for the prosecution of this investigation was formed.
There is still another class 01 persons to whom my obligations are by no means the least, and they are the native American Indians of many different nations, both men and women, who from natural kindness of heart, and to gratify the wishes of a stranger, have given me their time and attention for hours, and even days together, in what to them must have been a tedious and unrelished labor. Without the information obtained from them it would have been entirely impossible to present the system of relationship of the Indian family.
oe it
Vind MU j
: : i Se Th. : bet ; 7 ie | Zi, , ‘aye au ; fod ant
7 OO - i ae ee } Shi) bee Hn yh Si
‘¢€ ee neta tea Gi i i
S 7 : i - - - j : + ve! 7 ani s is
aa - ea : 4 - - mn
7 s . - ‘
; ; - fil Ht
me -
4 Bs emi
,
7 f) '
. Ov =< - ae aa
F at ff a ; * A hie eel ae or a 1 i eT) iit Why ee : ‘ spiner aaa th ime
i rs 2 ; : : ; : cc * o ue as
o oT : i 7 Pan eae Ae :
in = @) » AE i
: : : wll — a 7 ash jut avaly
ea | ae A
. y , po ve * _ i aa : cA
. uv @ * a a
“3 io = = Wes | a 0 nt
WI
CORN, PEN, ES:
ADVERTISEMENT ° . . . . . ° .
PREFACE = ; < . : ' f
BAR EL, DESCRIPTIVE SYSTEM OF RELATIONSHIP. ARYAN, SEMITIC, AND URALIAN FAMILIES.
Cuap. I. Introduction II. General Observations upor Systems of Relationships III. System of Relationship of the Aryan Family : IV. System of Relationship of the Aryan Family—Continued . V. System of Relationship of the Semitic Family VI. System of Relationship of the Uralian Family
APPENDIX TO Part I. ‘Table of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Semitic, Aryan, and Uralian Families
je ye din dy VES
CLASSIFICATORY SYSTEM OF RELATIONSHIP. GANOWANIAN FAMILY.
Cuap. I. System of Relationship of the Ganowdnian Family II. System of Relationship of the Ganowdnian Family—Continued III. System of Relationship of the Ganowdnian Family—Continued IV. System of Relationship of the Ganowdnian Family—Continued V. System of Relationship of the Ganowdnian Family—Continued VI. System of Relationship of the Ganowanian Family—Continued VII. System of Relationship of the Eskimo
ApprnpiIx TO Part II. System of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Ganowanian Family
( xi)
PAGE ii
(fal
Xl CONTENTS.
PASE. CLASSIFICATORY SYSTEM OF RELATIONSHIP—Conrinugep.
TURANIAN AND MALAYAN FAMILIES,
Cuap. I. System of Relationship of the Turanian Family II. System of Relationship of the Turanian Family—Continued III. System of Relationship of the Turanian Family—Continued IV. System of Relationship of Unclassified Asiatic Nations V. System of Relationship of the Malayan Family VI. General Results
ApprnDIx TO ParTIII. Table of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Turanian and Malayan Families
PAGE 385 399 413 438 448 467
515
PART Tf.
DESCRIPTIVE SYSTEM OF RELATIONSHIP.
ARYAN, SEMITIC, AND URALTAN FAMILIES.
WITH A TABLE.
May, 1868. (Gi)
_
. ow * ‘ é + - ‘ > » - a * £ . ’ = " < » se a¥ ; (Ue Bs 4 se ‘, { ; i :
Wve tibet) Libation thageeiaains aa
a 7 - = ry 8 i uf lie FANE eahita 1 big’ é ne i ip ae ib 2
ms 7 ‘ i i ; f us a le
i ee Teak!
aw) Aa ae mie
i Nate! re vil dinsest) AeOreme | Wie pire Anika a t _einnnm Ube alia ieee iA - : 7 / rt, Wi Lets ora ae
| | in of ee : ; — aw i PIG hepa Asi a ie abet . : 1) iD tt am nae
ave rit x j ' t Y ={ pede , Se}
my rf
pal en Mh
» ’ ced une
, ee
a et
ite
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTION.
Causes which induced this Investigation—Peculiar System of Relationship among the Iroquois—Discovery of the same among the Ojibwas—Inferences from their Identity—Its prevalence throughout the Indian Family rendered probable—Plan adopted to determine the Question—Results Reached—Evidence of the existence of the same System in Asia obtained—Range of the Investigation Extended—Necessity for including, as far as possible, all the Families of Mankind—Method of Prosecuting the Inquiry—General Results—Materials Collected—Order of Arrangement—Tables of Consanguinity and Affinity—Systems of Relationship as a Basis of Classification—Their Use in Ethnological Investigations.
As far back as the year 1846, while collecting materials illustrative of the institutions of the Iroquois, I found among them, in daily use, a system of relation- ship for the designation and classification of kindred, both unique and extraordinary in its character, and wholly unlike any with which we are familiar. In the year 1851' I published a brief account of this singular system, which I then supposed to be of their own invention, and regarded as remarkable chiefly for its novelty. Afterwards, in 1857,? I had occasion to reéxamine the subject, when the idea of its possible prevalence among other Indian nations suggested itself, together with its uses, in that event, for ethnological purposes. In the following summer, while on the south shore of Lake Superior, I ascertained the system of the Ojibwa Indians; and, although prepared in some measure for the result, it was with some degree of surprise that I found among them the same elaborate and complicated system which then existed among the Iroquois. Every term of relationship was radically different from the corresponding term in the Iroquois; but the classification of kindred was the same. It was manifest that the two systems were identical in their fundamental characteristics. It seemed probable, also, that both were derived from a common source, since it was not supposable that two peoples, speaking dialects of stock-languages as widely separated as the Algonkin and Iroquois, could simultaneously have invented the same system, or derived it by borrowing one from the other.
From this fact of identity several inferences at once suggested themselves. As - its prevalence among the Sencca-Iroquois rendered probable its like prevalence among other nations speaking dialects of the Iroquois stock-language, so its existence and use among the Ojibwas rendered equally probable its existence and use among the remaining nations speaking dialects of the Algonkin speech. If investigation should establish the affirmative of these propositions it would give to
1 League of the Iroquois, p. 85. 2 Proceedings of American Association for Advancement of Science for 1857, Part II., p. 132.
(3)
4 SYSTEMS OF CONSANGUINITY AND AUN Ys
the system a wide distribution. In the second place, its prevalence among these nations would render probable its like prevalence among the residue of the American aborigines. If, then, it should be found to be universal among them, it would follow that the system was coeval, in point of time, with the commencement of their dispersion over the American continent; and also that, as a system trans- mitted with the blood, it might contain the necessary evidence to establish their unity of origin. And in the third place, if the Indian family came, in fact, from Asia, it would seem that they must have brought the system with them from that continent, and have left it behind them among the people from whom they sepa- rated; further than this, that its perpetuation upon this continent would render probable its like perpetuation upon the Asiatic, where it might still be found; and, finally, that it might possibly furnish some evidence upon the question of the Asiatic origin of the Indian family.
This series of presumptions and inferences was very naturally suggested by the discovery of the same system of consanguinity and affinity in nations speaking dialects of two stock-languages. It was not an extravagant series of speculations upon the given basis, as will be more fully understood when the Seneca and Ojibwa systems are examined and compared. On this simple and obvious line of thought I determined to follow up the subject until it was ascertained whether the system was universal among the American aborigines; and, should it become reasonably probable that such was the fact, then to pursue the inquiry upon the Eastern Con- tinent, and among the islands of the Pacific,
The work was commenced by preparing a schedule of questions describing the persons in the lineal, and the principal persons embraced in the first five collateral lines, which, when answered, would give their relationship to Ego, and thus spread out in detail the system of consanguinity and affinity of any nation with fullness and particularity. ‘This schedule, with an explanatory letter, was sent in the form of a printed circular to the several Indian missions in the United States, to the commanders of the several military posts in the Indian country, and to the government Indian agents. It was expected to procure the information by correspondence as the principal instrumentality. From the complicated nature of the subject the results, as might, perhaps, have been foreseen, were inconsiderable. This first disappointment was rather a fortunate occurrence than otherwise, since it forced me either to abandon the investigation, or to prosecute it, so far as the Indian nations were concerned, by personal inquiry. It resulted in the several annual explorations among the Indian nations, the fruits of which will be found in Tables II., which is attached to Part II. By this means all the nations, with but a few exceptions, between the Atlantic and the Rocky Mountains, and between the Arctic Sea and the Gulf of Mexico, were reached directly, and their systems of relationship procured. Some of the schedules, however, were obtained by corre- spondence, from other parties.
Having ascertained as early as the year 1859 that the system prevailed in the five principal Indian stock-languages east of the mountains, as well as in several of the dialects of each, its universal diffusion throughout the Indian family had become extremely probable. This brought me to the second stage of the investi-
OF THE HUMAN FAMILY. 5
gation, namely, to find whether it prevailed in other parts of the world. To determine that question would require an extensive foreign correspondence, which a private individual could not hope to maintain successfully, ‘To make the attempt effectual would require the intervention of the national government, or the co-ope- ration of some literary or scientific institution. It is one of the happy features of American society that any citizen may ask the assistance of his government, or of any literary or scientific institution in the country, with entire freedom; and with the further consciousness that his wishes will be cheerfully acceded to if deserving of encouragement. This removed what might otherwise have been a serious obstacle. In this spirit I applied to Prof. Joseph Henry, Secretary of the Smith- sonian Institution, for the use of the name of the latter in foreign countries in the conduct of the correspondence ; and further desired him to procure a letter from the Secretary of State of the United States to our diplomatic and consular repre- sentatives abroad, commending the subject to their favorable attention. With both of these requests Prof. Henry complied in the most cordial manner. From January, 1860, until the close of the investigation, the larger part of the corre- spondence was conducted under the official name of the Institution, or under cover by the Secretary of State. By these means an unusual degree of attention was secured to the work in foreign countries, the credit of which is due to the influence of the Smithsonian Institution, and to the official circular of the late General Cass, then Secretary of State. In addition to these arrangements I had previously solicited and obtained the co-operation of the secretaries of the several American missionary boards, which enabled me to reach, under equally favorable conditions, a large number of American missionaries in Asia and Africa, and among the islands of the Pacific.
From the distinguished American missionary, Dr. Henry W. Scudder, of Arcot, India, who happened to be in this country in 1859, I had obtained some evidence of the existence of the American Indian system of relationship among the 'Tamilian people of South-India. ‘This discovery opened still wider the range of the proposed investigation. It became necessary to find the limits within which the systems of the Aryan and Semitic families prevailed, in order to ascertain the line of demarca- tion between their forms and that of the eastern Asiatics. ‘The circumscription of one was necessary to the circumscription of the other. In addition to this it seemed imperative to include the entire human family within the scope of the research, and to work out this comprehensive plan as fully as might be possible. The nearer this ultimate point was approximated the more instructive would be the final results. It was evident that the full significance of identity of systems in India and America would be lost unless the knowledge was made definite concern- ing the relations of the Indo-American system of relationship to those of the western nations of Europe and Asia, and also to those of the nations of Africa and Polynesia. This seeming necessity greatly increased the magnitude of the under- taking, and at the same time encumbered the subject with a mass of subordinate materials.
In the further prosecution of the enterprise the same schedule and circular were sent to the principal missions of the several American boards, with a request that
6 SYSTEMS OF CONSANGUINITY AND) AP ERENT Ty
the former might be filled out, according to its design, with the system of rela- tionship of the people among whom they were respectively established; and that such explanations might be given as would be necessary to its interpretation. This class of men possess peculiar qualifications for linguistic and ethnological researches; and, more than this, they reside among the nations whose systems of consanguinity were relatively of the most importance for the purpose in hand. The tables will show how admirably they performed the task.
They were also sent to the diplomatic and consular representatives of the United States in foreign countries, through whom another, and much larger, portion of the human family was reached. By their instrumentality, chiefly, the system of the Aryan family was procured. A serious difficulty, however, was met in this direction, in a difference of language, which the official agents of the government were unable, in many cases, to surmount. In Europe and Asia the number of schedules obtained through them, in a completely executed form, was even larger than would reasonably have been expected; while in Africa, im South America, and in Mexico and Central America the failure was nearly complete.
To supply these deficiencies an attempt was made to reach the English missions en the Eastern Archipelago and in Polynesia; and also Spanish America through the Roman Catholic bishops and clergy of those countries; but the efforts proved unsuccessful,
The foregoing are the principal, but not the exclusive, sources from which the materials contained in the tables were derived.
A large number of schedules, when returned, were found to be imperfectly filled out. Misapprehension of the nature and object of the investigation was the prin- cipal cause. ‘The most usual form of mistake was the translation of the questions into the native language, which simply reproduced the questions and left them unanswered, A person unacquainted with the details of his own system of rela- tionship might be misled by the form of each question which describes a person, and not at once perceive that the true answer should give the relationship sustained by this person to Hgo. As our own system is descriptive essentially, a correct answer to most of the questions would describe a person very much in the form of the question itself, if the system of the nation was descriptive. But, on the con- trary, if it was classificatory, such answers would not only be incorrect in fact, but would fail to show the true system, The utmost care was taken to guard against this misapprehension, but, notwithstanding, the system of several important nations, thus imperfectly procured, was useless from the difficulty, not to say impossibility, of repeating the attempt in remote parts of the earth, where it required two years, and sometimes three, for a schedule to be received and returned. In some cases, where the correspondent was even as accessible as India, it required that length of time, and the exchange of several letters, to correct and perfect the details of a single schedule. Every system of relationship is intrinsically difficult until it has been carefully studied. The classificatory form is complicated in addition to being diffi- cult, and totally unlike our own. It is easy, therefore, to perceive that when a person was requested to work out, in detail, the system of a foreign people he would find it necessary, in the first instance, to master his own, and after that to meet
OF THE HUMAN FAMILY. 7
and overcome the difficulties of another, and, perhaps, radically different form. With these considerations in mind it is a much greater cause for surprise that so many schedules were completely executed than that a considerable number should have failed to be so.
The schedule is necessarily self-corrective as to a portion of the persons described, since the position of Ego and his or her correlative person is reversed in different questions. It was also made self-confirmatory in other ways, so that a careful examination would determine the question of its correctness or non-correctness in essential particulars. This was especially true with respect to the classificatory system. Notwithstanding all the efforts made to insure correctness, it is not sup- posable that the tables are free from errors; on the contrary, it is very probable that a critical examination will bring to light a large number. I believe, however, that they will be found to be substantially correct.
It was a matter of some difficulty to determine the proper order of arrangement of the materials thus brought together. The natural order of the subject has been followed as closely as possible. All the forms of consanguinity exhibited in the tables resolve themselves into two, the descriptive and the classificatory. Of these the former is the most simple in its structure, and for this reason should be first considered. It embraces the systems of the Aryan, Semitic, and Uralian families, which are identical in their radical characteristics. The classificatory system has one principal form, the Indo-American, and two subordinate forms, the Malayan and the Eskimo. Of these, the Malayan is the most simple, and probably under- lying form, and, as such, would come first ; after this in its natural order would be either the Turanian or the American Indian, at convenience, since each stands in the same relation to the Malayan; and after these the Eskimo, which stands discon- nected from the systems of either of the families named. But it was found advisable to reverse this order, as to the classificatory form, on account of the preponderating amount of materials, and to consider, first, the American Indian, then the Turanian, and after all these the Malayan and Eskimo.
In Part I., after discussing the elements of a system of relationship considered in the abstract, the Roman form of consanguinity and affinity is taken up and explained with fulness and particularity, as typical of the system of the Aryan family. This is followed by a brief exposition of the forms which prevail in other branches of the family for the purpose of indicating the differences between them and the typical form; and also to ascertain the general characteristics of the system. The systems of the Semitic and Uralian families are then treated in the same manner, and compared with the Aryan form. By this means, also, the limits of the spread of the descriptive system of relationship are determined.
In Part II., after discussing certain preliminary facts, the Seneca-Iroquois form is first explained with minuteness of detail, as typical of the system of the American Indian family. After this the several forms in the remaining branches of this family are presented; confining the discussion, so far as could properly be done, to the points of difference between them and the typical system.
In Part III., the Tamilian form is first presented and explained as typical of the system of the Turanian family; after which the forms that prevail among the
8 SYSTEMS OF CONSANGUINITY AND AFFINITY
other Asiatic nations represented in the tables, are considered and compared with the typical form. These are necessarily presented with fulness of detail, particu- larly the Chinese, from the great amount of divergence «from the typical form which they exhibit. After this the system of the Malayan family, of which the Hawaiian form is typical, is presented and explained in the same manner. The Eskimo system concludes the series.
Lastly, the general results of a comparison of these several forms, together with a conjectural solution of the origin of the classificatory system, furnish the subject of a concluding chapter.
The tables, however, are the main results of this investigation. In their importance and value they reach far beyond any present use of their contents which the writer may be able to indicate. If they can be perfected, and the systems of the unrepresented nations be supplied, their value would be greatly increased, ‘The classification of nations is here founded upon a comparison of their several forms of consanguinity. With some exceptions, it harmonizes with that previously established upon the basis of linguistic affinities. One rests upon blood, the preponderance of which is represented by the system of relationship ; the other is founded upon language, the affinities of which are represented by grammatical structure. One follows ideas indicated in a system of relationship and transmitted with the blood; the other follows ideas indicated in forms of speech and transmitted in the same manner. It may be a question which class of ideas has been perpetuated through the longest periods of time.
In Table I., which is appended to Part I., will be found the system of the Aryan, Semitic, and Uralian families; in Table II., which is likewise appended to Part IJ., that of the American Indian family; and in Table IV., which is appended to Part III., that of the Turanian and Malayan families. The plan adopted in framing these tables was to bring each specific relationship, among a certain number of affiliated nations, into the same column, so that their agreement or disagreement as to any particular relationship might be seen at a glance. This arrangement will facilitate the comparison. ‘The names of the several nations, whose systems are brought together, will be found in a column on the left of the page; and the descriptions of the several persons, whose relationships to Ego are shown, are written in a consecutive series at the top of the several columns. In this series the lineal line is first given, This is followed by the first collateral line in its male and female branches; and this, in turn, by the second collateral line in its male and female branches on the father’s side, and in its male and female branches on the mother’s side; after which, but less fully extended, will be found the third, fourth, and fifth collateral lines, An inspection of the tables will make the method sufficiently obyious.
If these tables prove sufficient to demonstrate the utility of systems of relation- ship in the prosecution of ethnological investigations, one of the main objects of this work will be accomplished. The number of nations represented is too small to exhibit all the special capabilities of this instrumentality. The more thoroughly the system is explored in the different nations of the same family of speech, espe- cially where the form is classificatory, the more ample and decisive the evidence
OF THE HUMAN FAMILY. 9
will become which bears upon the question of their genetic connection, The threads of this connection between remotely affiliated nations are sometimes recovered in the most unexpected manner. ‘These tables, therefore, as but the commencement of the work if this new instrument in ethnology invite the test of criticism. The remaining nations of the earth can be reached and their systems procured, should it seem to be desirable; and it may be found that this is the most
simple as well as compendious method for the classification of nations upon the basis of affinity of blood.’
1 In the appendix to this volume will be found a schedule of questions adapted to this work. Any person interested in the furtherance of this object, who will procure the system of any nation not represented in the tables, or correct or complete any deficient schedule therein, will render a special service to the author. The schedule may be sent to the Smithsonian Institution, at Wash- ington; and when published full credit will be given to the person furnishing the same.
2 May, 1868,
10 SYSTEMS OF CONSANGUINITY AND AFFINITY
CHAP TE Ry i
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS UPON SYSTEMS OF RELATIONSHIPS.
Marriage the basis of the Family Relationships—Systems of Consanguinity and Affi nity—Each Person the Centre of a Group of Kindred—The System of Nature Numerical—Not necessarily adopted—Every System embodies Defi- nite Ideas—It is a Domestic Institution—Two Radical Forms—The Descriptive, and the Classificatory—Aryan, Semitic, and Uralian Families have the former—Turanian, American Indian, and Malayan the latter—Divergence of Collateral Lines from Lineal, Characteristic of the First—Mergence of Collateral Lines in the Lineal, of the Second—Uses of these Systems depend upon the Permanence of their Radical Forms—Evidence of their Modi- fication—Direction of the Change—Causes which tend to the Stability of their Radical Features.
In considering the elements of a system of consanguinity the existence of mar- riage between single pairs must be assumed, Marriage forms the basis of rela- tionships. In the progress of the inquiry it may become necessary to consider a system with this basis fluctuating, and, perhaps, altogether wanting. ‘The alter- native assumption of each may be essential to include all the elements of the subject in its practical relations. ‘The natural and necessary connection of consanguinei with each other would be the same in both cases; but with this difference, that in the former the lines of descent from parent to child would be known, while in the latter they would, to a greater or less extent, be incapable of ascertainment. These considerations might affect the form of the system of consanguinity.
The family relationships are as ancient as the family. They exist in virtue of the law of derivation, which is expressed by the perpetuation of the species through the marriage relation. A system of consanguinity, which is founded upon a community of blood, is but the formal expression and recognition of these relationships. Around every person there is a circle or group of kindred of which such person is the centre, the Eyo, from whom the degree of the relationship is reckoned, and to whom the relationship itself returns. Above him are his father and his mother and their ascendants, below him are his children and their descendants; while upon either side are his brothers and sisters and their descendants, and the brothers and sisters of his father and of his mother and their descendants, as well as a much greater number of collateral relatives descended from common ancestors still more remote. ‘To him they are nearer in degree than other individuals of the nation at large. A formal arrangement of the more immediate blood kindred into lines of descent, with the adoption of some method to distinguish one relative from another, and to express the value of the relation- ship, would be one of the earliest acts of human intelligence.
Should the inquiry be made how far nature suggests a uniform method or plan
OFF EGE) Hy Wei Ay No RAC MOT Tn Y;. 11
for the discrimination of the several relationships, and for the arrangement of kindred into distinct lnes of escent, the answer would be difficult, unless it was first assumed that marriage between single pairs had always existed, thus rendering definite the lines of parentage. With this point established, or assumed, a natural system, numerical in its character, will be found underlying any form which man may contrive; and which, resting upon an ordinance of nature, is both universal and unchangeable. All of the descendants of an original pair, through intermedi- ate pairs, stand to each other in fixed degrees of proximity, the nearness or re- moteness of which is a mere matter of computation. If we ascend from ancestor to ancestor in the lineal line, and again descend through the several collateral lines until the widening circle of kindred circumscribes millions of the living and the dead, all of these individuals, in virtue of their descent from common ancestors, are bound to the ‘“* yo” by the chain of consanguinity.
The blood relationships, to which specific terms have been assigned, under the system of the Aryan family, are few in number. They are grandfather and grand- mother, father and mother, brother and sister, son and daughter, grandson and granddaughter, uncle and aunt, nephew and niece, and cousin. ‘Those more remote in degree are described either by an augmentation or by a combination of these terms. After these are the affineal or marriage relationships, which are husband and wife, father-in-law and mother-in-law, son-in-law and daughter-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law, step-father and step-mother, step-son and_ step- daughter, and step-brother and step-sister; together with such of the husbands and wives of blood relatives as receive the corresponding designation by courtesy. These terms are barely sufficient to indicate specifically the nearest relationships, leaving much the largest number to be described by a combination of terms.
So familiar are these ancient household words, and the relationships which they indicate, that a classification of kindred by means of them, according to their degrees of nearness, would seem to be not only a simple undertaking, but, when completed, to contain nothing of interest beyond its adaptation to answer a necessary want. But, since these specific terms are entirely inadequate to desig- nate a person’s kindred, they contain in themselves only the minor part of the system. An arrangement into lines, with descriptive phrases to designate such relatives as fall without the specific terms, becomes necessary to its completion. In the mode of arrangement and of description diversities may exist. Every system of consanguinity must be able to ascend and descend in the lineal line through several degrees from any given person, and to specify the relationship of each to Ego; and also from the lineal, to enter the several collateral lines and follow and describe the collateral relatives through several generations. When spread out in detail and examined, every scheme of consanguinity and affinity will be found to rest upon definite ideas, and to be framed, so far as it contains any plan, with reference to particular ends. In fine, a system of relationship, originat- ing in necessity, is a domestic institution, which serves to organize a family by the bond of consanguinity. As such it possesses a degree of vitality and a power of self-perpetuation commensurate with its nearness to the primary wants of man.
In a general sense, as has elsewhere been stated, there are but two radically
12 SYSTEMS OF CONSANGUINITY AND AFFINITY
distinct forms of consanguinity among the nations represented in the tables. One of these is descriptive and the other classificatory. The first, which is that of the Aryan, Semitic, and Uralian families, rejecting the classification of kindred, except so far as it is in accordance with the numerical system, describes collateral consan- guinci, for the most part, by an augmentation or combination of the primary terms of relationship. ‘These terms, which are those for husband and wife, father and mother, brother and sister, and son and daughter, to which must be added, in such languages as possess them, grandfather and grandmother, and grandson and granddaughter, are thus restricted to the primary sense in which they are here employed. All other terms are secondary. ach relationship is thus made inde- pendent and distinct from every other. But the second, which is that of the Turanian, American Indian, and Malayan families, rejecting descriptive phrases in every instance, and reducing consanguinei to great classes by a series of apparently arbitrary generalizations, applies the same terms to all the members of the same class. It thus confounds relationships, which, under the descriptive system, are distinct, and enlarges the signification both of the primary and secondary terms beyond their seemingly appropriate sense.
Although a limited number of generalizations have been developed in the system of the first-named families, which are followed by the introduction of additional special terms to express in the concrete the relationships thus specialized, yet the system is properly characterized as descriptive, and was such originally. It will be seen in the sequel that the partial classification of kindred which it now con- tains is in harmony with the principles of the descriptive form, and arises from it legitimately to the extent to which it is carried; and that it is founded upon con- ceptions entirely dissimilar from those which govern in the classificatory form. These generalizations, in some cases, are imperfect when logically considered ; but they were designed to realize in the concrete the precise relationships which the descriptive phrases suggest by implication, In the Erse, for example, there are no terms for uncle or aunt, nephew or niece, or cousin; but they were described as father’s brother, mother’s brother, brother’s son, and so on. ‘These forms of the Celtic are, therefore, purely descriptive. In most of the Aryan languages terms for these relationships exist. My father’s brothers and my mother’s brothers, in English, are generalized into one class, and the term wncle is employed to express the relationship. ‘The relationships to Ego of the two classes of persons are equal in their degree of nearness, but not the same in kind; wherefore, the Roman method is preferable, which employed patrwus to express the former, and avunculus to indicate the latter. ‘The phrase “father’s brother” describes a person, but it likewise implies a bond of connection which patrwus expresses in the concrete. In like manner, my father’s brother’s son, my father’s sister’s son, my mother’s brother’s son, and my mother’s sister’s son are placed upon an equality by a similar generalization, and the relationship is expressed by the term cousin. They stand to me in the same degree of nearness, but they are related to me in four different ways. ‘The use of these terms, however, does not invade the principles of the descriptive system, but attempts to realize the implied relationships in a simpler manner. On the other hand, in the system of the last-named families, while cor-
OF THE HUMAN FAMILY. tS
responding terms exist, their application to particular persons is founded upon very different generalizations, and they are used in an apparently arbitrary manner. In Seneca-Iroquois, for example, my father’s brother is my father. Under the system he stands to me in that relationship and no other. I address him by the same term, Hé-nih', which I apply to my own father. My mother’s brother, on the con- trary, is my uncle, Hoc-no-seh, to whom, of the two, this relationship is restricted. Again, with myself a male, my brother’s son is my son, Ha-ah'avuk, the same as my own son; while my sister’s son is my nephew, Ha-yd'-wan-da ; but with myself a female, these relationships are reversed. My brother’s son is then my nephew; while my sister’s son is my son. Advancing to the second collateral line, my father’s brother’s son and my mother’s sister’s son are my brothers, and they severally stand to me in the same relationship as my own brother; but my father’s sister’s son and my mother’s brother’s son are my cousins. ‘The same relationships are recognized under the two forms, but the generalizations upon which they rest are different.
In the system of relationship of the Aryan, Semitic, and Uralian families, the collateral lines are maintained distinct and perpetually divergent from the lineal, which results, theoretically as well as practically, in a dispersion of the blood. The value of the relationships of collateral consanguinei is depreciated and finally lost under the burdensomeness of the descriptive method. This divergence is one of the characteristics of the descriptive system. On the contrary, in that of the Turanian, American Indian, and Malayan families, the several collateral lines, near and remote, are finally brought into, and merged in the lineal line, thus theoretically, if not practically, preventing a dispersion of the blood. ‘The relationships of collaterals by this means is both appreciated and preserved. This mergence is, in like manner, one of the characteristics of the classificatory system.
How these two forms of consanguinity, so diverse in their fundamental concep- tions and so dissimilar in their structure, came into existence it may be wholly impossible to explain. The first question to be considered relates to the nature of these forms and their ethnic distribution, after the ascertainment of which their probable origin may be made a subject of investigation. While the existence of two radically distinct forms appears to separate the human family, so far as it is represented in the tables, into two great divisions, the Indo-European and the Indo- American, the same testimony seems to draw closer together the several families of which these divisions are composed, without forbidding the supposition that a common point of departure between the two may yet be discovered. If the evidence deposited in these systems of relationship tends, in reality, to consolidate the families named into two great divisions, it is a tendency in the direction of unity of origin of no inconsiderable importance.
After the several forms of consanguinity and affinity, which now prevail in the different families of mankind, have been presented and discussed, the important question will present itself, how far these forms become changed with the pro- gressive changes of society. The uses of systems of relationship to establish the genetic connection of nations will depend, first, upon the structure of the system, and, secondly, upon the stability of its radical forms. In form and feature they
14 SYSTEMS OF CONSANGUINITY AND AFFINITY
must be found able, when once established, to perpetuate themselves through indefinite periods of time. The question of their use must turn upon that of the stability of their radical features. Development and modification, to a very considerable extent, are revealed in the tables in which the comparison of forms is made upon an extended scale; but it will be observed, on further examination, that these changes are further developments of the fundamental conceptions which lie, respectively, at the foundation of the two original systems.
There is one powerful motive which might, under certain circumstances, tend to the overthrow of the classificatory form and the substitution of the descriptive, but it would arise after the attainment of civilization. This is the inheritance of estates. It may be premised that the bond of kindred, among uncivilized nations, is a strong influence for the mutual protection of related persons. Among nomadic stocks, especially, the respectability of the individual was measured, in no small degree, by the number of his kinsmen. The wider the circle of kindred the greater the assurance of safety, since they were the natural guardians of his rights and the avengers of his wrongs. Whether designedly or otherwise, the Turanian form of consanguinity organized the family upon the largest scale of numbers. On the other hand, a gradual change from a nomadic to a civilized condition would prove the severest test to which a system of consanguinity could be sub- jected. The protection of the law, or of the State, would become substituted for that of kinsmen; but with more effective power the rights of property might influence the system of relationship. This last consideration, which would not arise until after a people had emerged from barbarism, would be adequate beyond any other known cause to effect a radical change in a pre-existing system, if this recognized relationships which would defeat natural justice in the inheritance of property. In Tamilian society, where my brother’s son and my cousin’s son are both my sons, a useful purpose may have been subserved by drawing closer, in this manner, the kindred bond; but in a civilized sense it would be manifestly unjust to place either of these collateral sons upon an equality with my own son for the inheritance of my estate. Hence the growth of property and the settlement of its distribution might be expected to lead to a more precise discrimination of the several degrees of consanguinity if they were confounded by the previous system,
Where the original system, anterior to civilization, was descriptive, the tendency to modification, under the influence of refinement, would be in the direction of a more rigorous separation of the several lines of descent, and of a more systematic description of the persons or relationships in each. It would not necessarily lead to the abandonment of old terms nor to the invention of new. This latter belongs, usually, to the formative period of a language. When that is passed, compound terms are resorted to if the descriptive phrases are felt to be inconvenient. Wherever these compounds are found it will be known at once that they are modern in the language. The old terms are not necessarily radical, but they have become so worn down by long-continued use as to render the identification of their component parts impossible. While the growth of nomenclatures of relationship tends to show the direction in which existing systems have been modified; it seems
OF THE HUMAN FAMILY. 15
to be incapable of throwing any light upon the question whether a classificatory form ever becomes changed into a descriptive, or the reverse. It is more difficult, where the primitive system was classificatory, to ascertain the probable direction of the change. ‘The uncivilized nations have remained substantially stationary in their condition through all the centuries of their existence, a circumstance eminently favorable to the permanency of their domestic institutions. It is not supposable, however, that they have resisted all modifications of their system of consanguinity. ‘The opulence of the nomenclature of relationships, which is characteristic of the greater portion of the nations whose form is classificatory, may tend to show that, if it changed materially, it would be in the direction of a greater complexity of classification. It is extremely difficult to arrive at any general conclusions upon this question with reference to either form, But it may be affirmed that if an original system changes materially, after it has been adopted into use, it is certain to be done in harmony with the ideas and conceptions which it embodies, of which the changes will be further and logical developments.
It should not be inferred that forms of consanguinity and affinity are either adopted, modified, or laid aside at pleasure. The tables entirely dispel such a supposition. When a system has once comé into practical use, with its nomen- clature adopted, and its method of description or of classification settled, it would, from the nature of the case, be very slow to change. Each person, as has else- where been observed, is the centre around whom a group of consanguinei is arranged, It is my father, my mother, my brother, my son, my uncle, my cousin, with each and every human being; and, therefore, each one is compelled to understand, as well as to use, the prevailing system. It is an actual necessity to all alike, since each relationship is personal to Ego. A change of any of these relationships, or a subversion of any of the terms invented to express them, would be extremely difficult if not impossible; and it would be scarcely less difficult to enlarge or contract the established use of the terms themselves. The possibility of this permanence is increased by the circumstance that these systems exist by usage rather than legal enactment, and therefore the motive to change must be as universal as the usage. Their use and preservation are intrusted to every person who speaks the common language, and their channel of transmission is the blood, Hence it is that, in addition to the natural stability of domestic institutions, there are special reasons which contribute to their permanence, by means of which it is rendered not improbable that they might survive changes of social condition sufficiently radical to overthrow the primary ideas in which they originated.
These preliminary statements being made, it is now proposed to explain and compare the systems of relationship of the several nations and families represented in the tables. In doing this the order therein adopted will be followed. Invoking the patient attention of the reader, I will endeavor to perform this task with as much brevity and clearness as 1 may be able to command,
16 SYSTEMS OF CONSANGUINITY AND AFFINITY
CHAPTER Arr. SYSTEM OF RELATIONSHIP OF THE ARYAN FAMILY.
Roman System of Consanguinity and Affinity—Framed by the Civilians—Relationships of two kinds—By Consan- guinity, or Blood—By Aflinity, or Marriage—Lineal and Collateral Consanguinity—Diagram—Method of Descrip- tion by Lines explained—Diagram of the Roman Civilians—Completeness and precision of the Roman System— Immense number of Consanguinei within the near Degrees—Computations—Rapid intermingling of the Blood of a People—Mode of Computing Degrees under the Civil Law—Under the Canon Law—Under the Common Law—Origin of the Variance—Marriage Relationships fully discriminated—English System barren of Terms— Opulence of the Roman Nomenclature of Relationships.
AN understanding of the framework and principles of our own system of rela- tionship is a necessary preparatory step to the consideration of those of other nations. It was originally strictly descriptive. After the settlement and civiliza- tion of the several branches of the Aryan family, there was engrafted upon it, among several of them, a method of description differing materially from the primi- tive form, but without invading its radical features, or so far overspreading them as to conceal the simple original. The new element, which came naturally from the system itself, was introduced by the Roman civilians to perfect the framework of a code of descents. Their improvements have been adopted into the system of the several branches of the family, to which the Roman influence extended. To obtain a knowledge historically of our present English form, we must resort to the Roman as it was perfected by the civilians, and left by them in its codified form. The additions were slight, but they changed materially the method of describing kindred, They consisted chiefly in the establishment of the relationships of uncle and aunt on the father’s side, and on the mother’s side, which were unknown in the primitive system, and in the adoption of a descriptive method based upon these terms, which, with proper augments, enabled them to systematize the relationships in the first five collateral lines. We are also indebted to the Latin speech for the modern portion of our nomenclature of relationships.
It is evident, however, that the elaborate and scientific arrangement of kindred into formally described lines of descent employed by the civilians, and which became the law of the State, was not adopted by the Roman people, except in its least complicated parts. There are reasons for believing that the ancient method, modified by the substitution of some of the new terms of relationship in the place of descriptive phrases, was retained for those nearest in degree, and that more dis- tant relatives were described without any attempt to preserve the artificial distinc- tions among the several lines. This variance between the forms used by the
OF THE HUMAN FAMILY. 17
people and by the State, whenever it occurs in this family of nations, is entirely immaterial, since the two do not conflict.
It should also be observed that it is impossible to recover the system of consan- guinity and affinity of any people, in its details, from the lexicon, or even from the literature of their language, if it has ceased to be a living form. ‘The Hebrew and Sanskrit are examples. If it had been reduced to a statute and thus had become a Jaw of the State, it would be found in a codified form. In all other cases it can only be obtained, in its completeness, by a direct resort to the people.
In the Pandects' and in the Institutes’ the system of relationship of the Roman civil law has been preserved with minuteness and precision, with full explanations of its provisions and method of arrangement. <A careful examination of its details will furnish us the readiest knowledge of our own, as well as unfold the principles which must govern the formation of any strictly philosophical system.
Relationships are of two kinds: First, by consanguinity, or blood: second, by affinity, or marriage. Consanguinity, which is the relation of persons descended from the same ancestor, is also of two kinds, lineal and collateral. Lineal con- sanguinity 1s the connection which subsists among persons of whom one _ is descended from the other. Collateral consanguinity is the connection which exists among persons who are descended from a common ancestor, but not from each other. Marriage relationships exist by custom.
In every supposable plan of consanguinity, where marriage between single pairs exists, there must be a lineal and several collateral les. Each person, also, in constructing his own table becomes the central point, or Ego, from whom outward is reckoned the degree of relationship of each kinsman, and to whom the relationship returns, His position is necessarily in the lineal line. In a chart of relationships this line is vertical. Upon it may be inscribed, above and below any given person, his several ancestors and descendants in a direct series from father to son, and these persons together will constitute his right lineal male line, which is also called the trunk, or common stock of descent. Out of this trunk line emerge the several collateral lines, male and female, which are numbered outwardly. It will be suffi- cient for a perfect knowledge of the system to limit the explanation to the main lineal line, and to a single male and female branch of each of the collateral lines, including those on the father’s side and on the mother’s side, and proceeding in each from the parent to one only of his or her children, although it will include but a small portion of the kindred of Ego either in the ascending or descending series. An attempt to follow all the divisions and branches of the several collateral lines, which increase in number in the ascending series in a geometrical ratio, would embarrass the reader without rendering the system itself more intelligible. The first collateral line, male, consists of my brother and his descendants, and the first, female, of my sister and her descendants. The second collateral line, male, on the father’s side, consists of my father’s brother and his descendants, and the second, female, of my father’s sister and her descendants; the second collateral
1 Pand., Lib, XX XVIII. tit. x. “De gradibus et adfinibus et nominibus eorum.”
2 Inst. Just., Lib. III. tit. vi. “ De gradibus cognationum.” 3 May, 1868.
18 SYSTEMS OF CONSANGUINITY AND AFFINITY
line, male, on the mother’s side, is composed of my mother’s brother and his descendants, and the second, female, of my mother’s sister and her descendants. The third collateral line, male, on the father’s side, consists of my grandfather’s brother and his descendants, and third, female, of my grandfather’s sister and her descendants ; on the mother’s side, the same line, male, is composed of my grand- mother’s brother and his descendants, and the same, female, of my grandmother’s sister and her descendants. It will be noticed, in the last case, that we have turned out of the lineal line on the father’s side into that on the mother’s side. The fourth collateral line, male, on the father’s side, consists of my great-grandfather’s brother and his descendants; and the fourth, female, of my great-grandfather’s sister and her descendants; the same line, male, on the mother’s side, is composed of my great-grandmother’s brother and his descendants; and the same, female, of my great-grandmother’s sister and her descendants. In like manner, the fifth col- lateral line, male, on the father’s side, consists of my great-great-grandfather’s brother and his descendants; and the fifth, female, of my great-great-grandfather’s sister and her descendants; the same line, male, on the mother’s side is composed of my great-great-grandmother’s brother and his descendants; and the same, female, of my great-great-grandmother’s sister and her descendants. ‘These five lines embrace the great body of our kindred who are within the range of practical or even necessary recognition.
Where there are several brothers and sisters of each ancestor, they constitute so many branches of each line respectively. If I have several brothers and sisters, they and their descendants constitute as many lines, each independent of the other, as I have brothers and sisters; but all together they form my first collateral line in two branches, a male and a female. In like manner the several brothers and sisters of my father and of my mother, with their respective descendants, make up as many lines, each independent of the other, as there are brothers and sisters; but all unite in forming my second collateral line in two divisions, that on the father’s side and that on the mother’s side, and in four principal branches, two male and two female. If the third collateral line were run out fully in the ascending series, it would give four general divisions of ancestors and eight principal branches; and the number of each would increase in the same ratio in each successive collateral line. With such a maze of branches, lines, and divisions, embracing such a multi- tude of consanguinei, it will be seen at once that a method of arrangement and description which should maintain each distinct, and render the whole intelligible, would be no ordinary achievement. ‘This work was perfectly accomplished by the Roman civilians, and in a manner so entirely simple as to elicit admiration. It will be seen, however, in the sequel, that the development of the nomenclature to the requisite extent must have been so extremely difficult that it would probably never have occurred except under the stimulus of an urgent necessity. The absence, from the primitive system, of the relationships of uncle and aunt, in the concrete form, was the first want to be supplied to render the new method attain- able. Nor was this alone sufficient; it was also necessary to discriminate those on the father’s side from those on the mother’s side, and to elaborate independent terms for each, an achievement made in a limited number only of the languages of
OF THE HUMAN FAMILY. 19
mankind. These indispensable terms finally appeared in patruus and amita for uncle and aunt on the father’s side, and in avunculus and matertera for uncle and aunt on the mother’s side, which, with suitable augments, enabled the civilians to indicate specifically the first person in the second, third, fourth, and fifth collateral lines on the father’s side and on the mother’s side. After these were secured, the improved Roman method of describing collateral consanguinei became possible, as well as established. The development of these relationships, in the concrete, was the principal, as well as the greatest advance in the system of relationship, made by any of the members of the Aryan family.
All languages are able to describe kindred by a combination of the primary terms; and this method is still used, to the exclusion of the secondary terms, when it becomes necessary to be specific, unless the Roman method is employed. In the description we commence at Ego, and ascend first to the common ancestor, and then down the collateral line to the person whose relationship is sought, as in the English ; or, reversing the initial point, commence with the latter, and ascend to the common ancestor, and then descend to the former as in the Erse. ‘To describe a cousin, in the male branch of the second collateral line, we use in Eng- lish the phrase father’s brother’s son ; or, in Erse, son of the brother of my father ; for a second cousin, in the same branch of the third collateral line, we say, in Eng- lish, father’s father’s brother’s son’s son ; in Erse, son of the son of the brother of the father of my father. Where the relationship of grandfather is discriminated by a specific or a compound term, we may say grand, father's brother’s grandson ; but as this would fail to show whether the person was on the father’s side or on the mother’s side, a further explanation must be added. The inconvenience of this method, which was the primitive form of the Aryan family, is sufficiently obvious. It was partially overcome, in process of time, by the generalization of the rela- tionships of uncle and aunt, nephew and niece, and cousin, and the invention of special terms for their expression in the concrete. A little reflection upon the awkwardness and cumbersomeness of a purely descriptive system of relationship will illustrate the necessity, first, for common terms for the nearest collateral degrees, and, secondly, of a scientific method for the description of consanguinei. It will also enable us to appreciate the serious difficulties overcome, as well as the great advance made, by the Romans in the formal system which they established, or, rather, engrafted upon the original form.
If, then, we construct a diagram of the right lineal line, male, and the first five collateral lines, male and female, on the father’s side, and limit each collateral line at its commencement to a single brother and sister of Ego, and to a single brother and sister of each of the lineal ancestors of Hyo, and these several lines are projected from parent to child, the collateral lines will be parallel with each other and divergent from the lineal in the actual manner of the outflow of the generations. The diagram (Plate I.) will afford a more distinct impression of the relation of the lineal and several collateral lines to each other, and of the nomen- clature of the Roman system, than could be given by a description. It exhibits the lines named, arranged with reference to a central person, or Ego, and indicates the relationship to him of each of the persons in these several lines. The great
20 SYSTEMS OF CONSANGUINITY AND AFFINITY
superiority of its nomenclature over those of the remaining Aryan nations will be recognized at once, as well as the thoroughly scientific method of description by which it is distinguished above all other systems which have ever been framed.
From £go to tritavus, in the lineal line, are six generations of ascendants, and from the same to trinepos are the same number of descendants, in the description of which but four radical terms are used. If it were desirable to ascend above the sixth ancestor, trifavus would become a new starting-point of description; thus, tritavi pater, the father of tritavus, and so upward to tritavi tritavus, who is the twelfth ancestor of yo in the lineal right line, male. In our rude nomenclature the phrase grandfather’s grandfather must be repeated six times to express the same relationship, or rather to describe the same person. In like manner trinepotis trinepos carries us to the twelfth descendant of Ego in the right lineal line, male. He is the great-grandson of the great-grandson of trinepos, the great-grandson of the great-grandson of Ego.
The first collateral line, male, which commences with brother, frater, is composed of him and his lineal descendants, proceeding in the right line from father to son; thus, fratris jilius, literally son of brother, fratris nepos, grandson of brother, and on to fratris trinepos, the great-grandson of the great-grandson of the brother of Ego. If it were necessary to extend the description to the twelfth generation, Jratris trinepos would become a second starting-point, from which we should have Sratris trinepotis trinepos, the great-grandson of the great-grandson of fratris trinepos, the great-grandson of the great-grandson of the brother of yo. By this simple method frater is made the root of descent in this line, and every person within it is referred to him by the force of this term in the description; and we know at once that each person described belongs to the first collateral line, male. It is, therefore, in itself complete as well as specific. In like manner, and with like results, the first collateral line female commences with sister, soror, giving for the series sororis filia, sister’s daughter; sororis neptis, sister’s granddaughter; and on to sororis trineptis, her sixth, and to sororis trineptis trineptis, her twelfth descendant. While these two branches of the first collateral line originate, in strictness, in the father, pater, who is the common bond of connection between them, yet by making the brother and sister the root of descent of their respective branches in the description, not only this line, but, also, its two branches, are maintained distinct; and the relationship of each person to Ego is specialized by force of the description. This is one of the chief excellencies of the system as a purely scientific method of distinguishing and describing kindred.
The second collateral line, male, on the father’s side, commences with father’s brother, patruus, and is composed of him and his descendants, limited in the diagram to the right line. Each person, by the terms used to describe him, is referred with entire precision to his proper position in the line, and his relationship is indicated; thus, patrui jfilius, son of paternal uncle, patrui nepos, grandson of paternal uncle, and on to patrui trinepos, the sixth descendant of patruus. If it became necessary to extend this line to the twelfth generation we should have, after passing through the intermediate degrees, patrui trinepotis trinepos, the great- grandson of the great-grandson of patrui trinepos, the great-grandson of the great-
OF THE HUMAN FAMILY. 91
a
grandson of patruus. It will be observed that the term for cousin is rejected in the diagram, as it is, also, in the formal method of the Pandects. He is described as patrui filius, but he was also called a brother patruel, frater patruelis, and among the people at large by the common term for cousin, consobrinus. ‘The second collateral line, female, on the father’s side commences with father’s sister, amita, paternal aunt; and her descendants are described according to the same general plan; thus, amite filia, paternal aunt’s daughter, amite neptis, paternal aunt’s granddaughter, and so on to amite trineptis, and to amite trineptis trineptis. In this branch of the line the term for cousin, amitinus, amitina, is also set aside for the formal phrase amite filia, although the former indicates specifically, by its etymology, this particular one of the four cousins." Among the people the term consobrinus, consobrina was applied to this cousin, as it was indiscriminately to each of the four.’
In accordance with the same general plan the third collateral line, male, on the father’s side commences with grandfather’s brother, who is styled patrwus magnus, or great-uncle. At this point in the nomenclature special terms fail and compounds are resorted to, although the relationship itself is in the concrete, the same as grandfather. It is evident that this relationship was not discriminated until a comparatively modern period. No existing language, so far as this inquiry has been extended, possesses an original or radical term for great-uncle, although without the Roman method the third collateral line cannot be described except by the Celtic. In the Turanian, Malayan, and American Indian forms, where the classification of consanguinei is altogether different, he is a grandfather. If he were called simply grandfather's brother, the phrase would describe a person, leaving the relationship as a matter of implication; but if great-uncle, it expresses a relationship in the concrete, and becomes equivalent to a specific term. The specialization of this relationship was clearly the work of the civilians to perfect a general plan of consanguinity. With the first person in this branch of the line thus made definite as a great-uncle, all of his descendants are referred to him, in their description, as the root of descent; and the line, the side, whether male or female, and the degree of the relationship of each person, are at once severally and jointly expressed. This line may be extended, in like manner, to the twelfth descendant, which would give for the series patrui magni filius, son of the paternal great-uncle; patrui magni nepos, grandson of paternal great-uncle; and thus on to patrui magni trinepotis trinepos, the great-grandson of the great-grandson of putrui magni trinepos, the great-grandson of the great-grandson of paternal great- uncle. The third collateral line, female, on the same side commences with grand- father’s sister, who is styled amita magna, or great-aunt; and her descendants are described in like manner, and with the same effect.
1 Amite tue filii consobrinum te appellant, tu illos amitinos. Inst. Just., Lib. IIT. tit. vi. § ii.
2 Item fratres patrueles, sorores patrueles, id est qui quee-ve ex duobus fratribus progenerantur ; item consobrini consobrine, id est qui que-ve ex duobus sororibus nasctntur (quasi consorini) ; item amitini amitine, id est qui quee-ve ex fratre et sorore propagantur ; sed fere vulgus istos omnes communi appellatione consobrinos vocat. Pand., Lib. XX XVIII. tit. x.
QP SYSTEMS OF CONSANGUINITY AND AFFINITY
~
The fourth and fifth collateral lines, male, on the father’s side, commence, respectively, with great-grandfather’s brother, who is styled patrwus major, greater paternal uncle, and with great-great-grandfather’s brother, who is called patruus maximus, greatest paternal uncle. In extending the series we have in the fourth line, patrui majoris filius, patrui majoris nepos, and on to patrui majoris trinepos ; and in the fifth, patrui maximi filius, patrui maximi nepos, and thus onward to patrui maximi trinepos. On the same side the corresponding female collateral lines commence, respectively, with amita major, greater paternal aunt, and amita maxima, greatest paternal aunt; and the description of persons in each follows in the same order.
Both the diagram and the description of consanguinei have thus far been limited to the lineal line male, and to the several collateral lines on the father’s side. Another diagram with an entire change of terms, except in the first collateral line, is required to exhibit the right lineal line, female, and the four collateral lines, male and female, beyond the first. The necessity for independent terms for uncle and aunt on the mother’s side to complete the Roman method is now apparent, the relatives on the mother’s side being equally numerous, and entirely distinct. These terms were found in avunculus, maternal uncle, and matertera, maternal aunt. The first collateral line, as before stated, remains the same, as it commences with brother and sister. In the second collateral line, male, on the mother’s side we have for the series avunculus, avunculi filius, avunculi nepos, and on to avunculi trinepotis trinepos, 1f it were desirable to extend the description to the twelfth descendant of the maternal uncle. In the female branch of the same line we have for the series matertera, matertere filia, matertere neptis, and on to matertere trineptis. In the third collateral line, male, same side, we have for the series avunculus magnus, avunculi magni filius, avunculi magni nepos, and on as before ; and the female branch of the same line, commencing with matertera magna, maternal great-aunt, is extended in the same manner. ‘The fourth and fifth collateral lines, male, on the same side commence, respectively, with avunculus major, and avunculus maximus ; and the corresponding female branches with matertera major, and matertera maxima, and their descendants, respectively, are described in the same manner.
Since the first five collateral lines embraced as wide a circle of kindred as it was necessary to include for the practical purposes of a code of descents, the ordinary diagram used by the Roman civilians did not extend beyond this number. In the form of description adopted by Coke and the early English lawyers, and which was sanctioned by the same use of the terms in the Pandects, we find propatruus mag- nus instead of patruus major, and abpatruus magnus instead of patrwus maximus. By adopting this mode of augmentation, which is also applied to avus in the lineal line, we have for the commencement of the sixth and seventh collateral lines, male, on the father’s side, atpatruus magnus and tripatruus magnus, with corresponding changes of gender for the female branches. This would exhaust the power of the nomenclature of the Roman system. For collateral lines beyond the seventh it was necessary to resort again to the descriptive form which followed the chain of consanguinity from degree to degree.
OF THE HUMAN FAMILY. 23
The diagram (Plate I.) is not in the form of that used by the civilians. It is framed in accordance with the form adopted by Blackstone! for the purpose of showing the several persons in the lineal and collateral lines, who stand at equal distances in degree from their respective common ancestors, in the same horizontal plane. Since the movement downward is with equal step in each of the lines, the common law method has an advantage over that of the civil law in illustrating to the eye the relative position of consanguinei. In the Institutes of Justinian’ the original diagram of the civilians is given and verified in the text (Plate IL). It arranges the several collateral lines at right angles with the lineal, which makes them transverse instead of collateral, and, at the same time, furnishes the reasons why they are described both in the Pandécts and in the Institutes, as the transverse rather than the collateral lines.* In this diagram three lines meet in each ancestor, one of which is lineal, and the other two, consisting of a male and female branch, are transverse. With a slight examination it becomes perfectly intelligible. In some respects it is the most simple form in which the system can be represented, But since it does not show the relative position of consanguinei in the lineal and collateral lines with reference to their distance with Ego from the common ancestor, the first form appears to be preferable. This diagram is a venerable relic of the all-embracing Roman jurisprudence. It is interesting, even impressive, to us, as the chart with which that greatly distinguished class of men, the Roman jurists, “illustrated to the eye,” as well as explained to the understanding, the beautiful and perfect system of consanguinity we have been considering.
It is obvious, as before remarked, that these diagrams include but a small por- tion of the immediate consanguinei of each individual, as the right line only is given proceeding from the parent to one only of his or her children, while there might be several brothers and sisters of Hyo, and of each of his several ancestors, each of whom would send off as many additional lines as he or she left children, each leaving descendants. This might be true also of every person in each of the collateral lines. Beside this, the number of common ancestors increases at each degree, ascending, in geometrical progression, which multiplies indefinitely the number of ascending lines. It would be entirely impossible to construct a diagram of the lineal and first and second collateral lines alone, which would show all the possible consanguinei of yo within six degrees of nearness. These considerations will serve to illustrate the complexity of the problem which the civilians solved by furnishing a logical and comprehensive system of relationship. — It is the singular merit of the Roman form that, without being obscure or complicated, it contains all the elements of arrangement and description which are necessary to resolve any given case, and all that is material to a right understanding of descents.
1 Blackstone’s Commentaries; Tables of Consanguinity, II. 254. Watkins adopts the same method ; Laws of Descent, Table of Con., p. 128. _And Domat also substantially; Civil Law, Strahan’s Trans. Table on Con. IT. 210.
4 Lib. III. tit. vii.
8 The usual phrase is ‘‘ Ex transverso sive a latere.”
24 SYSTEMS OF CONSANGUINITY AND AFFINITY
If we should follow the chain of relationship beyond the diagrams, and compute the number of the kindred of Ego, it would produce remarkable results. In strict- ness two lines commence at Eyo, one ascending to his father and one to his mother ; from these last the number is increased to four, one of which ascends to the father and one to the mother of his father, another to the father and another to the mother of his mother; and again from these four common ancestors the lines are increased to eight; and so upwards in geometrical progression. As a matter of computation it will be seen that at the fifth degree each person has thirty-two ancestors, at the tenth a thousand and twenty-four, and at the twentieth upwards of a million,’ Carried to the thirty-first degree, or generation, it would give to each person a greater number of ancestors than the entire population of the earth. Such a marvellous result, although correct as a matter of computation, is prevented . by the intermarriage of these common ancestors, by which a multitude of them are reduced to one. In the collateral lines the relatives are quadrupled at each gene- ration. ‘If we only suppose each couple of our ancestors to have left, one with another, two children; and each of those on an average to have left two more (and without such a supposition the human species must be daily diminishing), we shall find that all of us have now subsisting near two hundred and seventy millions of kindred at the fifteenth degree, at the same distance from the several common ancestors as ourselves are; besides those that are one or two descents nearer to or farther from the common stock, who may amount to as many more.”? But, as in the former case, the intermarriage of these collateral relatives would consolidate many thousands of these relationships into one, while others would, from the same cause, be related to Hgo in many thousand different ways. ‘The rapidity with which the blood of a people is interfused, or, in other words, tends to intermingle throughout the entire mass of the population, with the progress of the generations,
* In Black. Com. II. 204, note, is the following :—
Lineal Number of Lineal Number of Lineal Number of
Degrees. Ancestors. Degrees. Ancestors. Degrees. Ancestors. ga a 2 one 2 Sk ieg Reames 256 Os. ue a 32768 Dis ae tee ae a= 4 ron he aaa 515 Ge es 65586 Ste oe ge 8 LO) ie open col reer 1024 Ui aes. Soestees 131072 AS De gee Salo te eee 16 day Reps 2048 Ss? as EPA. 262144 igure rt anes 32 eae eee 4096 Opies sarees 524288 Oeeyas acd ec saat 64 tS currence 8192 200 is - 1048576 ie Got eo Sh eh eS td ey touts we OS OS
2 Black. Com. II. 207, note, vide as follows:—
Collateral Number of Collateral Number of Collateral Number of
Degrees. Kindred. Degrees. Kindred. Degrees. Kindred. Gta Mr ee 1 ela! ky 163884 15 . . 268435456 2 4 Ono aes 65536 16. . 1073741824 3 16 OMe wus 262146 17. . + 4294967296 4 64 ee ee LOASDITG! See 17179869184 Dea Waa d: 256 12. . . 41943804 UB) ig 68719476736 Ge ee ee eee LOG V3 ee. LO oaiG 20 . 274877906944
qoetreeumer seems 00) 14. . . 67108864
OF THE HUMAN FAMILY. 95
~
is forcibly illustrated by these computations.’ It is both a singular and an extra- ordinary fact, that the blood and physical organization of so many millions of ancestors should be represented in the person of every human being. ‘The specific identity of the individual of the present with the ancestor of the past generation illustrates the marvellous nature of a structural organization, which is capable of transmission through so many ancestors, and of reproduction as a perfect whole in one individual after the lapse of indefinite periods of time.
In the mode of computing the degrees of consanguinity the Aryan nations differ among themselves. It is apparent that the relationships which collaterals sustain to each other are in virtue of their descent from common ancestors. It is also obvious that each step in ascending from ancestor to ancestor in the lineal line, and in descending from parent to child, in either of the collateral lines, is a degree. Hence in tracing the connection between go and any given person in a collateral line, we must first ascend from Ego to the common ancestor, and then descend to the person whose relationship is sought, counting each intervening person as one degree, or unit of separation; and the aggregate of these units will express, numeri- cally, the nearness, and, upon this basis, the actual value of the relationship. The difference made was upon the starting-point, whether it should commence with Ego, or with the common ancestor. The Roman civilians reckoned from the former; thus, if the degree of the relationship of the first cousin were sought, it would be estimated as follows: From Ego to father, pater, is one; from father to grandfather, avus, who is the common ancestor, is two; from grandfather down to paternal uncle, patruus, is three; and from paternal uncle to cousin, patrui filius, is four ; therefore he stands to Eyo in the fourth degree of consanguinity. Under this method the first person is excluded and the last is included. ‘This was also the manner of computing degrees among the Hebrews.” But the canon law, and after it the common law, adopted the other method. It commenced with the common ancestor, and counted the degrees in the same manner, down to the person most remote from the latter, whether Eyo or the person whose relationship was to be determined; thus, a first cousin stands in the second degree, since both the cousin and Ego are removed two degrees from the common ancestor ; the son of this cousin is in the third degree, as he is three degrees from the common ancestor, which
‘ These figures bear directly upon one of the great problems in ethnology; namely, the multi- plicity of the typical faces and forms of mankind. If a fragment of a people became insulated, as the Erse in Ireland, or repelled immigration to their territories by peculiar manners and customs, as the Hebrews, it matters not whether the original elements of population were simple or mixed, if the blood was left free to intermingle, the physical peculiarities of the people would rapidly assimi- late, so that in a few centuries there would be developed a national face and form, which would be common, distinctly marked, and typical. The only conditions necessary to produce this result, in any number of cases, are an absolute respite from foreign admixture, with freedom of intermarriage among all classes. Under these conditions, which have been occasionally attained, typical faces and forms, such as the Hebrew, the Irish, and the German, could be multiplied indefinitely ; and the differences among them might become very great, in the course of time, through congenital pecu- liarities, modes of subsistence, and climatic influences; not to say, processes of degradation of one branch or family, and of elevation in another.
2 Selden’s Uxor Hebraica, I. c. 4. 4 May, 1868.
26 SYSTEMS OF CONSANGUINITY AND AFFINITY
corresponds with the fifth of the civil law. These two methods will be more fully understood by consulting the diagram, Plate I., on which the degrees are numbered according to the civil law, and the diagram of English descents, Chapter IV. Plate III., on which they are given according to the common law. Our English ances- tors, at an early day, adopted the canon law mode of computation, in which they clearly made a mistake, if the matter were of any particular consequence. It is sufficiently obvious that the civil law method of computation is the only one which is consistent and logical.
Relationship, or cognation, was further distinguished by fie civilians into three kinds, superior, aise and transverse; of whiclrthe first relates to ascendants, the second to descendants, and the third to collaterals. It results, also, from the civil law method of estimating degrees, that several persons in the lineal and collateral lines stand in the same degree of nearness to Ego, which rendered necessary some quali- fication of the relative value of the numerical degrees. ‘The consanguinei of Ego were classified into six grades, according to their degree of nearness, all those who were in the same degree being classified in the same grade, whether ascendants, descendants, or collaterals; but they were distinguished from each other by these three qualifications."
1 Dr GRADIBUS CoGNaTIonuM.—Hoe loco necessarium est exponere, quemadmodum gradus cog- nationis numerentur. Quare inprimis admonendi sumus, cognationem aliam supra numerari, aliam infra, aliam ex transverso, que etiam A latere dicitur. Superior cognatio est parentum: inferior liberorum; ex transverso fratrum sororumye, et eorum, qui queeve ex his generantur; et conveni- enter patrui, amite, avunculi, matertere. Et superior quidem et inferior cognatio 4 primo gradu incipit; et ea, que ex transverso numeratur, & secundo.
§ I. Primo gradu est supra pater, mater: infra filius, filia. Secundo gradu supra avus, avia: infra nepos, neptis: ex transverso frater, soror. Tertio gradu supra proavus, proavia: infra pronepos, pro- neptis: ex transverso fratris sororisque filius, filia: et convenientér patruus, amita, avunculus, mater- tera. Patruus est patris frater, qui Graecis Iarpadeapos appellatur. Avunculus est frater matris, qui Grece Myrpaderpos dicitur ; et uterque promiscue @ecos appellatur. Amita est patris soror, que Greece Marpadeapy appellatur: matertera vero matris soror, que Grace Myrpadeapy dicitur: et utraque pro- miscue @ea appellatur.
§ II. Quarto gradu supra abavus, abavia: infra abnepos, abneptis : ex transverso fratris sororisque nepos neptisve: et convenienter patruus magnus, amita magna, id est, avi frater et soror: item avunculus magnus et matertera magna, id est, avie frater et soror: consobrinus, consobrina, id est, qui queve ex sororibus aut fratribus procreantur. Sed quidam rect? consobrinos eos proprié dici putant, qui ex duabus sororibus progenerantur, quasi consororinos: eos verd, qui ex duobus fratribus progenerantur, proprié fratres patrueles vocari: si autem ex duobus fratribus filiz nascuntur, sorores patrueles appellari. At eos, qui ex fratre et sorore progenerantur, amitinos PrOpEte dici putant. Amite tue filii consobrinum te appellant, tu illos amitinos.
§ III. Quinto gradu supra atavus, atavia: infra atnepos, atneptis: ex transverso fratris sororisque pronepos, proneptis : et convenientér propatruus, proamita, id est, proavi frater et soror: et proavun- culus et promatertera, id est, proavie frater et soror: item fratris patruelis, vel sororis patruelis, consobrini et consobrine, amitini et amitine filius, filia: proprior sobrino, proprior sobrina; hi sunt patrui magni, amite magne, avunculi magni, matertere magne filius, filia.
§ IV. Sexto gradu supra tritavus, tritavia: infra trinepos trineptis: ex transverso fratris sororis- que abnepos abneptis : et convenientér abpatruus abamita, id est, abavi frater et soror: abavunculus, abmatertera, id est, abavie frater et soror: item propatrui, proamite, proavunculi, promatertere filius, filia: item proprius sobrino sobrinave filius, filia: item consobrini consobrine nepos, neptis : item sobrini, sobrine ; id est, qui queeve ex fratribus vel-sororibus patruelibus, vel consobrinis, vel amitinis progenerantur.—Institutes of Justinian, Lib. III. tit. vi. .
OF THE HUMAN FAMILY. il
It will not be necessary to pursue further the minute details of the Roman system of consanguinity. ‘The principal and most important of its features have been presented, and in a manner sufficiently special to have rendered it perfectly intelligible. For simplicity of method, felicity of description, distinctness of arrangement into lines, truthfulness to nature, and beauty of nomenclature, it is incomparable. It stands pre-eminently at the head of all the systems af relation- ship ever perfected by man, and furnishes one of the many illustrations that what- ever the Roman mind had occasion to touch, it placed once for all upon a solid foundation.
From its internal structure it is evident that this system, in its finished form, was the work of the civilians. We have reasons, also, for believing that it was not used by the people except within narrow limits. Its rigorous precision and formality, not to say complication of arrangement, tends to this conclusion; and the existence and use of common terms for near kindred, after its establishment, is still more decisive. It is not even probable that the common people employed either of the four special terms for uncle and aunt, or that either term for uncle or for aunt was used promiscuously. ‘The disappearance of all of these terms from the modern Italian language, and the reappearance in it of the Greek common term for uncle and aunt, @evos, Oeva, in the Italian Zio, Zia,trenders it conjecturable at least, that the Greek term, in a Latinized form, was used among the ancient Romans; or, it may have been, that they retained the original descriptive phrases. Consobrinus, we know, was in use among the people as a common term for cousin,! and nepos for a nephew* as well as a grandson. In addition to the special terms heretofore named were sobrinus, sobrina,’ a contraction of consobrinus for cousin, which were sometimes applied to a cousin’s children ; and proprior sobrinus, sobrina, to indicate a great uncle’s son and daughter. If the people used the common terms, while the civilians and scholars resorted to the formal legal method, it would not create two systems, since one form is not inconsistent with the other, and the latter was developed from the former. From the foregoing considerations it may be inferred that the Roman form was not perfected merely to describe the several degrees of consanguinity, but for the more important object of making definite the channel, as well as the order of succession to estates. With the need of a code of descents, to regulate the transmission of property by inheritance, would arise the further necessity of specializing, with entire precision, the several lines, and the several degrees of each. A descriptive method, based upon particular generalizations, became indispensable to avoid the more difficult, if not impossible, alternative of inventing a multitude of correlative terms to express the recognized relationships. After the kindred of ego had been arranged in their appropriate positions, by the method adopted by the civilians, a foundation was laid for a code of descents for the transmission of property by inheritance.
It remains to notice briefly the affineal relationships. The Latin nomenclature
1 Pandects, Lib. XX XVIII. tit. x. ® Kutropius, Lib. VII. cap. i. § Nam mihi sobrina Ampsigura tua mater fuit, pater tuus, is erat frater patruelis meus. Plautus. Com. Penulus, Act V. Scene IT, 109.
28 SYSTEMS OF CONSANGUINITY AND AFFINITY
of the marriage relationships, unlike our own, which is both rude and barren, was copious and expressive. For the principal affinities special terms were invented, after this language became distinct, and it contributed materially to the perfection of the system. It contains even more radical terms for the marriage relationships than for that of blood. Our English system betrays its poverty by the use of such unseemly phrases as father-in-law, son-in-law, brother-in-law, step-father, and step-son, to express some twenty very common and very near relationships, nearly all of which are provided with special terms in the Latin nomenclature. On the other hand, the latter fails to extend to the wives of uncles and nephews, and to the hus- bands of aunts and nieces the corresponding designations, which the principal European nations have done. The absence of terms for these relatives is the only blemish upon the Latin system. The wife of the paternal uncle, for example, was described as patrui wxor, and the husband of the paternal aunt as amite vir, A reason against the use of the principal terms existed in their fixed signification, which would render their use in the English manner a misnomer.
In the Latin nomenclature, as given in the table, there are thirteen radical terms for blood kindred and fourteen for marriage relatives. These, by augmen- tation to express the different grades of what is radically the same relationship, and by inflection for gender, yield twenty-five additional terms, making together fifty-two special terms for the recognized relationships. In this respect it is the most opulent of all the nomenclatures of relationship of the Aryan nations, except the Grecian.
OF THE HUMAN FAMILY. 29
CHAPTER IV.
SYSTEM OF RELATIONSHIP OF THE ARYAN FAMILY—Oonrinvuep.
Forms of Consanguinity of the remaining Aryan Nations—Reasons for their ascertainment—Original System deter- mined by a comparison of their Radical Characteristics—I. Hellenic Nations : Ancient Greek—System less accessi- ble than the Roman—Descriptive in Form—Modern Greek—System founded upon the Roman—II. Romaic Nations —Italian System—Illustrations of its Method—French—Illustrations of same—Spanish and Portuguese, not ex- ceptional—III. Teutonic nations—English System—lIlustrations of its Method —Prussian and Swiss—Illustrations of their Forms—Holland Dutch—Method Imprecise—Belgian—The same—Westphalian—lIllustrations of its Form—Danish and Norwegian—Free from Roman Influence—Illustrations of its Form—Swedish— Agrees with the Danish—Icelandic—Its form purely Descriptive—Illustrations—IV. Sanskrit—Illustrations of its Method— V. Sclavonic Nations—Polish System—Peculiar Method of designating Kindred—Presence of a Non-Aryan Element—Illustrations of its Form—Bohemian—Bulgarian—Illustrations of its Method—Russian—lIllustrations of its Method—Special Features in the Slavonic System—Their Ethnological Uses—Lithuanian—Presump- tively Original Slavonic Form—Schedule Imperfect—VI. Celtic Nations—Erse System—Purely Descriptive— Typical Form of Aryan Family—Illustrations of its Method—Gaelic and Manx—The same—Welsh—Its Nomen- clature developed beyond Erse and Gaelic—VII. Persian Nation—System Descriptive— Illustrations of its Method—VIII. Armenian Nation—System Descriptive—Identical with the Erse in its minute Details— Illustrations of its Method—Results of Comparison of Forms—Original System of the Aryan Family Descrip- tive—Limited amount of Classification of Kindred not Inconsistent with this Conclusion—Secondary Terms represent the amount of Modification—System Affirmative in its Character—A Domestic Institution—Stability of its Radical Forms. .
Tue several forms of consanguinity which prevail among the remaining Aryan nations will be presented and compared with the Roman, and also with each other, for the purpose of ascertaining whether they are identical. After this the common system, thus made definite, can be compared with those of other families of man- kind. It will be sufficient for the realization of these objects to exhibit, with the utmost brevity, the characteristic features of the system of each nation, and to indicate the points of difference between them and the Roman. This method will supersede the necessity, except in a few cases, of entering upon details.
I. Hellenic nations. 1. Ancient Greek. 2. Modern Greek.
1. Ancient Greek.—The same facilitigs for ascertaining the classical Greek method of arranging and designating kindred do not exist, which were found in the Institutes and Pandects, for the Roman. An approximate knowledge of the Grecian form can be drawn from the nomenclature, and from the current use of its terms in the literature of the language. For the most part these terms are compounds, and still indicate, etymologically, particular persons, as well as express particular relationships. They were evidently developed subsequently to the separation of the Hellenic nations from their congeners, since they are not found in the cognate languages. The multiplication of these terms also tends to show that che Greeks of the classical period had no formal scientific method of designating tonsanguinei like the Roman, but attempted, as a substitute, the discrimination
«
30 SYSTEMS OF CONSANGUINITY AND AFFINITY
of the nearest relationships by special terms. This, carried far enough, would realize the Roman plan, but it would render the nomenclature cumbersome.
Several of the Greek terms are inserted in the table as conjectural; but a suffi- cient number are certain to show that consanguinei were arranged, by virtue of them, in accordance with the natural order of descents; and that the collateral lines were maintained distinct and divergent from the lineal line. This is a mate- rial characteristic.
The method for indicating the relationships in the first collateral line was irregular, Aasis, the ancient term for brother, gave place to adelphos; in like manner anepsios, Which was originally the term for nephew, and probably like nepos signified a grandson as well, was superseded by adelphidois. 'This gave for the series adelphos, brother, adelphidois, nephew, and anepsiadotis, nephew’s son. After the substitution of adelphidotis for anepsios the latter was restricted to cousin.
Whether consanguinei in the second collateral line were described by the Roman or the Celtic method, or were designated by special terms, does not clearly appear. The form in the table must, therefore, be taken as in a great measure conjectural. ‘The tendency to specialize the principal relationships is shown by the opulence of the nomenclature ; thus, for paternal uncle there are patrds, patra- delphos, and patrohkasignétos ; and for maternal uncle métrds, métradelphos, and meétrokasignétos ; and also common terms, theios theia and nannos nanné, for uncle and aunt, which were used promiscuously. Patrokasignétos and nannos appear to have fallen out of use after the time of Thucydides, but theios and theia remained in constant use among the people, and probably to the exclusion of the other more recent terms. ‘This fact is noticed in the Institutes of Justinian as follows: “Patruus est patris frater, qui Grecis IlarpadeApos appellatur. Avunculus est frater matris, qui Greece MytpadeAos dicitur; et uterquee promiscue Oews appel- latur. Amita est patris soror, que Grace TlatpadeAgy appellatur. Matertera vero matris soror, que Greece MyrpadeAgpy dicitur; et uterquee promiscue Oe appel- latur,”* It is worthy of mention that all of these terms have disappeared from the modern Greek language,” except theios theia, which reappear, as has elsewhere been stated, in the Italian Zio Tia, and in the Spanish 7’s Tia, uncle and aunt. There was but a single term for cousin, which shows that the four classes of persons, who stand in this relationship, were generalized into one. The same amount of classification here indicated is found in the system of several of the branches of the Aryan family. It is evident that the special terms were used as far as they were applicable, and that the remaining kindréd were described by a combination of the primary terms.
It is not necessary to trace further the details of the Grecian system, since it is not exceptional to the plan of consanguinity of the Aryan family. The great ex- pansion of the nomenclature in the classical period, to avoid the inconvenience of
t Lib. III. tit. vi. § 1. * Glossary of Later and Byzantine Greek, by E. A. Sophocles. Memoirs of the American Aca- demy of Arts and Sciences. New series, vol. vii.
OF THE HUMAN FAMILY. “91
descriptive phrases, tends to the inference that the original system was purely descriptive.
There are twenty-two specific terms in this language given in the table for blood kindred, and nineteen for marriage relatives. ‘These, by augmentation to express degrees of the same relationship, and by inflection for gender, yield forty-four additional, making together eighty-three special terms for the recognized relation- ships.
2. Modern Greek.—The schedule in the table was taken from the glossary, before cited, of Prof. Sophocles.’ It was compiled by him according to the Roman method. In the later period of the Empire the two systems, in their legal form, doubtless became identical. It does not, therefore, require special notice. One of its interesting features is the contraction of the nomenclature which it exhibits in the direction of original terms.
II. Romaic Nations. 1. Italian. 2. French. 3. Spanish. 4. Portuguese.
1. Ztalian.—The Italian system is not fully extended in the table. It presents the popular rather than the legal form, the latter of which was doubtless based upon the Roman. The collateral lines are maintained distinct from each other and divergent from the lineal line, with the exception of the first collateral, in which respect the Italian form agrees with the Holland Dutch, Belgian, Anglo- Saxon, and early English. The nephew and grandson are designated by the same term, nipote ; in other words, my nephew and grandson stand to me in the same relationship. ‘This classification merges the first collateral line in the lineal, and in so far agrees with the Turanian form.
The readiest manner of showing the characteristic features of the system of the Aryan nations will be to give illustrations of the method of designating kindred in one of the branches of each of the first three collateral lines. This will make it apparent, first, that the connection of consanguinei is traced through common ancestors; secondly, that the collateral lines are maintained distinct from each other, and divergent from the lineal line, with some exceptions; thirdly, how far the system is descriptive, and how far the descriptive form has been modified by the introduction of special terms; and, lastly, whether the systems of these nations are radically the same. ‘The illustrations will be from the first collateral line, male branch, and the male branch of the second and third collateral lines on the father’s side. For a more particular knowledge of the details of the system of each nation reference is made to the table.
In the Italian the first collateral line gives the following series, brother, nephew, and great-nephew, and thus downward with a series of nephews. ‘This is a deviation from the Roman form. ‘The second collateral runs uncle, cousin, and cousin’s son, which is also a deviation from the Roman.
2. French.—The French method is also unlike the Roman. My brother’s descendants are designated as a series of nephews, one beyond the other, e. g., neveu, petit-neveu, and arricre-petit-neveu. The second collateral line likewise employed a different method, e. g., oncle, cousin, cousin-sous-germain. In the first
1 Article Baéue Ovyyevais.
32° SYSTEMS OF (© ON SAN GiU ONT Ys GAINED ACU EIEN TITY.
the uncle is made the root of this branch of the line, and afterward the cousin is made the second starting-point. As wnele and cousin are common terms, explana- tory words are required to show whether they belonged to the father’s or to the mother’s side. ‘The following is the series in the third collateral: Grand-oncle, jils du grand-oncle, and petit-fils du grand-oncle. In the fourth and fifth collateral lines the descriptive method was necessarily adopted.
Among the Aryan nations the French alone, with the exception of the ancient Sanskrit speaking people of India, possess original terms for elder and younger brother, and for elder and younger sister. It is a noticeable feature for the reason that in the Turanian, Malayan, and American Indian families the fraternal and sororal relationships are universally conceived in the twofold form of elder and younger.
3. Spanish. 4. Portuguese.—There is nothing in the systems of these nations which is exceptional to the general plan of consanguinity of the Aryan family, or that requires special notice.
III. Teutonic Nations. 1. English. 2. Prussian, and German-Swiss. 3. Hol- land-Dutch. 4. Belgian. 5. Westphalian. 6. Danish and Norwegian. 7. Swedish. 8. Icelandic.
These nations possess the same system of relationship. Presumptively they commenced with the same primitive form, wherefore a comparison of their several forms, as they now exist independently of each other, should show, first, what is still common among them all, and consequently radical; secondly, that which has been developed independently in each; thirdly, the portion that has been borrowed from the Roman; and, lastly, the true character of the original system,
1. English—The English legal method of indicating relationships is founded upon the Roman. It has followed the latter very closely, borrowing a portion of its nomenclature, and also its method. In the Diagram Plate ILI. this form is shown in detail, but limited to the relatives on the father’s side. A similar dia- gram, with slight changes, would show the same lines on the mother’s side.
In daily life, however, this formal plan is not resorted to for the near relation- ships. ‘The common terms are employed in all cases as far as they are applicable; while for such kindred as are not thus embraced, descriptive phrases are used. The first collateral line gives for the series brother, nephew, great-nephew, and great-great-nephew ; the second, uncle, cousin, cousin’s son, and cousin's grandson ; the third collateral, great-uncle, great-uncle’s son, second cousin, and second cousin’s son. These illustrations reveal a tendency to avoid the full descriptive phrases. It, however, the terms wncle, aunt, and cousin, which are borrowed, through Norman sources, from the Latin speech, were struck out of the nomenclature, nephew alone of the secondary terms would remain; and their loss would render compulsory the original descriptive form by a combination of the primary terms, Of discarded Anglo-Saxon terms one, at least, eam’, uncle, was in general use before
* The word nephew, as used by our early English ancestors, must have had two correlatives, wncle and grandfather, or the difference in these relationships, as in the case of nephew and grandson, was not discriminated. In King Alfred’s Orosius eam is used as frequently for grandfather as for uncle. Vide Bohn’s Ed., pp. 297, 284, 497.
»
OF THE HUMAN FAMILY. 39
the Norman period. Whether /edera, paternal uncle, and /athe, aunt, were in common use among the Saxons, or were developed by scholars with the first attempts at Saxon composition, is not so clear.
It is evident from the present structure and past history of the English system, that its original form was purely descriptive; thus, an uncle was described as fathers’s brother, ox mother’s brother ; a cousin as a father’s brother's son or a mother’s brother’s son, as the case might be, these relationships in the concrete being then unknown.
In the English language there are but eleven radical terms for blood relatives, of which three are borrowed; and but two in practical use for marriage relatives.
2. Prussian, and German-Swiss.—The German-Swiss form, as given in the table, presents the legal system of the people speaking the German language. It is founded upon the Roman form of which it is nearly a literal copy, and, therefore, it does not require a special explanation."
On the other hand, the Prussian exhibits more nearly the common method of the German people for designating their kindred. There are original German terms for uncle and aunt, grandson and granddaughter, and male and female cousin,
1 After receiving the carefully prepared German-Swiss Schedule given in the table, which was filled out by Mr. C. Hunziker, attorney-at-law of Berne, Switzerland, I addressed to this gentleman some questions in reference thereto through the Hon. Theodore 8. Fay, U.S. Minister Resident in Switz- erland, and received from him through the same channel the following answers. The translation was by Samuel J. Huber, Esq., Attaché of the Legation.
Translation of the Report of Mr. Hunziker by Sam. J. Huber,
Question 1. Is the wife of a nephew now called a niece (Niche), in common speech ; and, in like manner, is the husband of a niece called a nephew (Neffe) ?
Answer. No.
Question 2. Are the foreign terms Onkel and Tante also applied by a portion of the people both to the paternal and maternal uncles and aunts as well as Oheim and Muhme ?
Answer. Yes. The terms are identical, only the denominations Onkel and Tante are of more recent [French] origin, while the terms Oheim (abbreviated Ohm.) and Muhme are German. So, in French, Onkel is called oncle, in old French uncle, derived from the Latin avunculus. Tante is the French word for Muhme; old French ante from the Latin amita. Before the aforesaid terms Onkel and Tante were adopted a portion of the people, for Oheim and Muhme, used the term Veller and Base. This is still the case, even at present, with many, particularly country people, who not unfrequently apply the term Vetter and Base to all collateral relatives.
Question 3. Are my father’s sister’s son, my mother’s brother’s son, and my mother’s sister’s son described by the term cousin (Vetter), the same as marked on the schedule for my father’s brother’s son? And, in like manner, is each of the four female cousins called Base?
Answer. Yes. The terms Vetter and Base are often used in common life not in a strict sense (in einem uneigentlichen Sinne), and, indeed, their application has nothing actually fixed; the rule, however, may be fixed that no nearer relative but the descendants of brothers and sisters to each other (Geschwisterkinder) are called Vettern and Basen (cousins), and that, therefore, these terms embrace the first and second cousins, and, perhaps, even more remote collateral relations.
Question 4. Was the term Muhme, in ancient times, used to describe a niece and a cousin as well as an aunt, or either of them?
Answer. No. The term Muhme never described anything but an aunt.
Question 5. Did the term Ne/fe originally signify a grandson as well as a nephew?
Answer. No. Even our most ancient legal sources contain but the term Znkel for Grosssohn
5 May, 1868
34 SYSTEMS OF CONSANGUINITY AND AFFINITY
which appear to have been developed, with the exception of the first, after the separation of this dialect from the common Teutonic stem. These terms greatly improve the nomenclature and consequently the method of the system.
(grandson), and in no instance that of Neffe. Even this last mentioned term was but recently adopted in legislative documents, having been in former times circumscribed by the term Bruder’s or Schwesterkind. :
Question 6. Desired: a list of obsolete terms of relationship, and the persons they were employed to describe.
6. Report on the obsolete terms of relationship.
After the defeat of the Romans in the fifth century ancient Helvetia formed a part of the great Germanic nation, and later a part of the Germanic empire. Though the Helvetian territory, and particularly the towns, were governed by their own national legislation, it is not to be mistaken that, besides the domestic legal sources, the laws of the Germanic family (the so-called Leges Bar- barorum, of which, particularly, the Lex Allemannorum and the Lex Burgundionum, and, later, the Sachsen- and Schwaben-Spiegel) enjoyed a high authority, and that the domestic law has been amended and completed from that source. If we, therefore, now give a brief statement of the views of the ancient Germans with regard to relationship and their terms, it is thereby to be understood that throughout ancient Helvetia the same views had been adopted.
1. The term parentela, in ancient legal documents, is used to describe the family as a separate fellowship (geschlossene Rechtsgenossenscha/t) as well as a number (Mehrheit) of relatives united under the same pair of parents as their next common stock (Stamm). The following expressions are remarkable :—
2. Lippschaft, Magschaft (kin), means, in its larger sense, the kindred in general; in its proper sense the law distinguishes between Busen (bosom), comprehending only the descendants of a deceased,and the Magschaft (kin proper), comprehending only the remote relatives. (According to the “ Sachsenspiegel”’) the kin begins at the cousinship.
3. Schwermagen, Speermagen, Germagen (male issue), are called the male persons united by but male generation (Zeugung). In its real sense it means the blood-cousins upon whom rests the propagation of the family name and of the house-coat. Opposite to them are the—
4. Spillmagen, Spindelmagen, Kunkelmagen (female issue), that is, all the rest of kindred whose consanguinity, either in the ascending or in the descending line, is founded upon the birth from a woman, or who, although relatives by but male generation, for their female issue are not born for the sword and lance, but only for the spindle. (Spillmagen is also called Niftel )
5. To count the degrees of consanguinity two different ways have been used—the one representing them by a tree with branches, the other by the form of a human body. The following representation is from the ‘Sachsenspiegel:’” Husband and wife, united in marriage, belong to the head; the children, born as full brothers and sisters from one man and one wife, to the neck. Children of full brothers and sisters occupy that place where the shoulders and arms join. These form the first kindred of consanguinity, viz., the children of brother and sister. The others occupy the elbow, the third the hand, &c. For the seventh degree there is an additional nail, and no member and the kin, which ends here, is then called Nagelmagen.
6. Schooss are often called the ascendants.
7. Lidmagen is often used for consanguineous with
8. Vatermagen. This term is more comprehensive than that of Schwertmagen, for it embraces all the relatives from the father’s issue and descent, and it also includes all the women issuing from the fathers immediately, for instance, the sister and the aunt from the father’s grandfather ; and further, in the descending line, also the degrees of consanguinity arising from women, because, in the ascending line, fathers are at the head of parentelas. In certain cases this term can even compre- hend all consanguineous with the father.
9. Muttermagen are called the relatives from the mother’s side, or, according to circumstances, from a mother’s side,
OF THE HUMAN FAMILY. 35
In the first collateral line, male, the series is as follows: Brother, nephew, great-nephew, and great-great-nephew ; or a series of nephews, one beyond the other, which is analogous to the common English and French usage. The second collateral runs as follows: Uncle, cousin, cousin’s son, and cousin’s grandson. Cousin is thus made a second starting point, and his descendants are referred to him as the root, instead of the uncle. In the third, and more remote collateral lines, the Roman form is followed. The German is a very perfect system, but its excellence is due to its fidelity to its Roman model.
3. Holland Dutch.— As presented in the table the manner of designating kindred is rather the common form of the people than the statutory method. It will be perceived, by consulting the table, that the system is defective in arrange- ment, and imprecise in the discrimination of relationships. The absence of Roman influence, which has been so apparent in the previous cases, is quite observable. The terms neef and nicht are applied indiscriminately to a nephew and niece, to a grandson and granddaughter, and to each of the four classes of cousins.’ These
1 The term nepos, and its cognates, in the dialects of the Aryan language has a singular history, which if fully elaborated would be found instructive. Some of the facts are patent. This term exists in nearly all the dialects of the language, from which it is inferable that it was indigenous in the pri- mitive speech. The terms for grandfather and uncle are different in the several stock-languages, from which it is also inferable that the terms for these relationships, where found, were developed subse- quently to the separation of these nations from each other, or from the parent stem. Consequently nepos, and its cognates, must have existed as a term of relationship without a correlative. While the relationships of grandfather and grandson, and of uncle and nephew, were in process of being sepa- rated from each other, and turned into proper correlation, the use of nepos must have fluctuated. Among the Romans, as late as the fourth century, it was applied to a nephew as well as a grandson, although both avus and avunculus had come into use. Eutropius in speaking of Octavianus calls him the nephew of Cwsar, “Cesaris nepos” (Lib. VII. ec. i.). Suetonius speaks of him as sororis nepos (Cxsar, ¢. lxxxiii.), and afterwards (Octavianus, c. vii.), describes Cesar as his greater uncle, major avunculus, in which he contradicts himself. When nepos was finally restricted to grandson, and thus became the strict correlative of avus, the Latin language was without a term for nephew, whence the descriptive phrase fratris vel sororis filius. In English nephew was applied to grand- son as well as nephew as late as 1611, the period of King James’ translation of the Bible. Niece is so used by Shakspeare in his will, in which he describes his granddaughter, Susannah Hall, as “my niece.” But in English, and likewise in French and German, nephew, neveu, and neffe were finally restricted to the sons of the brothers and sisters of Zgo, and thus became respectively the correlative of uncle. This, in turn, left these dialects without any term for grandson, which deficiency was sup- plied by a descriptive phrase, except the German, which in enkel found an indigenous term. In Greek, however, anepsios appears to have been applied to a nephew, a grandson, and a cousin, and finally became restricted to the last. Neef in Holland Dutch still expresses these three relationships indiscriminately. In Belgian and Platt Dutch niche is applied to a female cousin as well as niece. These uses of the term tend to show that its pristine use was sufficiently general to include grandson, nephew, and cousin, but without giving any reason to suppose that it was ever as general as the words relative or kinsman. The difference in the relationships of these persons to “go was undoubt- edly understood, and each made specific by description. A term of relationship once invented and adopted into use becomes the repository of an idea; and that idea never changes. Its meaning, as indicated by its use, may become enlarged or restricted among cognate nations after their separation from each other, or in the same nation in the course of ages; but the subversion of its meaning or use is next to impossible. A term invented to express a particular relationship cannot be made to express two as distinct and dissimilar as those for grandson and nephew ; and, therefore, its exclusive
36 SYSTEMS OF CONSANGUINITY AND AFFINITY
several relationships were made definite, when necessary, by a description of the persons.
In the first collateral line, male, the following is the series: Brother, nephew, and nephew, which is the popular form; and brother, brother’s son, and brother's grand-child, which is the formal method, The second collateral runs as follows: Uncle, nephew, and nephew ; or formally wnele, uncle’s son, and uncle’s grand-child. The novel feature here revealed of holding grandson, nephew, and cousin in the same identical relationship still records the first act in the progress of the Aryan system from a purely descriptive form.
4. Belgian.—The Belgian system of consanguinity is closely allied to the pre- ceding. It has the same defects and nearly the same peculiarities. Névé and nichte are applied to the children of the brothers and sisters of Ego ; but not to his grand-children. Nichte is also applied to a female cousin; and it is probable that névé was used to designate a male cousin prior to the adoption of /rozyn into the Belgian dialect. Where terms are found in a dialect cognate with our own, which are employed in a manner not sanctioned by our usage, it does not follow that it is either a vague or improper use of the term; but it shows, on the con- trary, that the several relationships to which a particular term is applied are not discriminated from each other; and they are regarded as one and the same rela- tionship. In the primitive system of the Aryan family the relationship of cousin was unknown,
5. Westphalian or Platt Dutch.—The schedule in the table presents the common form of the people. In the absence of special terms for nephew and niece the first collateral line is described, e. g., brother, brother’s son, and brother's grand-child. The second collateral gives the following series: Uncle, cousin, cousin’s son, and cousin’s grand-child. Nichte still remains in the Westphalian dialect; but it is restricted to female cousin. In the third collateral the series is still more irregular from the absence of a term for great-uncle, e. g., father’s uncle, father’s cousin, and father’s cousin’s son. This is simply a modification of the old descriptive method by the use of secondary terms,
6. Danish and Norwegian.—The system of these nations is entirely free from Roman influence, from which we have been gradually receding, and is, therefore, presumptively nearer the primitive form of the Aryan family. The presence of German influence, however, is seen in the use of the term fatter, cousin, which introduces into the system the only feature that distinguishes it from the Celtic.
With the exception of the term last named there are no terms of relationship in this dialect but the primary. For uncle and aunt on the father’s side it has far- broder and faster ; and on the mother’s side marbroder and moster, which it will be noticed are contractions of the terms father, mother, brother, and sister, and, therefore, describe each person specifically. In the cities the borrowed terms onkel and ¢ante are employed to a great extent, as they are in all German cities; but the
application to one would render it inapplicable to the other. It follows that nepos did not originally signify either a nephew, grandson, or cousin, but that it was used promiscuously to designate a class of persons next without the primary relationships.
OF THE HUMAN FAMILY. a
rural populations in Denmark, Norway, and Germany as well, still adhere to the native term.
The first collateral line male gives the series, brother, brother's son, and brother’s grand-child ; the second, futher’s brother, cousin, and cousin’s grand-child ; and the third, far-father’s brother, father’s cousin, father’s cousin’s son, and father’s cousin’s grand-child. These illustrations reveal the character of the system.
7. Swedish.—The Swedish form agrees so closely with the Danish and Norwegian that it does not require a separate notice.
8. Icelandic—-The insulation of the Icelandic Teutons would tend to preserve their form of consanguinity free from foreign influence. It has original terms for grandfather and grandmother in afi and amma, and a term neji for nephew, which is given in the Mithridates, but does not appear in the Table. It has terms, also, for first and second cousin, which are used concurrently with the descriptive phrases. In form and method, however, it approaches nearer to a purely descriptive system than any yet presented.
In the first collateral line, male, the series is as follows: Brother, son of brother, son of son of brother, and son of son of son of brother. It agrees with the Celtic in. commencing the description at the opposite extreme from Eyo, which, although it may be an idiomatic peculiarity, is yet significant, and will reappear in the Armenian and also in the Arabic. For the second collateral we have father’s brother, son of father’s brother, son of son of father’s brother, and son of son of son of father’s brother. The same form, which is seen to be purely descriptive, runs through the several lines. It follows strictly the natural streams of descent, and makes each relationship specific. This realizes what we understand by a descriptive system. It is evidently nearer the primitive form of the Aryan family than that of any other nation of the Teutonic branch. The advances made by some of the nations, which it is the object of this comparison to trace, are seen to be explainable. They have not proceeded far enough to obscure the original form with which they severally commenced."
1 Nomenclatares of relationship develop from the centre outward, or from the near to the more remote degrees. The primary terms would be first invented since we cannot conceive of any people living without them; but when the nomenclature had been carried to this point it might remain stationary for an indefinite period of time. The Celtic never passed beyond this stage. By means of these terms consanguinei, near and remote, can be described, which answered the main end of a nomenclature. Further progress, ‘or the development of secondary terms, would result from a desire to avoid descriptive phrases. The first of these reached would, probably, be nepos, as elsewhere stated, and made to include several classes of persons. Next to this would, probably, be terms for grandfather and grandmother. In the Romaic, Hellenic, and Slavonie stock languages there are terms for these relationships, which, it is somewhat remarkable, are distinct and independent of each other. In the other dialects they are wanting. It would seem to follow that no terms for these relationships existed in the primitive speech, and that the persons were described as “father’s father,” and so on.
Next in order, apparently, stand the relationships of uncle and aunt. These do not appear to hate been discriminated, in the concrete, in the primitive speech. A common term for paternal uncle is found in the Sanskrit patroya, Greek patrés, and Latin patruus ; but this term seems to be
38 SYSTEMS OF CONSANGUINITY AND ABE INIWY
IV. Sanskrit. Very naturally the Sanskrit would be regarded as one of the most important systems of consanguinity in the Aryan connection, from the weight of its authority in determining what the original form of the family may have been. It is to be regretted that the system, as given in the Table, is so incomplete, although it is shown as fully as competent scholars were able to reproduce it from the remains of the language. Where the special terms are numerous, and their etymologies apparent, as in the Greck, it facilitates the attempt; but where the language is barren of radical terms, and the compounds are limited in number, as in the Sanskrit, a failure to recover an ancient, after it has ceased to be a living system, is not surprising.
There is, however, another view of the case which is not without significance. The absence of radical terms for collateral relatives, and the presence of a limited number of compound terms which are descriptive of particular persons, tend to show that kindred were described, among them, by a combination of the primary terms ; and that the system, therefore, was originally descriptive.
The following diagram exhibits a fragment of the original method of arranging and designating kindred :—
LINEAL LINE. Female. Male.
Prapitimahi., Prapitcimaha.
Pitdmahi.
Pitamaha.
2d Col. Line. Male. F. side. Pitar. (e«) Pitvoya.
Ist Col. Line.
Gy Pitroyaputra, Duhitar. (x2) Putra. (=) Bhratriya. ee Naptri (G5 sain
It will be observed that most of these terms are compounded of the primary, and describe persons. They also indicate the line and branch, and whether on the
24 Col. Line.
Female. F, side.
Pitrsh vasar, 1st Col. Line.
Female.
Mele.
Pitrshvasriya. Ego.| Ego. )Ego. 0.
made from the term for father, by the addition of a termination, and might have come into use independently, after the separation of these dialects from each other, as fadera, paternal uncle, from feeder, father, in Anglo-Saxon. The same remarks apply to mdtula, métrés, and matertera, for maternal aunt., There are also common terms for uncle and aunt in the Greek theios theta, German Oheim and Muhme, English uncle and aunt, derived the last two from avunculus and amita. In Slavonic we have stryc and ujec for paternal and maternal uncle, and tetka, common for aunt. From the fact that the same terms do not run through the several dialects of the Aryan language, the inference is a strong one that these relationships, in the concrete, were not discrimi- nated in the primitive language.
Uncle is a contraction of avunculus, the literal signification of which is a “little grandfather.”
OF THE HUMAN FAMILY 39
father’s side or on the mother’s side. Naptar and naptri are restricted to grand- son and grand-daughter, although, without much doubt, they were originally applied to a nephew and niece as well. From the diagram it is a proper inference that the remaining persons in the several lines are described in a similar manner. ‘The Sanskrit system appears to agree with the general form prevalent in the Aryan family. In its development it took the same direction before noticed in the Grecian, and, to a great extent, in the other dialects of the Aryan language, but without changing essentially its original form."
This term, together with that of aunt from amita, has been adopted with dialectical changes into several of the branches of the Aryan family, and promises ultimately to displace indigenous terms developed since the separation of its branches from each other.
In the-order of time a term for cousin would be the last invented, on the supposition of a growth of the nomenclature outward from Hgo. It is the most remote collateral relationship discriminated in any language or dialect represented in the tables, unless the Slavonic is regarded as an exception. A special term for this relationship must be founded upon a generalization of four different classes of persons into one class; and, therefore, it is more difficult than either of those previously named. This term cousin, which seems to be from the Latin consobrinus, was in strictness limited to the children of sisters; but it became.a common term, and from this source it has been propagated into several branches of the Aryan family. With these facts before the mind it becomes more and more apparent that the original system of the family as to its present form was purely descriptive.
1 Note on Sanskrit.Schedule by Fitz Edward Hall, D. C. L. :—
1. The prescribed scheme of vowel-sounds being very inadequate for the Sanskrit, I have adhered to that more usually followed by Orientalists. According thereto, @ is like a in “ father ;” a, like a in “ America;” e, like our alphabetic a; i, like i in “pin;” i, like i in “machine ;” 0, like o in “no;” u, like u in “bull;” u, like 00 in “fool ;” ai and au, as in the Italian. A peculiar vowel is represented by ri, which is sounded somewhat like the ri in “rivalry.” Sh, s’, and s, indicate three different sibilants.
2. In consequence of prefixing mama, “my,” to each word, I have had to give it a case. I have selected the nominative. The crude form, that found in the dictionaries, of the words for “ father,” “ mother,” ‘‘son,” “brother,” &c., are pitri, matri, bhratri, putra, &e.
3. It requires great credulity to believe that the Hindus know much of the origin of Sanskrit words. Generally, they can only refer words to verbal themes, which are, of course, the invention of the grammarians. Putra, “son,” for instance, is fancifully derived from pu, one of the “hells,” and the etymon “tra,” ‘to draw out;” quasi, ‘(an extractor from hell.” Duhitri, “ daughter,” is thought, with more of reason, to mean “the milker.” See Prof. Max Miiller on Comparative Mythology, in the Oxford Essays. Pautra, “grandson,” is from putra, “son.” To pautra, the preposition pra, “before,” is prefixed in prapautra, “great-grandson.” “Elder brother” and “younger brother,” agraja and anuja, mean, when analyzed, ‘‘foreborn” and “after-born.” In pitamaha and mdtémaha, “paternal grandfather” and ‘‘ maternal grandfather,” and so of the femi- nines, maha and mahi are inseparable affixes. The vriddha, in the word for “ great-great-grandfather,” imports “old.” Pati, “husband,” “lord,” we have in the post-Homerie Seonorns, the first syllable of which is the same as the Sanskrit drsd, “country.” The feminine of patc, patut, occurs in the Homeric and later désxowa. Dhava, “husband,” is seen in the Latin vidua, in Sanskrit, vidhava, “Without husband.” Hence appears the absurdity of the masculine vidwus, and so of our “ widower.” Vimdtri, ‘‘step-mother,” means “a different mother;” for vi has numerous senses in Sanskrit. Dattaka, “adopted son,” = “given.” In vimdtreya, ‘ half-brother,” we see vi and matri, ‘ mother.”
4. Degrees of relationship representable only by compounds of other degrees have been omitted. And here I should mention that pitrivya, “father’s brother,” is the only word for ‘paternal uncle” in Sanskrit. It contains pitri, “father,” and an ending. Compare bhratrivya and bhagineya. Matula is connected, not very obviously, with mdérz.
40 SYSTEMS OF CONSANGUINITY AND AFFINITY
V. Slavonic Nations. 1. Polish. 2. Slovakian or Bohemian. 3. Bulgarian. 4. Russian. 6. Lithuanian.
Among the nations of Slavonic lineage the method of designating kindred is, in some respects, original and distinctive. There appears to be a foreign element in their system of consanguinity which finds no counterpart in those of the remaining Aryan nations. The same ideas, both of classification and of description, run through all the forms heretofore presented in a manner so obvious as to leave no doubt that they sprang from a common original. But a new element is found in the Slavonic which is unexplainable by the hypothesis that it has departed, like the Roman, from an original form in all respects common. The schedules in the Table are neither sufficiently numerous nor perfect to illustrate the system fully in its stages of growth; but enough may be gathered from a comparison of them to encourage belief that a full knowledge of the system, in its several forms, would tend to explain the order of the separation of the Slavonic nations from each other, as ‘well as their relative position in the Aryan family. It would also demonstrate a non- Aryan source of a portion of the Slavonic blood.
1. Polish.—The Polish system has an opulent and expressive nomenclature, inferior only to the Roman; and in the fulness of its development it stands at the head of the several Slavonic forms.
There are two terms for nephew applied to a brother’s son, bratanec and synowieec, with their feminine forms for niece; also a separate term siostrzenca for nephew applied to a sister’s son, with its feminine for niece. The opulence of the nomen- clature is still further shown by the presence of special terms, evolved from the foregoing, for the husbands and wives of these nieces and nephews: namely, bratancowa and siostrzencowa, for the two former; and synowice and siostrzenin, for the two latter. In the first collateral line, male, we have for the series: brother, nephew, son of nephew, and grand-son of nephew. In so far there is nothing peculiar in the Polish system, ‘
There are separate terms for uncle on the father’s and on the mother’s side, and a common term for aunt. ‘The members of the second collateral line are thus indicated : séryj, paternal uncle, stryjecenybrat, “ brother through paternal uncle ;” and stryjecenywnuk, “grandson through paternal uncle.” That is to say: my father’s brother’s son is not my cousin, for there is no term in the Slavonic
5. All Sanskrit dictionaries hitherto published, whether Indian or European, are very defective ; and the Pundits of the present day are, ordinarily, most indifferent scholars. For some of the words I have given, I am indebted to neither of these sources. My own reading has furnished them to me; and I dare say I might, at a future time, fill up a number of the many blanks which the paper still exhibits. Among words indicative of kin which I have met with in Hindu law-books, but which you do not require, are atyaryas'was’ura, ‘paternal great-grandfather of a woman’s husband ;” atyaryavriddhaprapitamaha, “paternal great-grandfather’s paternal great-grandfather ;” &c. &e.
6. The remarriage of widows not having been current in old times in India, a number of words expressive of relationship that might be counted on, do not exist in the Sanskrit.
7. Should any further information be required in connection with the accompanying table, I would refer you to Prof. W. D. Whitney, of Yale College. Mr. Whitney’s knowledge of the Sanskrit is acknowledged, by the best of living Sanskrits, to entitle him to rank fully on a level with them- selves,
OF THE HUMAN FAMILY. 41
stock-language for this relationship: but he is my brother through this uncle—my brother in a particular way. The son of this collateral brother is my nephew, and the son of the latter is my grandson in the same peculiar sense, since these terms express the relationship which comes back to yo. But for the qualification here placed upon the terms for brother, nephew, and grandson, the mode of classification would be identical with one of the Asiatic forms hereafter to be presented. How the Polish made such a wide departure from the primitive descriptive method is a suggestive question.
The following diagram will make more familiar the lineal and first three collateral lines on the father’s side :— ;
LINEAL LINE.
3d Collateral, Male
Zimny Dziadek 2d Collateral, Male
StryJ
Brat °) Stryjeczny Brat B PU = Bratanec rataneo Gs se . “ee Synowea @ Waik ‘ Wnhik Wntk Synowca () : Bs & Prawntk 8
Having no term for great uncle, my grandfather’s brother is my grandfather ; but to distinguish him from the real ancestor, and to express, at the same time, the difference in the relationship, the word, zimny = cold, is prefixed, which qualification is continued to each of his descendants. This gives for the series, in the third collateral, as shown in the diagram, cold grandfather, cold paternal uncle, brother through cold paternal uncle, nephew through cold paternal uncle, and grandson through cold paternal uncle. For a further knowledge of this interesting system reference is made to the Table.
2. Slovakian or Bohemian.—The Bohemian schedule seems to have been imper- fectly filled in consequence of following a variant translation of the questions from English into German, by means of which the learned Professor it would seem was misled in all the branches of the second collateral line. In this line the most re- markable features of the Slovakian system appear. It exhibits the nomenclature, and some portion of each line in agreement with the Polish or Russian, and it is given entire in the Table as furnished, as it is at least possible that it may be correct. Since the Bohemians and Poles are of the western Slavonic branch, and the Bulga-
rians and Russians of the eastern, the forms of consanguinity that now prevail in these 6 December, 1868.
Zimney Stryj «
Stryjeczny Brat
Bratanec
Prawntik
492 SYSTEMS OF CONSANGUINITY AND AFFINITY
~
nations would probably exhibit all the diversities in the system of the Slavonic na- tions. For this reason the incompleteness referred to, and which is true, to nearly the same extent, of the Bulgarian, is the more to be regretted. ‘The Bohemian form, as it appears in the Table, is nevertheless worthy of a careful examination.
3. Bulgarian.—Two schedules. of the Bulgarian are given in the Table. It agrees with the Polish in a part of the first and second collateral lines. When both forms are fully investigated, they will doubtless be found in full agreement. The series of the first collateral line, male, is as follows: Brother, nephew, little - grandson, and little great-grandson. In the second collateral is found the same extraordinary series before given in the Polish; namely, chicha, “ paternal uncle ;” otchicha brat, “brother through paternal uncle ;” otchicha bratanetz, “nephew through paternal uncle ;” and otchicha vnook, “ grandson through paternal uncle.” this remarkable classification of kindred, and which is the same in the other branches of these lines, is peculiar to the Slavonic nations within the limits of the Aryan family.’ In the remaining branches of this line the persons, as shown in the Table, are described, which was not to have been expected. It probably indi- cates that both forms are used.”
4, Russian.—In some respects the Russian differs from the Polish and Bohemian. The following diagram exhibits these differences, as well as all that is peculiar in the Russian method :—
LINEAL LINE. MALE.
G G.G.F. Prapradjed eee NS ae 8 4th Collateral,
+2 Male, F. 8. G.G. F.C) Pradjed O O 8d Collateral, Male, F.S. | G.F. Q Died 2d Collateral, O Died Oo | Niveasen ee Male, F.8. | | F. © Xtez CO Djadja © Dvojurodnyi Djodja © Trojurodnyi Djadja X lst Collateral. ‘ Male. | I. O Ego SO Brat © Dvojurodnyi Brat © Trojurodnyi Brat i Tchetverojurodnyi Brat Son O Syn O Pljemjannik © Dvojurodnyi Pljemjannik QC) Trojurodnyi Pljemjannik ) Tchetverojurodnyi Pljemjannik
G.8. ©) Vunuch © Vuutchatnyi Pljemjannik © Dvojurodnyi Voutchatnyi O Trojurodnyi Vautchatnyi O Tchetverojurodnyi Vnutchatnoyi Pijemjannik Pijemjannik Pljemjannik
1 The fulness of the Bulgarian nomenclature is further shown by the possession of terms not called out by the questions in the Table: as bratetz, “husband’s younger brother ;” malina and sestritza, “husband’s younger sister;” nahranenitz, “adopted son;” nahraneitza, “adopted daughter ;” streekovi, ‘the children of brothers.
s Mr. Morse, in his letter to the author, remarks: ‘The only things peculiar which I have noticed are the three following: First, otchicha brat, brother from paternal uncle, for father’s brother’s son, or cousin; but in eastern Bulgaria wncle’s son is used; second, vnook is used both for one’s grand- son, and for a brother’s and sister’s grandson ; third, deda is both grandfather and great-uncle. This is the reciprocal of the preceding. Jf I call my brother’s grandson my grandson, it is proper that he should call me grandfather.” Elsewhere he states that vnook was used in the twofold sense of grandson and nephew, and that the distinction, in the last use, was sometimes made by prefixing mal = little.
OF THE HUMAN FAMILY. 43
The first collateral line, male, gives the following series: Brother, nephew, and nephew-grandson. The second: Paternal uncle, double-birth brother, double- birth nephew, and double-birth nephew-grandson. The same peculiarity runs through the other branches of this line, and also through the several branches of the third and more remote collateral lines. Thus, in the third we have for the series, grandfather, double-birth uncle, triple-birth brother, triple-birth nephew, and triple-birth nephew-grandson. A reference to the Table will show that the same form of designation runs through the entire system. It will be observed that in the Russian, as in the Polish, the terms for brother and sister are applied to first, second, third and fourth cousins, male and female: thus the double-birth brother is in the second collateral line, the triple in the third, and the quadruple in the fourth. The son of each of these collateral brothers is a nephew of Eyo, and the son of each of these nephews is his nephew-grandson of a certain birth. This realizes, in part, the classification of consanguinei which is found in the Hindi and Bengali, and in other forms in the several dialects of the Gaura language. It appears to be its object to bring collateral kindred within the near degrees of rela- tionship, instead of describing them as persons; leaving the relationship to be implied from the force of the description. The same idea repeats itself in calling a grandfather’s brother a grandfather, which he is not, instead of great-uncle, or describing him as grandfather’s brother.
Special features, such as these, incorporated in a system of relationship, are of great value for ethnological purposes. Where not essentially foreign to the system they may be explained as deviations from uniformity which sprang up fortuitously in a particular branch of a great family of nations, after which they were trans- mitted with the blood to the subdivisions of such branch; or, if fundamentally different from the original system of the family, they may have resulted from a combination of two radically distinct forms, and, therefore, indicate a mixture of the blood of two peoples belonging to different families. These special features of a system, when as marked as in the Polish and the Russian, have a history capable of interpretation which reaches far back into the past. They are worthy of investigation for the possible information they may yield upon the question of the blood affinities of nations which concur in their possession, however widely separated they may be from each other. If the divergent element is unexplainable as a development from the materials of the common system of the family, its foreign origin, through mixture of blood, will become a strong presumption. The peculiar features of the Sclavonic system cannot be explained as arising by natural growth out of a form originally descriptive. There is a distinct element of classification of kindred applied to collaterals which does not seem to spring by logical develop- ment from the ideas that underlie the common system of the Aryan family. It falls far below the comprehensive method of classification which distinguishes the Turanian system; but it finds its counterpart to some extent, as before stated, in the Hindi and Bengali forms, which have been placed in the Turanian connection.
5. Lithuanian.—The Lithuanian system of relationship is not fully extended in the Table. So much of it only is given as could be drawn from the lexicon or vocabulary of the dialect. It is therefore limited to the special terms. The
44 SYSTEMS OF CONSANGUINITY AND AFFINITY
method of designating collateral kindred, which is the most important part of the system, is wanting. It is for this reason of but little value for comparison. - Since both the Lithuanian and Lettish dialects are still spoken, the system of relationship of each of these nations is still a living form. The absence of the Lithuanian, therefore, ts the more to be regretted, since it might have shown the original Slavonic form, and thus tended to explain its peculiar features.
VI. Celtic Nations. 1. Erse. 2. Gaelic. 3. Manx. 4. Welsh.
1. Erse.—The forms in the Gaelic and Manx are in so near agreement with the Erse that they will be considered together; but the illustrations will be taken from the latter.
The Celtic system, as it appears in the forms of these three nations, is purely descriptive. It is more strictly the typical form of the Aryan family than the Roman, and on some accounts should have been first presented. But as the Roman was based upon the same original, and embodies all the developments from it sub- sequently made, it furnished a better starting-point for the exposition of the descriptive system. Whilst the Turanian and American Indian systems employ special terms for every recognized relationship, and are therefore non-descriptive, the Celtic, possessing no special terms except the primary, is descriptive, pure and simple; and thus holds the opposite extreme. The difference, as will appear in the sequel, is fundamental. There is every probability that the Erse and Gaelic forms have remained as they now are from a very early period.
Where relatives by blood and marriage are described, without exception, by a combination of the primary terms, it might be supposed to indicate the absence of any positive system of relationship; but this would be an erroneous inference. Such a form is essentially affirmative. To describe kindred in this manner we must ascend step by step, by the chain of consanguinity, from Eyo to the common ancestor, and then descend in the same definite manner in each collateral line to the particular person whose relationship is sought ; or, we must reverse the process, and ascend from this person to the common ancestor, and then down to Eyo. By this means the natural outflow of the generations is recognized, the several colla- teral lines are preserved distinct from each other and divergent from the lineal, and absolute precision in the description of kindred is reached. So far it contains a positive element. In the second place, to resist for ages the invention or adoption of special terms for the near collateral relationships which are so constantly needed in domestic life, evinces a decisive, not to say pertinacious, preference for the descriptive method. Although this form suggests from within itself a certain num- ber of generalizations of kindred into classes, with the use of special terms for these relationships in the concrete, yet a system must be developed up to and beyond the Roman standard form to render the use of these common terms definitely expres- sive; or, in other words, to secure the precision of the purely descriptive method. As a domestic institution the system necessarily possesses the elements of perma- nence; and its modifications are the slow products of time and growth. Beside the adoption of the Roman as our legal form, the only changes in the English sys- tem within the last five centuries, so far as the writer is aware, is the restriction of the terms nephew and niece to the children of the brother and sister of Ego, and
OF THE HUMAN FAMILY. 45
the substitution of grandson and granddaughter in their places in the lineal line. It is not probable that it will be changed as much as this within the same period of time in the future.
The following diagram exhibits the Erse form :—
LINEAL LINE.
FEMALE MALE
Shan vahair mahar Shan ahair mahar
FATHER’s SIDE Mohair mo han ahair Ahair mo han ahar Farner’s SIpe. 2° Collateral, Female Mo han vahair () Mo han ahair 2° Collateral, Male Driffur mahar O lst Collateral, Female Mo vahair Q) Mo ahair lst Collateral, Male © Drihair mahar ee / Mac driffer mahar © Mo yriffur O Euo © Eco O Mo yribair © Mace dribar mahar | | | | Mac mic driffer mahar CQ) Mac mo driffer© Mo ineean C) Mo vac © Mac mo drihar © Mace mic drihar mahar Mac mic mic driffer mahar O Mac mic mo driffer Tneean mo ineean O Mac mo vie I Mac mic mo driha © Mac mic mic drihar mahar Mac mic mic mic driffer mahar () Mac mic mic mo driffer©@) —‘Ineean mic mo vic © Mac mic mo vie © Mac mic mic mo drihair © Mac mic mic mic drihar mahar Mac mic mic mic mic driffer ©) Mac mic mic mic mo © Ineean mic mic mo vic © Mac mic mic mo vic ©) Mac mie mie mic mo ©) Mac mic mic mic mic drihar mabar driffer drihar mahar
For consanguinei and marriage relatives the Erse and Gaelic have but eight, and these the primary terms.' By means of these terms, which exhaust the nomencla- ture, all of their kindred, near and remote, are described. ‘The diagram represents the lineal line, male and female, and the first and second collateral lines, male and female. Each relationship is made personal to Eco by the use of the pronoun my in the description of each person.
In the first collateral the series is as follows: Brother, son of my brother and son of son of my brother ; the second collateral, brother of my father, son of brother of my father, and son of son of brother of my father. In the third collateral the description is modified by the use of shan ahair, “old father,” in the place of “father of father,’ which gives for the series, brother of my old father, son of brother of my old father and son of son of brother of my old father, and so downward as far as the line is followed. ‘The description, as in the Icelandic, commences at the opposite extreme from Hyo. In the Table, the Erse, Gaelic and Manx forms will be found fully extended.
4, Welsh.—It is probable that the Welsh form of describing kindred was origi- nally the same as the present Erse; but it is now distinguished from it by the
eee ee a Eee ee
1 The term uncle has been naturalized in the Erse dialect in dncail, pronounced Oonchail.
46 SYSTEMS OF CONSANGUINITY AND AFFINITY
possession of several special terms for collateral relations, which were evidently indigenous in the Welsh dialect. The use of these terms, as a part of the nomen- clature, modified the method of describing kindred in the same manner as it did in other Aryan dialects. ‘They were evolved by generalizing certain persons into classes, and were used as common terms to express the corresponding relationships.
In the first collateral line, male, the series is as follows: brother, nephew, and grandson of brother ; in the second, uncle, male cousin, son of male cousin, and grandson of male cousin. The cousin, as in vther forms, is made a second start- ing-point. Which uncle, or which cousin is intended, does not appear; and the defect in the statement could only be corrected by resorting to the Erse method, or general words explaining the line and branch to which each person belonged. The prevalence of a concurrent as well as anterior descriptive method, is plainly inferrible.’
VII. Persian. The modern Persian dialect of the Aryan language has a remark- able history: not so much from the changes through which it has passed, as from its having been a literary language from the earliest period, nearly, of authentic history. After passing through several forms of speech, the Zend, the Pahlevi, and the Parsee, each of which is permanent in written records, it still remains a lineal descendant of the Zend, as well as a closely allied dialect of the Sanskrit.
1 In the “ Ancient Laws and Institutes of Wales,” there is a curious diagram illustrative of the Welsh system of consanguinity, of which the following is a copy. (Vide British Records, Com- mission Series, Ancient Laws and Institutes of Wales, book xi, ch. iv, p. 605.)
If Zgo is placed between the father and son the lineal and first collateral lines would become intelligible, and would be in the same form as the Holland Dutch; but the remainder would be unintelligible. The same result follows each change of Zgo upon the lineal line. But it shows that the arrangement of the lines was correctly apprehended.—G. = Gorhendad=great-grandfather ; H.= Hendad = grandfather ; T.= Tad = father; M.=Mab=son; W.=Wyr=grandson; B.= Brawl = brother; K. probably represents either Naz, nephew, or Nghfnder (pronounced hevender), cousin, under a different orthography. C. probably Goroyr = great-grandson.
OF THE HUMAN FAMILY. 47
It is the only Aryan dialect which can point to more than one antecedent form in which it was established by a literature, and from which it successively broke away. It still retains its grammatical structure as an Aryan dialect, whilst it has drawn its vocables so largely from Semitic and other sources as to seriously alter its family complexion.
For many reasons the Persian system of relationship was very desirable for com- parison with those of the remaining branches of the family. It is given with toler- able fulness in the table. Its nomenclature has been augmented by the adoption of several terms from the Arabic, which in turn have introduced a change in the mode of designating kindred; but it is still evident, notwithstanding the foreign element, that its original form was descriptive. The following diagram exhibits the material parts of the system.
LINEAL LINE.
FEMALE MALE
FatHer’s SIDE FatHer's SIpE
2d Collateral, Female Madar buzurk Poodar buzurk 2d Collateral, Male Am’ Madar Poodar Ce) ‘Rnibo
Ist Collateral, Male
Bradar ee Poosari amoo
Poosari bradar Ba Navadai amoo
Navadai Bradar Ee) Natijaamoo
There is no term in the Persian for grandfather; he is described as an “ elder father.” The term ndtija, great-grandchild, was either borrowed from the Nesto- rian, or the latter obtained it from the former. In the Persian terms for paternal uncle and aunt dmoo, amd, are recognized the Arabic ’amm, ’ammet, for the same relationships; and in hdloo, hdlé, maternal uncle and aunt, the Arabic *Ahdl, ’ Khdlet, also for the same. From the presence of these foreign terms in the Persian it is inferrible that these relationships were not discriminated either in the Zend, Pahlevi or Parsee, nor in the Persian until after they were borrowed. ‘These several persons, therefore, must have been described by the Celtic method.
In the first collateral line, male, the series is as follows: brother, son of brother and grandchild of brother ; and in the second: paternal uncle, son of paternal uncle, grandchild of paternal uncle, and great-grandchild of paternal uncle. The other branches follow in a similar form.?
lst Collateral, Female
Poosari 4ma
Navadai 4m’ Poosari hahar
Natija Sma Navadai hahar
1 The pronoun my is a suffix in the Persian, as it is in the Finn and also in the Arabic.
Father. Mother. Son. Daughter. Paternal Uncle. My Poodirim, Madiiriim, Poosiiaim, Duhktiram, Amooyam. Our Poodirima, Madarima, Poosiima, Duhktirima, Amooyama.
His Poodirioo, Madirioo, Poosiioo, Duhktiiroo, Amooyiioo.
48 SYSTEMS OF CONSANGUINITY AND AFFINITY
VIII. Armenian. The great antiquity of the Armenians as a people, an@ their intimate connection, at different periods, with members of the three great families of mankind, which have held dominion in Asia Minor, invests their system of consan- guinity with some degree of interest. It is a simple and yet complete system. In its radical features, and in its minute details, it is substantially identical with the Erse and Gaclic forms. One more-term is found in its nomenclature than the Erse contains, namely, for, grandson; but this was probably borrowed either from the Osmanli-Turkish, or the Nestorian, in both of which it is found. The Armenian system is purely descriptive, the description of kindred being effected by a combi- nation of the primary terms.
In the first collateral line, male, the following is the series: brother, son of my brother, and son of son of my brother ; in the second collateral: brother of my father, son of brother of my father, and son of son of brother of my father ; and in the thira collateral; brother of my old-father, son of brother of my old-father ; and son of son of brother of my old-father. These illustrations are sufficient to exhibit the cha- racter of the system, and also to show its identity of form with the Erse and Gaelic. There is also a seeming identity of some of the terms in their nomencla- tures of relationship. With the Armenian the series of Aryan nations represented in the Table is closed.
Very little reference has been made to the marriage relationships as they exist in the several nations of this family. They are not material in the descriptive sys- tem, except for comparison of the terms as vocables. They will be found in the Table to which the reader is referred for further information.
From this brief review of the more prominent features of the system of relation- ship of the Aryan nations it has been rendered apparent that the original form of each nation, with the possible exception of the Slavonic nations, was purely descriptive. It is also evident that it is a natural system, following the streams of the blood, and maintaining the several collateral lines distinct from each other, and divergent from the lineal line. In several of the subdivisions of this great family it is still exclu- sively descriptive as in the Armenian, the Erse, and the Icelandic, while in others, as the Roman, the German, and the English, it is a mixture of the descriptive, with a limited amount of classification of kindred by means of common terms. These terms embrace but a fraction of our kindred. Their use, in describing more distant relations, in combination with the primary terms is but a further expansion of the original system. The origin of these secondary terms, which represent the extent of the modification made, must be found in the constantly recurring desire to avoid the inconvenience of descriptive phrases. Such modifications as have been made are neither inconsistent with the inference that the original form of each nation was descriptive, nor such a departure from it as to render it other than a descriptive system at the present time. This general conclusion, I think, must be considered established.
It may be farther remarked that certain persons who stand in the same degree of nearness to Eyo were classed together, and a common term invented to express the relationship ; but some of these terms, as oheim and wnecle, vedder and cousin, are radically distinct, and are yet applied to the same persons. At the same time
se OF THE HUMAN FAMILY. 49
descriptive phrases are used concurrently to designate each respectively. It might be a reasonable supposition that an elaborate nomenclature of relationships was developed in the formative period of the primitive speech of the family, yielding synonyms more or less in number; and that some of these terms had fallen out of certain dialects of the language after their separation, and had been retained by others. But the constancy of the primary terms in all these dialects, and the ascertained subsequent development of several of the secondary, such as uncle and cousin, forbid this supposition. There is nothing in the original nomenclature, or in its subsequent growth, which seems to favor an assumption that the present has advanced or receded from a primitive form that was radically different. On the contrary, the evidence from the Sanskrit and Scandinavian, and conclusively from the Celtic and Armenian, tends to show that the system of the Aryan family, im- mediately before its subdivision commenced, was purely descriptive, whatever it might have been at an anterior epoch. The changes that have occurred are ex- plainable by the changes of condition through which the branches of this family have passed. And when the amazing extent of these changes is considered it is chiefly remarkable that the primitive system of consanguinity should still so clearly manifest itself.
If each distinct idea or conception embodied in the common system of relation- ship of the Aryan family were detached by analysis from its connections, and placed as a separate proposition, the number would not be large ; and yet when associated together they are sufficient to create a system, and to organize a family upon the bond of kindred. A system thus formed became, when adopted into practical use, a domestic institution, which, after its establishment, would be upheld and sustained by the ever-continuing necessities that brought it into being. Its mode of trans- mission, like that of language, was through the channels of the blood. It becomes, then, a question of the highest moment whether its radical forms are stable; and whether they are capable of self-perpetuation through indefinite periods of time. The solution of these problems will decide the further, and still more important question, whether or not these systems, through the identity of their radical features, can deliver any testimony concerning the genetic connection of the great families of mankind, as well as of the nations of which these families are severall¥ com- posed. Without entering upon the discussion of these topics, which is reserved until the facts with reference to the systems of other families have been presented, it may be observed that the perpetuation of the descriptive system through so many independent channels, and through the number of centuries these nations have been separated from each other, was neither an accidental nor a fortuitous occur- rence. There are sufficient reasons why the Erse, the Icelandic, and the Armenian forms are still identical down to their minute details; why the system of the re- maining nations of this family has departed so slightly from the original common form; and why it has moved independently, in each dialect and stock-language, in the same definite direction.
The systems of the Semitic and Uralian families remain to be noticed, which, as
they are also descriptive, properly precede the classificatory, 7 January, 1869.
50 SYSTEMS OF CONSANGUINITY AND AFFINITY
CHAPTER V.
SYSTEM OF RELATIONSHIP OF THE SEMITIC FAMILY.
Arabic System—lIIlustrations of its method—Nearly identical with the Celtic—Druse and Maronite—Agrees with the Arabic—Hebrew Systemi—Restoration of its Details difficult—lIllustrations of its Method—Agrees with the Arabic—Neo-Syriac or Nestorian—lIllustrations of its Method—Agrees with the Arabic—System presump- tively follows the Language—Comparison of Aryan and Semitic Systems—lIdentical in their Radical Charac- teristics—Originally Descriptive in Form—Probable Inferences from this Identity.
Tue Semitic language, in its three principal branches, is represented in the Table, with the system of consanguinity and affinity peculiar to each. First, the Arabic, by the Arabic and Druse and Maronite; second, the Hebraic, by the Hebrew; and third, the Aramaic, by the Neo-Syriac or Nestorian. Since the Arabic and Nestorian are spoken languages, and their systems of relationship are in daily use, and as the Hebrew exhibits the Jewish form as it prevailed when this language ceased to be spoken, the schedules in the Table present, without doubt, the ancient plan of consanguinity of that remarkable family which has exercised such a decisive influence upon the destiny of mankind. Although the influence of the Semitic family has been declining for centuries, before the overmastering strength of the Aryan civilization, the family itself will ever occupy a conspicuous position in human history. These schedules are the more interesting because they reveal, with so much of certainty, not only the present but also the ancient system which prevailed in the Semitic kingdoms of Babylon, Nineveh and Jerusalem, and in the Commonwealth of Carthage. They are likewise important for comparison for the purpose of ascertaining the nature and ethnic boundaries of the descriptive form of consanguinity, and its relations to the forms in other families of mankind.
The two distinguishing characteristics of the system of the Aryan family are present in the Semitic. In the first place, it is substantially descriptive in form, with the same tendency to a limited number of generalizations to relieve the bur- densomeness of this method; and in the second, it maintains the several collateral lines distinct from each other and divergent from the lineal line. In other words, it follows the streams of the blood, as they must necessarily flow where marriage exists between single pairs,
Whilst the Semitic system separates the family by a distinct and well defined line from the Asiatic nations beyond the Indus, it places it side by side with the Aryan and Uralian. So far as the descriptive system of relationship can deliver any testimony through identity of radical forms, which is worthy of acceptance, it tends to show, that while there is no traceable affinity from this source between the Semitic and Tnranian families, there is a positive convergence of the Aryan, Semitic
OF THE HUMAN FAMILY. 51
and Uralian families to a common point of unity, the evidence of which is still preserved (if it can be said to amount to evidence) in their several modes of indi- cating the domestic relationships.
I. Arabic Branch. 1. Arabic. 2. Druse and Maronite.
1. Arabie Nation.—There are original terms in this language for grandfather and grandmother, which is the more singular as there are none in Hebrew. Ascendants above these degrees are described by a combination of these terms with those for father and mother, in which respect the Arabic is variant from the Aryan form. * While we would say grandfather’s father or ereat-grandfather, an Arab would say, father of grandfather. It is a slight difference, and yet it reveals a usage with respect to the manner of expressing this relationship. There are no terms in Arabic for grandson or granddaughter, nephew or niece, or cousin. These persons are described by the Celtic method.
The following is the series in the first collateral line, male; brother, son of my brother, son of son of my brother, and son of son of son of my brother. It is in literal agreement with the Roman and Erse.
It is a noticeable feature of the Arabic system that it has separate terms in ’wmm ‘ammet for paternal uncle and aunt, and in ’khdl ’i:hdlet for maternal uncle and aunt. By means of these terms the manner of describing the four branches of the second collateral line was carried up fully to the Roman standard in convenience and precision, and became identical with it in form. It also tends to show that the development of a system originally descriptive has a predetermined logical direction. With the exception of the discrimination of the relationships named, and the changes thereby introduced in the method of indicating consanguinei, the Arabic form is identical with the Erse.
In the second collateral line, male branch, the series gives paternal uncle, son of paternal uncle, and son of son of paternal uncle. The third, which is variant from the Roman, is as follows: paternal uncle of father, son of paternal uncle of Sather, and son of son of paternal uncle of father. This line is described as a series of relatives of the father of Hyo. In like ‘manner the fourth collateral line is described as a series of relatives of the grandfather of Eyo, e. g., paternal uncle of grandfather, son of paternal uncle of grandfather, and so downward as far as the line was traceable. For a further knowledge of the details of the Arabic system reference is made to the Table.
No attempt is made in this system to classify kindred by the generalization of those who stand in the same degree of nearness to Eyo into one class, with the use of a special term to express the relationship. On the contrary, the four special terms for collateral kindred, above named, are each applied to a single class of per- sons who are brothers and sisters to each other, which is the lowest form of gene- ralization in any system of consanguinity. It is the same as the generalization of the relationship of brother or son, each of which terms is applied to several persons who stand in an identical relationship. Nephew, in our sense, on the contrary, involves the generalization of two classes of persons into one class, and cousin that of four into one. Neither does the Arabic employ the Sanskritic or Grecian method of compounding terms by contraction to express specific relationship ; but it adheres
52 SYSTEMS OF CONSANGUINITY AND AFFINITY
a
closely to a purely descriptive method by the use of the primary terms. The Erse and Gaclic are nearer to the Arabic in their minute forms than they are to- any form of any Aryan nation, except the Armenian and the Scandinavian.
It is quite probable that the words for uncle and aunt are of comparatively modern use in Arabic as terms of relationship, as they have other meanings, which for a period of time may have been exclusive. In answer to an inquiry upon this point the distinguished American missionary Dr. C. V. A. Van Dyck, of Beirut, Syria, writes: ‘* The Arabic words for uncle and aunt, "amm ?ammet, *khal “khdlet, are derived from pure Arabic roots, but are not necessarily of very ancient use in the above meanings, as they have several other meanings. Their use in describing degrees of relationship may be somewhat later than the early history of the language, yet they are found as far back as we have any remains of the language. If the Himyaritic were sufficiently restored to be of use, it might throw some light upon what you remark concerning the Erse and Gaelic.”
The presence of two of these terms in the Hebrew, and of the four in the Nes- torian, gives to them necessarily a very great antiquity as terms of relationship ; but it may be possible to reach beyond the period of their first introduction.
The marriage relationships are quite fully discriminated, and reveal some pecu- liarities. For an inspection of them reference is again made to the Table.
2. Druse and Maronite.—This form is so nearly identical with the last that it does not require a separate notice.’ The fact of its identity, both in form and terms, is important, however, since it furnishes a criterion for determining the stability of the system during the period these nations have been politically distinct.
Il. Hebraic Branch. Hebrew Nation. ‘The same difficulty that prevented the restoration of the Sanskrit system of relationship in its full original form exists also with reference to the Hebrew. It ceased to be a living form when the language ceased to be spoken, and from the remains of the language it can only be restored conjecturally beyond the nearest degrees.
In the lineal line all persons above father and below son must have been described by a combination of the primary terms. This is inferable also from the general tenor of the Scripture genealogies. There are special terms for descendants of the third and fourth generation which were applied to each specifically.
The series in the first collateral line, male, as given in the Table, is limited to two persons, namely, brother and son of brother. It is to be inferred that the remain- ing descendants were described as son of son of brother, and so downward as far as the relationship was to be traced.
In this language the term for paternal uncle is dédhi, the literal signification of which is “beloved.” Is it to be inferred that this relationship was not discrimi- nated until after the Hebrew became a distinct dialect, or that it superseded the original of the Arabic ’amm? ‘The first two members of this branch of the line only are given in the table, namely, paternal uncle and son ef paternal uncle. Without doubt the remaining persons were described as in the Arabic. The ana- logy of the system suggests this inference. In “khi and “hoth, maternal uncle and auct, we find words from the same root as hdl and khdlet for the same relation- ships. ‘The description of persons in these branches is the same as in the last case,
OF THE HUMAN FAMILY. 53
namely, maternal uncle and son of maternal uncle; maternal aunt and son of maternal aunt. ‘This fragment is all that remains of the Hebrew system as it is shown in the table. ‘The nature, and to some extent the form, of the system may be gathered from the Scripture genealogies, in which it is found to be descriptive.
So far as the characteristic features of the Hebrew form of consanguinity are given in the Table, they are seen to be identical with the Arabic substantially, This fact becomes important when it is remembered that the Hebrew system is shown as it existed when the language ceased to be spoken, which event is gene- rally placed at the period of the Babylonian captivity 720 B. C. At the commence- ment of the Christian era the Aramaic dialect of the Semitic language had become substituted for the Hebrew among the Jews. ‘The slight differences between the Arabic of to-day and the Hebrew form of twenty centuries and upwards ago, is a fact of some significance in its bearing upon the question of the stability of the radical features of descriptive systems of relationship.
There are several points concerning the use of terms of consanguinity in the New Testament Scriptures, as well as in the Old, which it would be instructive to investigate. ‘This is particularly the case with reference to the term for brother, which appears to have been applied to a cousin as well, and which use finds its parallel in the 'Turanian form. But with the radical features of the Hebrew system before us, these uses of the term must either find their explanation in some particular custom; or point to a different and still more primitive form.
III. Aramaic Branch. Neo-Syriac, or Nestorian.
The Syriac and Chaldee are the two principal dialects of the Aramaic branch of the Semitic language. Of these, the Nestorian is the modern form of the Syriac, and stands to it in the same relation Italian does to Latin. It is a lineal descend- ant of the ancient language of Babylon and Nineveh. We are indebted to the American missionaries for rendering the dialect accessible.
The Nestorian nomenclature of relationships has been developed slightly beyond the Arabic and the Hebrew. It has original terms for grandfather and grand- mother, by means of which, and in combination with the terms for father and mother, ascendants are described in the same manner as in the Arabic ; also, origi- nal terms for grandson and granddaughter, and for the next degree beyond, by means of which descendants are distinguished from each other. This is the extent of the difference, but it introduces a slight variation in the method of describing kindred.
The first collateral line, male, gives the following series: Brother, son of brother, grandson of brother, and great grandson of brother. The form is the same as in the Arabic, but with the substitution of the new terms. In the second collateral we have paternal uncle, son of paternal uncle, and grandson of paternal uncle ; and in the third, brother of grandfather, son of brother of grandfather, and grandson of brother of grandfather. The remaining branches of these lines are described, with corresponding changes, in the same manner.
In the Nestorian there are no terms for nephew or niece or cousin, consequently dmiwee and wmte, Khdliwee and Kahleh, uncle and aunt, and which are from the
54 SYSTEMS OF CONSANGUINITY AND AFFINITY
same root as the corresponding Arabic words, were without any correlatives except in the form of descriptive phrases. Notwithstanding the slight deviations between the Nestorian and the Arabic forms, after an independent and separate existence of many centuries, they are still identical in their radical characteristics.
Terms for the marriage relationships are less numerous in the Semitic than in the Aryan language. From their limited number and the manner of their use they are of but little importance as a part of the general system of relationship, except for comparison as vocables. In the systems of the Turanian and American Indian families they enter more essentially into their framework, and are of much greater significance from the manner of their use.
The system of relationship of the Semitic family has a much wider range than is indicated in the Table. It will doubtless be found wherever the blood and lan- guage of this family have spread. Among the Abyssinians, who speak a Semitic dialect, it probably prevails; and most likely among the people who speak the Ber- ber dialects of North Africa, which are said to be Semitic. Traces of it exist in the system of the Zulus or Kafirs of South Africa, which, Malayan in form, has adopted Semitic words into its nomenclature. ‘The Himyaritic dialect, if investi- gated with reference to this question, would probably disclose some portion of the primitive form.
A comparison of the systems of relationship of the Semitic and Aryan families suggests a number of interesting questions. It must have become sufficiently obvi- ous that in their radical characteristics they are identical. Any remaining doubt upon that point is removed by the near approach of the Arabic-and Nestorian to the Erse and Icelandic. It is rendered manifest by the comparison that the sys- tem of the two families was originally purely descriptive, the description being effected by the primary terms; and that the further development of each respec- tively, by the same generalizations, limited to the same relationships, was, in each case, the work of civilians and scholars to provide for a new want incident to changes of condition, ‘The rise of these modifications can be definitely traced. Whether the system in its present form is of natural origin, and the two families came by it through the necessary constitution of things; or whether it started at some epoch in a common family and was transmitted to such families as now possess it by the streams of the blood, are the alternative questions. Their solution involves two principal considerations: first, how far the descriptive system is affirmative, and as such is a product of human intelligence; and secondly, how far its radical forms are stable and self-perpetuating. It is not my purpose to do more than make a general reference to the elements of those propositions which will require a full discussion in another connection.
‘The descriptive system is simple rather than complex, and has a natural basis in the nature of descents, where marriage subsists between single pairs. For these reasons it might have been framed independently by different families, starting with an antecedent system either differing or agreeing; and its perpetuation in such a case might be in virtue of its foundation upon the nature of descents. And yet these conclusions are not free from doubt. With the fact established that the
OR) TEE EWUEM AUN AMO I Yr. 55
plan of consanguinity of the two families is identical in whatever is radical, and with the further fact extremely probable that it had become established in each at a time long anterior to their civilization, the final inference is encouraged that it pre- vailed in the two original nations from which these families were respectively derived. Standing alone, without any contrasting form, the descriptive system of the two families would scarcely attract attention. But it so happens that in other portions of the human family a system of relationship now exists radically different in its structure and elaborate and complicated in its forms, which is spread out over large areas of human speech, and which has perpetuated itself through equal periods of time as well as changes of condition. The conditions of society, then, may have some influence in determining the system of relationship. In other words, the descriptive form is not inevitable ; neither is it fortuitous. Some form of consanguinity was an indispensable necessity of each family. Its formation involved an arrangement of kindred into lines of descent, with the adoption of a method for distinguishing one kinsman from another. Whatever plan was finally adopted would acquire the stability of a domestic institution as sodn as it came in general use and had proved its sufficiency. A little reflection will dis- cover the extreme difficulty of innovating upon a system once established. Founded upon common consent, it could only be changed by the influence of motives as uni- versal as the usage. ‘The choice of a descriptive method for the purpose of special- izing each relationship, by the Semitic family, and the adoption of the classificatory by the Turanian, for the purpose of arranging consanguinei into groups, and placing the members of each group in the same relationship to Ego, were severally acts of intelligence and knowledge. A system of relationship is to a