1

Ancient Society
Or Researches in the Lines of Human Progress from Savagery through Barbarism to Civilization By Lewis H. Morgan, LL. D Member of the National Academy of Sciences, Author of The League of Iroquois, The American Beaver and his works, Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family, etc.
Transcribed: for www.marxist.org by Ibne Hasan; First published: in 1877, by MacMillan & Company, on!on. "#is e!ition was printe! in $%&; "#is '!ition is repro!(ce! from t#e )*irst In!ian '!ition +1,--., p(blis#e! by /H&0"I I/0&01, /oo2sellers & 3(blis#ers, 1-4, Cornwallis %treet, Calc(tta. Compose! by "ari5 %#arif, )6&"'0M&078, 9(:ranwala, 3a2istan. C(m prarepser(nt primis animalia terris, M(t(m et t(rpe pc(s, glan!em at5(e c(bilia propter $ng(ib(s et p(gnis, !ein f(stib(s, at5(e ita porro 3(gnabant armis, 5(ae post fabrica;erat (s(s; <onee ;erba, 5(ib(s ;oces sens(s5(e notarent, =omina5(e in;enere: !ebinc absistere bello, >ppi!a coeper(nt m(nire, et ponerc leges, =e 5(is f(r esset, ne( latro, ne( 5(is a!(lter. +&s soon as animals crept fort# on t#e first lan!s, a speec#less an! !egra!e! crow!, t#ey battle! for t#e acorn an! for t#eir lairs wit# claws an! fists, t#en wit# cl(bs an! at lengt# wit# arms, w#ic# afterwar!s practice #a! ma!e; (ntil t#ey learne! to (se wor!s by w#ic# to in!icate ;ocal so(n!s an! t#o(g#ts an! to (se names. &fter t#at t#ey began to refrain from war, an! fortify walle! towns, an! to lay !own laws t#at no one s#o(l! be a t#ief, nor a robber nor an a!(lterer.. ? Horace, %at, 1, iii, ,,. )Mo!ern science claims to be pro;ing, by t#e most caref(l an! ex#a(sti;e st(!y of man an! #is wor2s, t#at o(r race began its existence on eart# at t#e bottom of t#e scale, instea! of at t#e top, an! #as been gra!(ally wor2ing (pwar!; t#at #(man powers #a;e #a! a #istory of !e;elopment; t#at all t#e elements of c(lt(re ? as t#e arts of life, art, science, lang(age, religion, p#ilosop#y ? #a;e been wro(g#t o(t by slow an! painf(l efforts, in t#e conflict between t#e so(l an! t#e min!

D
of man on t#e one #an!, an! external nat(re on t#e ot#er.8 ? 6#itney@s )>riental an! ing(istic %t(!ies,8 p. A-1. )"#ese comm(nities reflect t#e spirit(al con!(ct of o(r ancestors t#o(san!s of times remo;e!. 6e #a;e passe! t#ro(g# t#e same stages of !e;elopment, p#ysical an! moral, an! are w#at we are to!ay beca(se t#ey li;e!, toile!, an! en!ea;o(re!. >(r won!ro(s ci;iliBation is t#e res(lt of t#e silent efforts of m(llions of (n2nown men, as t#e c#al2 cliffs of 'nglan! arc forme! of t#e contrib(tion of myria!s of foraminifera.8 ? <r. C. 7ames, )&nt#ropologia,8 ;ol. =o. D. p. DAA.

Foreword
Morgan st(!ie! t#e &merican In!ian way of life an! collecte! an enormo(s amo(nt of fact(al material on t#e #istory of primiti;e?comm(nal society. &ll t#e concl(sions #e !raws are base! on t#ese facts; w#ere #e lac2s t#em, #e reasons bac2 on t#e basis of t#e !ata a;ailable to #im. He !etermine! t#e perio!iBation of primiti;e society by lin2ing eac# of t#e perio!s wit# t#e !e;elopment of pro!(ction tec#ni5(es. "#e )great se5(ence of in;entions an! !isco;eries;8 an! t#e #istory of instit(tions, wit# eac# of its t#ree branc#es ? family, property an! go;ernment ? constit(te t#e progress ma!e by #(man society from its earliest stages to t#e beginning of ci;iliBation. Man2in! gaine! t#is progress t#ro(g# )t#e gra!(al e;ol(tion of t#eir mental an! moral powers t#ro(g# experience, an! of t#eir protracte! str(ggle wit# opposing obstacles w#ile winning t#eir way to ci;iliBation.8 =at(re #as t#e same ob:ecti;ity, for Morgan, as it #as for t#e great p#ilosop#ers of t#e se;enteent# cent(ry. It pro;i!es t#e basis for t#e !e;elopment of man, society an! its ;ario(s instit(tions. In t#is (nitary !e;elopment, t#e relations#ip between t#e two is not one si!e!. "#e growt# of #(man society certainly !e;elops o(t of nat(re, b(t it ex#ibits so many new categories, relations an! laws t#at it can only be !eri;e! from nat(re in a !ialectical relations#ip. In t#is sense it goes far beyon! nat(re an! !isting(is#es itself 5(alitati;ely from it. Commenting on t#is o(tstan!ing boo2 in t#e lig#t of w#ic# #e #a! written E"#e >rigin of *amily, 3ri;ate 3roperty an! %tateF w#ic# again contains a s(mmary of t#e important facts establis#e! by Morgan in )&ncient %ociety,8 'ngels says, )MorganFs great merit lies in t#e fact t#at #e !isco;ere! an! re?constr(cte! in its main lines t#e pre?#istoric basis of o(r written #istory; so long as no important a!!itional material ma2es c#anges necessary, #is classification will (n!o(bte!ly remain in force.8 In a letter to 7a(ts2y +*ebr(ary 1G, 188-. #e says, )"#ere exists a !efiniti;e boo2 on t#e origins of society, as !efiniti;e as <arwinFs wor2 for /iology, an! it is, nat(rally, again Marx w#o #as !isco;ere! it: it is Morgan, &ncient %ociety, 1877. Marx spo2e to me of it b(t I #a! ot#er matters on my min! an! #e !i! not ret(rn to t#e s(b:ect. "#is s(rely please! #im for I can see by #is ;ery !etaile! extracts t#at #e wante! to intro!(ce it to t#e 9ermans #imself. 6it#in t#e limits set by #is s(b:ect, Morgan spontaneo(sly !isco;ere! MarxFs materialist conception of #istory, an! #is concl(sions wit# regar! to present?!ay society are absol(tely comm(nist post(lates. "#e 0oman an! 9ree2 gens is for t#e first time

A f(lly explaine! by t#ose of sa;ages, especially t#e &merican In!ians, an! t#is gi;es a soli! base to primiti;e #istory.8 MorganFs !ebt to <arwin is ob;io(s. He saw man, as <arwin !i!, as a species of animal origin. Man began #is long :o(rney towar!s ci;iliBation as a creat(re #ar!ly !isting(is#able from sa;age beasts t#at s(rro(n!e! #im. /(t t#e e;ol(tion of #(man society #as been possible beca(se of t#e !e;elopment in t#e fac(lties of #(man (n!erstan!ing. &mong t#e ca(ses t#at set man apart from t#e animal worl! are, in #is wor!s, )in;entions an! !isco;eries8 co#erent speec# an! collecti;e life of t#e comm(nity. He says, )6it# t#e pro!(ction of in;entions an! !isco;eries, an! wit# t#e growt# of instit(tions, t#e #(man min! necessarily grew an! expan!e!; an! we are le! to recogniBe a gra!(al enlargement of t#e brain itself, partic(larly of t#e cerebral portion.8 Here we !o fin! an ec#o of <arwinFs i!eas, b(t it is not a mec#anical sc#eme of !e;elopment. =at(re is t#e fo(n!ation of life, b(t #is )lines of in;estigation8 are #istorical. >ne of t#ese )lea!s t#ro(g# in;entions an! !isco;eries;8 an! wit# t#e 2nowle!ge gaine! t#erefrom, we may #ope to in!icate t#e principal stages of #(man !e;elopment.8 Marx po(re! #is scorn on writers w#o faile! to !ifferentiate between t#e laws of nat(re an! t#ose of society an! coine! a general law to w#ic# bot# #(man an! animal e;ol(tion is s(b:ect. In a letter to <r. 7(gelmann, #e says8 )Herr ange, yo( see, #as ma!e a great !isco;ery. "#e w#ole of #istory can be bro(g#t (n!er a single great nat(ral law. "#is nat(ral law is t#e p#rase +in t#is application <arwinFs expression become not#ing b(t a p#rase. )t#e str(ggle for life,8 an! t#e content of t#is p#rase is t#e Malt#(sian law of pop(lation or, rat#er, o;er?pop(lation. %o, instea! of analyBing t#e str(ggle for life as represente! #istorically in ;arying an! !efinite forms of society, all t#at #as to be !one is to translate e;ery concrete str(ggle into t#e p#rase )str(ggle for life,8 an! t#is p#rase itself into t#e Malt#(sian pop(lation fantasy. >ne m(st a!mit t#at t#is is a ;ery impressi;e met#o! ? goo! for swaggering, s#am?scientific, bombastic ignorance an! intellect(al laBiness.8 &fter t#is brief !isc(ssion, we may concl(!e t#at Marx wo(l! ne;er #a;e praise! Morgan in so #ig# terms if it were an extension of <arwinFs /iology to History; or if #e #a! trie! to !etermine t#e e;ol(tion of #(man society only t#ro(g# en;ironmental infl(ences. )"#e materialistic !octrine concerning t#e transformation of circ(mstances an! (pbringing forgets t#at circ(mstances are c#ange! by men an! t#at it is essential to e!(cate t#e e!(cator #imself.8 Marx, "#ir! "#esis on *e(erbac#. "#is is t#e reason t#at t#ey ran2e! MorganFs wor2 wit# t#e greatest an! fo(n! in it t#e Materialist Conception of History.

From the Foreword to the First Indian Edition

&n eternal being create! #(man society as it is to!ay an! s(bmission to Es(periorsF an! Ea(t#orityF is impose! on t#e ElowerF classes by E!i;ine willF t#is !octrine preac#e! an! propagate! from t#e p(lpit, #as #ypnotise! t#e min!s of men an! pro;es to be one of t#e strongest pillars of exploitation in t#e 'astern co(ntries e;en now. %cientific in;estigation, #owe;er, #as re;eale! long before t#at #(man society is not cast in a stereotype! mo(l!. C(st as organic life on eart# ? t#e o(tcome of a s(ccession of e;ol(tionary c#anges ? ass(mes !ifferent s#apes so also

t#e gro(p life of #(man beings !e;elops !ifferent social instit(tions as a res(lt of t#e increasing control o;er en;ironment, especially of pro!(ction of foo!, clot#ing an! s#elter. "#is is t#e message w#ic# t#e wor2s of men li2e Morgan, Marx, <arwin an! ot#ers #as bro(g#t to t#e #(man2in!.

Preface by the Author

"#e great anti5(ity of man2in! (pon t#e eart# #as been concl(si;ely establis#e!. It seems sing(lar t#at t#e proofs s#o(l! #a;e been !isco;ere! as recently as wit#in t#e last t#irty years, an! t#at t#e present generation s#o(l! be t#e first calle! (pon to recogniBe so important a fact. Man2in! are now 2nown to #a;e existe! in '(rope in t#e glacial perio!, an! e;en bac2 of its commencement, wit# e;ery probability of t#eir origination in a prior geological age. "#ey #a;e s(r;i;e! many races of animals wit# w#om t#ey were contemporaneo(s, an! passe! t#ro(g# a process of !e;elopment, in t#e se;eral branc#es of t#e #(man family, as remar2able in its co(rses as in its progress. %ince t#e probable lengt# of t#eir career is connecte! wit# geological perio!s, a limite! meas(re of time is excl(!e!. >ne #(n!re! or two #(n!re! t#o(san! years wo(l! be an (n?extra;agant estimate of t#e perio! from t#e !isappearance of t#e glaciers in t#e nort#ern #emisp#ere to t#e present time. 6#ate;er !o(bts may atten! any estimate of a perio!, t#e act(al !(ration of w#ic# is (n2nown, t#e existence of man2in! exten!s bac2war! immeas(rably, an! loses itself in a ;ast an! profo(n! anti5(ity. "#is 2nowle!ge c#anges materially t#e ;iews w#ic# #a;e pre;aile! respecting t#e relations of sa;ages, to barbarians an! of barbarians to ci;iliBe! men. It can now be asserte! (pon con;incing e;i!ence t#at sa;agery prece!e! barbarism in all t#e tribes of man2in!, as barbarism is 2nown to #a;e prece!e! ci;iliBation. "#e #istory of t#e #(man race is one in so(rce, one in experience, one in progress. It is bot# a nat(ral an! a proper !esire to learn, if possible, #ow all t#ese ages (pon ages of past time #a;e been expen!e! by man2in!; bow sa;ages, a!;ancing by slow, almost imperceptible steps, attaine! t#e #ig#er con!ition of barbarians; #ow barbarians, by similar progressi;e a!;ancement, finally attaine! to ci;iliBation; an! w#y ot#er tribes an! nations #a;e been left be#in! in t#e race of progress ? some in ci;iliBation, some in barbarism, ot#ers in sa;agery. It is not too m(c# to expect t#at (ltimately t#ese se;eral 5(estions will be answere!. In;entions an! !isco;eries stan! in serial relations along t#e lines of #(man progress, an! register its s(ccessi;e stages; w#ile social an! ci;il instit(tions, in ;irt(e of t#eir connection wit# perpet(al #(man wants, #a;e been !e;elope! from a few primary germs of t#o(g#t. "#ey ex#ibit a similar register of progress. "#ese instit(tions, in;entions an! !isco;eries #a;e embo!ie! an! preser;e! t#e principal facts now remaining ill(strati;e of t#is experience. 6#en collate! an! compare! t#ey ten! to s#ow t#e (nity of origin of man2in!, t#e similarity of #(man wants in t#e same stages of a!;ancement, an! t#e (niformity of t#e operations of t#e #(man min! in similar con!itions of society. "#ro(g#o(t t#e latter part of t#e perio! of sa;agery an! t#e entire perio! of

4 barbarism, man2in! in general were organiBe! in gentes, p#ratries an! tribes. "#ese organiBations pre;aile! t#ro(g#o(t t#e entire ancient worl! (pon all t#e continents, an! were t#e instr(mentalities by means of w#ic# ancient society was organiBe! an! #el! toget#er. "#eir str(ct(re, an! relations, as members of an organic series, an! t#e rig#ts, pri;ileges an! obligations of t#e member of t#e gens, an! of t#e members of t#e p#ratry an! tribe ill(strate t#e growt# of t#e i!ea of go;ernment in t#e #(man min!. "#e principal instit(tions of man2in! originate! in sa;agery, were !e;elope! in barbarism, an! are mat(ring in ci;iliBation. In li2e manner, t#e family #as passe! t#ro(g# s(ccessi;e forms, an! create! great systems of consang(inity an! affinity w#ic# #a;e remaine! to t#e present time. "#ese systems, w#ic# recor! t#e relations#ips existing in t#e family of t#e perio!, w#en eac# system respecti;ely was forme!, contain an instr(cti;e recor! of t#e experience of man2in! w#ile t#e family was a!;ancing from t#e consang(ine, t#ro(g# interme!iate forms, to t#e monogamian. "#e i!ea of property #as (n!ergone a similar growt# an! !e;elopment. Commencing at Bero in sa;agery, t#e passion for t#e possession of property, as t#e representati;e of acc(m(late!, s(bsistence, #as now become !ominant o;er t#e #(man min! in ci;iliBe! races. "#e, fo(r classes of facts abo;e in!icate!, an! w#ic# exten! t#emsel;es in parallel lines along t#e pat#ways of #(man progress from sa;agery to ci;iliBation, form t#e principal s(b:ects of !isc(ssion in t#is ;ol(me. "#ere is one fiel! of labo(r in w#ic#, as &mericans, we #a;e special interest as well as a special !(ty. 0ic# as t#e &merican continent is 2nown to be in material wealt#, it is also t#e ric#est of all t#e continents in et#nological, p#ilosop#ical an! arc#aeological materials, ill(strati;e of t#e great perio! of barbarism. %ince man2in! were one in origin, t#eir career #as been essentially one, r(nning in !ifferent c#annels (pon all continents, an! ;ery similarly in all t#e tribes an! nations of man2in! !own to t#e same stat(s of a!;ancement. It follows t#at t#e #istory an! experience of &merican In!ian tribes represent, or less nearly, t#e #istory an! experience of o(r own remote ancestors w#en in correspon!ing con!itions. *orming a part of t#e #(man recor!, t#eir instit(tions, arts, in;entions an! practical experience possess a #ig# an! special ;al(e reac#ing far beyon! t#e In!ian race itself. 6#en !isco;ere!, t#e &merican In!ian tribes represente! t#ree !istinct et#nical perio!s, an! more completely t#an t#ey were elsew#ere t#en represente! (pon t#e eart#. Materials for et#nology, p#ilology an! arc#aeology were offere! in (nparallele! ab(n!ance; b(t as t#ese sciences scarcely existe! (ntil t#e present cent(ry, an! are b(t feebly prosec(te! among (s at t#e present time, t#e wor2men #a;e been (ne5(al to t#e wor2. Moreo;er, w#ile fossil remains b(rie! in t#e eart# will 2eep for t#e f(t(re st(!ent, t#e remains of In!ian arts, lang(ages an! instit(tions will not. "#ey are peris#ing !aily, an! #a;e been peris#ing for (pwar!s of t#ree cent(ries. "#e et#nic life of t#e In!ian tribes is !eclining (n!er t#e infl(ence of &merican ci;iliBation, t#eir arts an! lang(ages are !isappearing, an! t#eir instit(tions are !issol;ing. &fter a few more years, facts t#at may now be

G gat#ere! wit# ease will become impossible of !isco;ery. "#ese circ(mstances appeal strongly to &mericans to enter t#is great fiel! an! gat#er its ab(n!ant #ar;est. 0>CH'%"'0, =ew 1ong, Marc#, 1877.
Lewis Henry Morgan +1818?1881. was born near &(rora, =ew 1or2, on t#e D1st of =o;ember 1818. He gra!(ate! in 18-H at $nion College, t#en st(!ie! law, was a!mitte! to t#e bar, an! practise! #is profession wit# s(ccess at 0oc#ester, =ew 1or2. %oon after lea;ing college Morgan went among t#e Iro5(ois, li;ing as far as #e co(l! t#eir life an! st(!ying t#eir social organiBation. In >ctober 18-7, #e was formally a!opte! into t#e Haw2 gens of t#e %eneca tribe, an! recei;e! t#e name )ta?ya?!a?wa#?2(g#.8 "#e fr(it of #is researc#es was )"#e eag(e of t#e Iro5(ois8 +1841; new e!. 1,H-. w#ic# was t#e first scientific acco(nt of an In!ian tribe e;er gi;en to t#e worl!. "#e s(ccess of t#e boo2 enco(rage! #im to f(rt#er researc#, res(lting in #is )%ystems of Consang(inity an! &ffinity of t#e H(man *amily8 + 18G,.. In 1877 #e a!!e! to #is rep(tation by p(blis#ing )&ncient %ociety, or 0esearc#es in t#e ines of H(man 3rogress from %a;agery t#ro(g# /arbarism, to Ci;iliBation.8 Morgan was a member of t#e =ew 1or2 assembly in 18G1 an! of t#e =ew 1or2 senate in 18G8?18G,. In 188H #e was presi!ent of t#e &merican &ssociation for t#e &!;ancement of %cience. He !ie! in 0oc#ester, =ew 1or2, on t#e 17t# of <ecember 1881. In a!!ition to t#e wor2s abo;e mentione! an! many magaBine articles, #e p(blis#e! )"#e &merican /ea;er an! #is 6or2s +18G8. an! Ho(ses an! Ho(se? ife of t#e &merican &borigines +1881.. Encyclopaedia Britannica.

Table of Contents Part I Growth of Intelligence through Inventions and Discoveries Chapter I. Ethnical Periods
3rogress of Man2in! from, t#e /ottom of t#e %cale. ? Ill(strate! by, In;entions, <isco;eries an! Instit(tions. ? "wo 3lans of 9o;ernment ? one 9entile an! %ocial, gi;ing a %ociety +%ocietas.; t#e ot#er 3olitical, gi;ing a %tate +Ci;itas.. ? "#e former fo(n!e! (pon 3ersons an! 9entilism; t#e atter (pon "erritory an! 3roperty. ? "#e *irst, t#e 3lan of 9o;ernment of &ncient %ociety. ? "#e %econ!, t#at of Mo!ern or Ci;iliBe! %ociety. ? $niformity of H(man 'xperience. ? 3ropose! 't#nical 3erio!s ? I. ower %tat(s of %a;agery; II. Mi!!le %tat(s of %a;agery; III. $pper %tat(s of %a;agery; II. ower %tat(s of /arbarism; I. Mi!!le %tat(s of /arbarism II. $pper %tat(s of /arbarism; III. %tat(s of Ci;iliBation.

Chapter II. Arts of Subsistence

%(premacy of Man2in! o;er t#e 'art#. ? Control o;er %(bsistence t#e Con!ition. ? Man2in! alone gaine! t#at Control. ? %(ccessi;e &rts of %(bsistence ? I. =at(ral %(bsistence; II. *is# %(bsistence; III. *arinaceo(s %(bsistence; II. Meat an! Mil2 %(bsistence; I. $nlimite! %(bsistence t#ro(g# *iel! &gric(lt(re. ? ong Inter;als of "ime between t#em.

C#apter III. Ratio of Hu an Progress

0etrospect on t#e ines of H(man 3rogress. ? 3rincipal Contrib(tions of Mo!ern Ci;iliBation. ? >f &ncient Ci;iliBation. ? >f ater 3erio! of /arbarism. ? >f Mi!!le 3erio!, ? >f >l!er 3erio! ? >f 3erio! of %a;agery. ? H(mble Con!ition of 3rimiti;e Man. ? H(man 3rogress in a 9eometrical 0atio. ? 0elati;e engt# of 't#nical 3erio!s. ? &ppearance of %emitic an! &ryan *amilies.

Part II Growth of the Idea of Government Chapter I. !rgani"ation of Society upon the #asis of Se$
&(stralian Classes. ? >rganiBe! (pon %ex. ? &rc#aic C#aracter of t#e >rganiBation. ? &(stralian 9entes. ? "#e 'ig#t Classes. ? 0(le of Marriage. ? <escent in t#e *emale ine. ? %t(pen!o(s Con:(gal %ystems ? "wo Male an! "wo *emale Classes in eac# 9ens. ? Inno;ations (pon t#e Classes. ? 9ens still 0(!imentary.

Chapter II. %he Iro&uois 'ens

"#e 9entile >rganiBation. ? Its 6i!e 3re;alence. ? <efinition of a 9ens. ? <escent in t#e *emale ine t#e &rc#aic 0(le. ? 0ig#ts, 3ri;ileges an! >bligations of Members of a 9ens. ? 0ig#t of 'lecting an! <eposing its %ac#em an! C#iefs. ? >bligations not to marry in t#e 9ens. ? M(t(al 0ig#ts of In#eritance of t#e 3roperty of !ecease! Members. ? 0eciprocal >bligations or Help, <efence an! 0e!ress of in:(ries ? 0ig#t of =aming its Members ? 0ig#ts of &!opting %trangers into t#e 9ens ? Common 0eligio(s 0ites, J(ery. ? & Common /(rial 3lace. ? Co(ncil of t#e 9ens ? 9entes name! after &nimals. ? =(mber of 3ersons in a 9ens.

Chapter III. %he Iro&uois Phratry

<efinition of a 3#ratry ? 7in!re! 9entes 0e(nite! in a Hig#er >rganiBation. ? 3#ratry of t#e Iro5(ois "ribes. ? Its Composition. Its $ses an! *(nctions. ? %ocial ari! 0eligio(s. ? Ill(strations. ? "#e &nalog(e of t#e 9recian 3#ratry; b(t in its &rc#aic *orm. 3#ratries of t#e C#octas. ? >f t#e C#ic2asas. ? >f t#e Mo#egans. ? >f t#e "#lin2eets. ? "#eir 3robable $ni;ersality in t#e "ribes of t#e &merican &borigines.

Chapter I(. %he Iro&uois %ribes

"#e "ribe as an >rganiBation ? Compose! of 9entes %pea2ing t#e same <ialect. ? %eparation in &rea tea to <i;ergence of %peec#, an! %egmentation. ? "#e "ribe a =at(ral 9rowt#. ? Ill(strations. ? &ttrib(tes of a "ribe ? & "erritory an! =ame, ? &n 'xcl(si;e <ialect ? "#e 0ig#t to In;est an! <epose ifs %ac#ems an! C#iefs. ? & 0eligio(s *ait# an! 6ors#ip. ? & Co(ncil of C#iefs ? & Hea!? C#ief of "ribe in some Instances. ? "#ree s(ccessi;e *orms of 9entile 9o;ernment; *irst, a 9o;ernment of >ne 3ower; %econ!, of "wo 3owers; "#ir!, of "#ree 3owers.

Chapter (. %he Iro&uois Confederacy

Confe!eracies =at(ral 9rowt#s. ? *o(n!e! (pon Common 9entes, an! a Common ang(age. ? "#e Iro5(ois "ribes. ? "#eir %ettlement in =ew 1or2 ? *ormation of t#e Confe!eracy. ? Its %tr(ct(re an! 3rinciples. ? *ifty %ac#ems#ips Create! ? Ma!e Here!itary in certain 9entes. ? =(mber assigne! to eac# "ribe. ? "#ese %ac#ems forme! t#e Co(ncil of t#e Confe!eracy. ? "#e Ci;il, Co(ncil. ? Its Mo!e of "ransacting /(siness. $nanimity =ecessary to its &ction. ? "#e Mo(rning Co(ncil. ? Mo!e of 0aising (p %ac#ems. ? 9eneral Military Comman!ers. ? "#is >ffice t#e 9erm of t#at of a C#ief 'xec(ti;e Magistrate, ? Intellect(al Capacity of t#e Iro5(ois.

Chapter (I. 'entes in !ther %ribes of the 'anowanian )a ily

<i;isions of &merican &borigines. ? 9entes in In!ian "ribes; wit# t#eir 0(les of <escent an! In#eritance ? 1, Ho!enosa(nian "ribes. ? D, <a2otian ? A, 9(lf -, 3awnee ? 4, &lgonlcin ? G, &t#apasco?&pac#e ? 7, "ribes of =ort#west Coast ? 's2imos a <istinct *amily ? 8, %alis#, %a#aptin, an! 7ootenay "ribes. ? ,, %#os#onee. ? 1H, Iillage In!ians of =ew Mexico, Mexico an! Central &merica. ? 11, %o(t# &merican In!ian "ribes. ? 3robable $ni;ersality of t#e >rganiBation in 9entes in t#e 9anowanian *amily.

Chapter (II. %he A"tec Confederacy.

Misconception of &Btec %ociety. ? Con!ition of &!;ancement. ? =a#(atiac "ribes. ? "#eir %ettlement in Mexico. ? 3(eblo of Mexico fo(n!e!, &.<. 1A.D4. ? &Btec Confe!eracy establis#e! &.<. 1-DG. ? 'xtent of "erritorial <omination. ? 3robable =(mber of t#e 3eople. ? 6#et#er or not t#e &Btec were organiBe! in 9entes an! 3#ratries. ? "#e Co(ncil of C#iefs. ? Its probable *(nctions. ? >ffice #el! by MonteB(ma. ? 'lecti;e in "en(re. ? <eposition of MonteB(ma. ? 3robable *(nctions of t#e >ffice. ? &Btec Instit(tions essentially <emocratical. ? "#e 9o;ernment a Military <emocracy.

Chapter (III. %he 'recian 'ens

'arly Con!ition of 9recian "ribes. ? >rganiBe! into 9entes. ? C#anges in t#e C#aracter of t#e 9ens. ? =ecessity for a 3olitical %ystem. ? 3roblem to be %ol;e!. ? "#e *ormation of a %tate ? 9rote@s <escription of t#e 9recian 9entes. ? >f t#eir 3#ratries an! "ribes. ? 0ig#ts, 3ri;ileges an! >bligations of t#e Members of t#e 9ens. ? %imilar to t#ose of t#e Iro5(ois 9ens. ? "#e >ffice of C#ief of t#e 9ens ? 6#et#er 'lecti;e or Here!itary. ? "#e 9ens !ie /asis of t#e %ocial %ystem, ? &nti5(ity of t#e 9entile ineage. ? In#eritance of 3roperty. ? &rc#aic an! *inal 0(le. ? 0elations#ips between t#e Members of a 9ens. ? "#e 9ens t#e Centre of %ocial an! 0eligio(s Infl(ence.

Chapter I*. %he 'recian Phratry+ %ribe and ,ation

"#e &t#enian 3#ratry ? How *orme!. ? <efinition of <i2aearc#(s. ? >b:ects c#iefly 0eligio(s. ? "#e 3#ratriarc#. ? "#e "ribe. ? Compose! of "#ree 3#ratries ? "#e 3#ylo?/asile(s. ? "#e =ation ? Compose! of *o(r "ribes. ? /o(le, or Co(ncil of C#iefs, ? &gora, or &ssembly of t#e 3eople. ? "#e /asile(s. ? "en(re of !ie >ffice. Military an! 3riestly *(nctions. ? Ci;il *(nctions not s#own. ? 9o;ernments of t#e Heroic &ge, Military <emocracies. ? &ristotle@s <efinition of a /asile(s. ? ater &t#enian <emocracy. ? In#erite! from t#e 9entes. ? Its 3owerf(l Infl(ence (pon &t#enian <e;elopment.

Chapter *. %he Institution of 'recian Political Society

*ail(re of t#e 9entes as a /asis of 9o;ernment. ? egislation of "#ese(s. ? &ttempte! %(bstit(tion of Classes. ? Its *ail(re. ? &bolition of t#e >ffice of /asile(s. ? "#e &rc#ons#ip, ? =a(craries an! "rittyes. ? egislation of %olon. ? "#e 3roperty Classes. ? 3artial "ransfer of Ci;il 3ower from t#e 9entes to t#e Classes. ? 3ersons (nattac#e! to any 9ens. ? Ma!e CitiBens. ? "#e %enate. ? "#e 'cclesia. ? 3olitical %ociety partially attaine!, ? egislation of Cleist#enes. ? Instit(tion of 3olitical %ociety. ? "#e &ttic <eme or "owns#ip. ? Its >rganiBation an! 3owers. ? Its ocal %elf?go;ernment ? "#e ocal "ribe or <istrict. ? "#e &ttic Common?wealt#. ? &t#enian <emocracy.

Chapter *I. %he Ro an 'ens

Italian "ribes >rganiBe! in 9entes. ? fo(n!ing of 0ome. ? "ribes >rganiBe! into a Military <emocracy ? "#e 0oman 9ens. ? <efinition of a 9entilis by Cicero. ? /y *est(s. ? /y Iarro. <escent in Male ine. ? Marrying o(t of t#e 9ens. ? 0ig#ts, 3ri;ileges an! >bligations of t#e Members of a 9ens ? <emocratic Constit(tion of &ncient atin %ociety. ? =(mber of 3ersons in a 9ens.

1H

Chapter *II. %he Ro an Curia+ %ribe and Populus

0oman 9entile %ociety. ? *o(r %tages of >rganiBation. ? 1, "#e 9ens; D, "#e C(ria, consisting of "en 9entes; A, "#e "ribe compose! of "en C(ria; -, "#e 3op(l(s 0oman(s, compose! of "#ree "ribes. ? =(merical 3roportions. ? How 3ro!(ce!. ? Concentration of 9entes at 0ome. ? "#e 0oman %enate. ? Its *(nctions. ? "#e &ssembly of t#e 3eople. ? Its 3owers, ? "#e 3eople %o;ereign, ? >ffice of Military Comman!er +0ex.. ? Its 3owers an! *(nctions. ? 0oman 9entile Instit(tions essentially <emocratical.

Chapter *III. %he Institution of Ro an Political Society

"#e 3op(l(s ? "#e 3lebeians. ? "#e Clients. ? "#e 3atricians. ? imits of t#e >r!er. ? egislation of %er;i(s "(lli(s. ? Instit(tion of 3roperty Classes. ? >f t#e Cent(ries ? $ne5(al %(ffrage ? Comitia C(riata. ? %(perse!es Comitia C(riata. ? Classes s(perse!e t#e 9entes. ? "#e Cens(s. ? 3lebeians ma!e CitiBens. ? Instit(tion of City 6ar!s ? >f Co(ntry "owns#ips. ? "ribes increase! to *o(r. ? Ma!e ocal instea! of Consang(ine, ? C#aracter of =ew 3olitical %ystem. ? <ecline an! <isappearance of 9entile >rganiBation. ? "#e 6or2 it &ccomplis#e!.

Chapter *I(. Change of -escent fro Line

the )e ale to the Male

How t#e C#ange mig#t #a;e been ma!e. ? In#eritance of 3roperty t#e Moti;e. ? <escent in t#e *emale ine among t#e ycians. ? "#e Cretans. ? "#e 'tr(scans ? 3robably among t#e &t#enians in t#e time of Cecrops. ? "#e H(n!re! *amilies of t#e ocrians. ? ';i!ence from Marriages, ? "(ranian %ystem of Consang(inity among 9recian "ribes. ? egen! of t#e <anai!ae.

Chapter *(. 'entes in !ther %ribes of the Hu an )a ily

"#e %cottis# Clan ? "#e Iris# %ept. ? 9ermanic "ribes. ? "races of a prior 9entile %ystem, ? 9entes in %o(t#ern &siatic "ribes. ? In =ort#ern. ? In $ralian "ribes. ? H(n!re! *amilies of C#inese. ? Hebrew "ribes. ? Compose! of 9entes an! 3#ratries &pparently. ? 9entes in &frican "ribes. ? In &(stralian "ribes. ? %(b!i;isions of *e:ees an! 0ewas. ? 6i!e <istrib(tion of 9entile >rganiBation.

Part III Growth of the Idea of the Family Chapter I

*i;e s(ccessi;e *orms of t#e *amily ? *irst t#e Consang(ine *amily. ? I" create! t#e Malayan %ystem of Consang(inity an! &ffinity. ? ? %econ!, t#e 3(nal(an. ? It create! t#e "(ranian an!

11 9anowanian %ystem? ? "#ir!, t#e Monogamian. ? It create! t#e &ryan, %emitic, an! $ralian system. ? "#e %yn!yasmian an! 3atriarc#al *amilies Interme!iate ? /ot# faile! to create a %ystem of Consang(inity, ? "#ese %ystems =at(ral 9rowt#s. ? "wo $ltimate *orms. ? >ne Classificatory t#e ot#er <escripti;e. ? 9eneral 3rinciples of t#ese %ystems ? "#eir 3ersistent Maintenance.

Chapter II. %he Consanguine )a ily

*ormer 'xistence of t#is *amily. ? 3ro;e! by Malayan %ystem of Consang(inity. ? Hawaiian %ystem (se! as "ypical. ? *i;e 9ra!es of 0elations. ? <etails of %ystem. ? 'xplaine! in its origin by t#e Intermarriage of /rot#ers an! %isters in a 9ro(p. ? 'arly %tate of %ociety in t#e %an!wic# Islan!s. ? =ine 9ra!es of 0elations of t#e C#inese. ? I!entical in 3rinciple wit# t#e Hawaiian. ? *i;e 9ra!e of 0elations in I!eal 0ep(blic of 3lato. ? "able of Malayan %ystem of Consang(inity an! &ffinity.

Chapter III. %he Punaluan )a ily.

"#e 3(nal(an *amily s(per;ene! (pon t#e Consang(ine. ? "ransition, #ow 3ro!(ce!. ? Hawaiian C(stom of 3(nal(a. ? Its probable ancient 3re;alence o;er wi!e &reas. ? "#e 9entes originate! probably in 3(nal(an 9ro(ps. ? "#e "(ranian %ystem of Consang(inity. ? Create! by t#e 3(nal(an *amily. ? It pro;es t#e 'xistence of t#is *amily w#en t#e %ystem was forme!. ? <etails of %ystem. ? 'xplanation of its 0elations#ips in t#eir >rigin. ? "able of "(ranian an! 9anowanian %ystems of Consang(inity an! &ffinity.

Chapter I(. %he Syndyas ian and the Patriarchal )a ilies

"#e %yn!yasmian *amily. ? How Constit(te!? ? Its C#aracteristics. ? Infl(ence (pon it of t#e 9entile >rganiBation. ? 3ropensity to 3air a late <e;elopment. ? &ncient %ociety s#o(l! be %t(!ie! w#ere t#e #ig#est 'xemplifications are fo(n!. ? "#e 3atriarc#al *amily. ? 3aternal 3ower its 'ssential C#aracteristic. ? 3olygamy s(bor!inate. ? "#e 0oman *amily similar ? 3aternal 3ower (n2nown in pre;io(s *amilies.

Chapter (. Monoga ian )a ily

"#is family comparati;ely Mo!ern. ? "#e term *amilia. ? *amily of &ncient 9ermans ? >f Homeric 9ree2s. ? >f Ci;iliBe! 9ree2s. ? %ecl(sion of 6i;es. ? >bligations of Monogamy not respecte! by t#e males. ? "#e 0oman *amily. ? 6i;es (n!er 3ower. ? &ryan %ystem of Consang(inity. ? It came in (n!er Monogamy. ? 3re;io(s %ystem probably "(ranian. ? "ransition from "(ranian into &ryan. 0oman an! &rabic %ystems of Consang(inity. ?

1D <etails of t#e *ormer. ? 3resent Monogamian *amily. ? "able of 0oman &n! &rabic %ystems.

Chapter (I. Se&uence of Institutions Connected with the )a ily

%e5(ence in part Hypot#etical. ? 0elation of t#ese Instit(tions in t#e >r!er of t#eir >rigination. ? ';i!ence of t#eir >rigination in t#e >r!er name!. ? Hypot#esis of <egra!ation Consi!ere!. ? "#e &nti5(ity of Man2in!.

Part IV Growth of the Idea of Property Chapter I. %he %hree Rules of Inheritance.
3roperty in t#e %tat(s of %a;agery. ? %low 0ate of 3rogress. ? *irst 0(le of In#eritance. ? 3roperty <istrib(te! among t#e 9entiles. ? 3roperty in t#e ower %tat(s of /arbarism. ? 9erm of %econ! 0(le of In#eritance. ? <istrib(te! among &gnatic 7in!re!. ? Impro;e! C#aracter of Man. ? 3roperty in Mi!!le %tat(s. ? 0(le of In#eritance imperfectly 7nown. ? &gnatic In#eritance probable.

Chapter II. %hree Rules of Inheritance . Continued

3roperty in t#e $pper stat(s of /arbarism. ? %la;ery. ? "en(re of an!s in 9recian "ribes. ? C(lt(re of t#e 3erio!. ? Its /rilliancy. ? "#ir! 0(le of In#eritance. ? 'xcl(si;ely in C#il!ren. ? Hebrew "ribes. ? 0(le of In#eritance. ? <a(g#ters of Kelop#e#a!. ? 3roperty remaine! in t#e p#ratry an! probably in t#e 9ens. ? "#e 0e;ersion. ? &t#enian In#eritance. ? 'xcl(si;ely in C#il!ren. ? "#e 0e;ersion ? In#eritance remaine! in t#e 9ens. ? Heiresses. ? 6ills. ? 0oman In#eritance. ? "#e 0e;ersion. ? 3roperty remaine! in t#e 9ens. ? &ppearance of &ristocracy. ? 3roperty Career of H(man 0ace. ? $nity of >rigin of Man2in!.

Ancient Society
Chapter I ETHNICAL PERIODS
"#e latest in;estigations respecting t#e early con!ition of t#e #(man race are ten!ing to t#e concl(sion t#at man2in! commence! t#eir career at t#e bottom of t#e scale an! wor2e! t#eir way (p from sa;agery to ci;iliBation t#ro(g# t#e slow acc(m(lations of experimental 2nowle!ge. &s it is (n!eniable t#at portions of t#e #(man family #a;e existe! in a state of sa;agery, ot#er portions in a state of barbarism, an! still ot#er portions in a state of ci;iliBation, it seems e5(ally so t#at t#ese t#ree !istinct con!itions are connecte!

1A wit# eac# ot#er in a nat(ral as well as necessary se5(ence of progress. Moreo;er, t#at t#is se5(ence #as been #istorically tr(e of t#e entire #(man family, (p to t#e stat(s attaine! by eac# branc# respecti;ely, is ren!ere! probable by t#e con!itions (n!er w#ic# all progress occ(rs, an! by t#e 2nown a!;ancement of se;eral branc#es of t#e family t#ro(g# two or more of t#ese con!itions. &n attempt will be ma!e in t#e following pages to bring forwar! a!!itional e;i!ence of t#e r(!eness of t#e early con!ition of man2in!, of t#e gra!(al e;ol(tion of t#eir mental an! moral powers t#ro(g# experience, an! of t#eir protracte! str(ggle wit# opposing obstacles w#ile winning t#eir way to ci;iliBation It will be !rawn in part, from t#e great se5(ence of in;entions an! !isco;eries w#ic# stretc#es along t#e entire pat#way of #(man progress; b(t c#iefly from !omestic instit(tions, w#ic# express t#e growt# of certain i!eas an! passions. &s we re?ascen! along t#e se;eral lines of progress to? war! t#e primiti;e ages of man2in!, an! eliminate one after t#e ot#er, in t#e or!er in w#ic# t#ey appeare!, in;entions an! !isco;eries on t#e one #an!, an! instit(tions on t#e ot#er, we are enable! to percei;e t#at t#e former stan! to eac# ot#er in progressi;e, an! t#e latter in (nfol!ing relations. 6#ile t#e former class #a;e #a! a connection, more or less !irect, t#e latter #a;e been !e;elope! from a few primary germs of t#o(g#t. Mo!ern instit(tions plant t#eir roots in t#e perio! of barbarism, into w#ic# t#eir germs were transmitte! from t#e pre;io(s perio! of sa;agery. "#ey #a;e #a! a lineal !escent t#ro(g# t#e ages, wit# t#e streams of t#e bloo!, as well as a logical !e;elopment. "wo in!epen!ent lines of in;estigations t#(s in;ite o(r attention. "#e one lea!s t#ro(g# in;entions an! !isco;eries, an! t#e ot#er t#ro(g# primary instit(tions. 6it# t#e 2nowle!ge gaine! t#erefrom, we may #ope to in!icate t#e principal stages of #(man !e;elopment. "#e proofs to be a!!(ce! will be !rawn c#iefly from !omestic instit(tions; t#e references to ac#ie;ements more strictly intellect(al being general as well as s(bor!inate. "#e facts in!icate t#e gra!(al formation an! s(bse5(ent !e;elopment of certain i!eas, passions, an! aspirations. "#ose w#ic# #ol! t#e most prominent positions may be generaliBe! as growt#s of t#e partic(lar i!eas wit# w#ic# t#ey se;erally stan! connecte!. &part from in;entions an! !isco;eries t#ey are t#e following: I. Subsistence II. Government III. Language I. Religion II. House Life and Architecture II. The amily III. !roperty.

irst. %(bsistence #as been increase! an! perfecte! by a series of s(ccessi;e arts, intro!(ce! at long inter;als of time, an! connecte! more or less !irectly wit# in;entions an! !isco;eries. Second. "#e germ of go;ernment m(st be so(g#t in t#e organiBation into gentes in t#e %tat(s of sa;agery; an! followe! !own, t#ro(g# a!;ancing forms of t#is instit(tion, to t#e establis#ment of political society. "#ir!. H(man speec# seems to #a;e been !e;elope! from t#e r(!est an! simplest forms of expression. 9est(re or sign lang(age, as intimate! by (creti(s, m(st #a;e prece!e! artic(late lang(age, as t#o(g#t prece!e! speec#. "#e monosyllabical prece!e! t#e syllabical, as t#e latter !i! t#at of concrete wor!s. I? H(man

1intelligence, (nconscio(s of !esign, e;ol;e! artic(late lang(age by (tiliBing t#e ;ocal so(n!s. "#is great s(b:ect, a !epartment of 2nowle!ge by itself, !oes not fall wit#in t#e scope of t#e present in;estigation. *o(rt#. 6it# respect to t#e family, t#e stages of its growt# are embo!ie! in systems of consang(inity an! affinity, an! in (sages relating to marriage, by means of w#ic#, collecti;ely, t#e family can be !efinitely trace! t#ro(g# se;eral s(ccessi;e forms. ifth. "#e growt# of religio(s i!eas is en;irone! wit# s(c# intrinsic !iffic(lties t#at it may ne;er recei;e a perfectly satisfactory exposition. 0eligion !eals so largely wit# t#e imaginati;e an! emotional nat(re, an! conse5(ently wit# s(c# (ncertain elements of 2nowle!ge, t#at all primiti;e religions are grotes5(e an! to some extent (nintelligible. "#is s(b:ect also falls wit#o(t t#e plan of t#is wor2 excepting as it may prompt inci!ental s(ggestions. Si"th. Ho(se arc#itect(re, w#ic# connects itself wit# t#e form of t#e family an! t#e plan of !omestic life, affor!s a tolerably complete ill(stration of progress from sa;agery to ci;iliBation. Its growt# can be trace! from t#e #(t of t#e sa;age, t#ro(g# t#e comm(nal #o(ses of t#e barbarians, to t#e #o(se of t#e single family of ci;iliBe! nations, wit# all t#e s(ccessi;e lin2s by w#ic# one extreme is connecte! wit# t#e ot#er. "#is s(b:ect will be notice! inci!entally. Lastly. "#e i!ea of property was slowly forme! in t#e #(man min!, remaining nascent an! feeble t#ro(g# immense perio!s of time. %pringing into life in sa;agery, it re5(ire! all t#e experience of t#is perio! an! of t#e s(bse5(ent perio! of barbarism to !e;elop t#e germ, an! to prepare t#e #(man brain for t#e acceptance of its controlling infl(ence. Its !ominance as passion o;er all ot#er passions mar2s t#e commencement of ci;iliBation. It not only le! man2in! to o;ercome t#e obstacles w#ic# !elaye! ci;iliBation, b(t to establis# political society on t#e basis of territory an! property. & critical 2nowle!ge of t#e e;ol(tion of t#e i!ea of property wo(l! embo!y, in some respects, t#e most remar2able portion of t#e mental #istory of man2in!. It will be my ob:ect to present some e;i!ence of #(man progress along t#ese se;eral lines, an! t#ro(g# s(ccessi;e et#nical perio!s, as it is re;eale! by in;entions an! !isco;eries, an! by t#e growt# of t#e i!eas of go;ernment, of t#e family, an! of property. It may be #ere premise! t#at all forms of go;ernment are re!(cible to two general plans, (sing t#e wor! plan in its scientific sense. In t#eir bases t#e two are f(n!amentally !istinct. "#e first, in t#e or!er of time, is fo(n!e! (pon persons, an! (pon relations p(rely personal, an! may be !isting(is#e! as a society +societas.. "#e gens is t#e (nit of t#is organiBation; gi;ing as t#e s(ccessi;e stages of integration, in t#e arc#aic perio!, t#e gens, t#e p#ratry, t#e tribe, an! t#e confe!eracy of tribes, w#ic# constit(te! a people or nation +populus.. &t a later perio! a coalescence of tribes in t#e same area into a nation too2 t#e place of a confe!eracy of tribes occ(pying in!epen!ent areas. %(c#, t#ro(g# prolonge! ages, after t#e gens appeare!, was t#e s(bstantially (ni;ersal organiBation of ancient society; an! it remaine! among t#e 9ree2s an! 0omans after ci;iliBation

14 s(per;ene!. "#e secon! is fo(n!e! (pon territory an! (pon property, an! may be !isting(is#e! as a state +civitas.. "#e towns#ip or war!, circ(mscribe! by metes an! bo(n!s, wit# t#e property it contains, is t#e basis or (nit of t#e latter, an! political society is t#e res(lt. 3olitical society is organiBe! (pon territorial areas, an! !eals wit# property as well as wit# persons t#ro(g# territorial relations. "#e s(ccessi;e stages of integration are t#e towns#ip or war!, w#ic# is t#e (nit of organiBation; t#e co(nty or pro;ince, w#ic# is an aggregation of towns#ips or war!s; an! t#e national !omain or territory, w#ic# is an aggregation of co(nties or pro;inces; t#e people of eac# of w#ic# are organiBe! into a bo!y politic. It taxe! t#e 9ree2s an! 0omans t?o t#e extent of t#eir capacities, after t#ey #a! gaine! ci;iliBation, to in;ent t#e !eme or towns#ip an! t#e city war!; an! t#(s ina(g(rate t#e secon! great plan of go;ernment, w#ic# remains among ci;iliBe! nations to t#e present #o(r. In ancient society t#is territorial plan was (n2nown. 6#en it came in it fixe! t#e bo(n!ary line between ancient an! mo!ern society as t#e !istinction will be recogniBe! in t#ese pages. It may be f(rt#er obser;e! t#at t#e !omestic instit(tions of t#e barbaro(s, an! e;en of t#e sa;age ancestors of man? 2in!, are still exemplifie! in portions of t#e #(man family wit# s(c# completeness t#at, wit# t#e exception of t#e strictly primiti;e perio!, t#e se;eral stages of t#is progress are tolerably well preser;e!. "#ey are seen in t#e organiBation of society (pon t#e basis of sex, t#en (pon t#e basis of 2in, an! finally (pon t#e basis of territory; t#ro(g# t#e s(ccessi;e forms of marriage an! of t#e family, wit# t#e systems of consang(inity t#ereby create!; t#ro(g# #o(se life an! arc#itect(re; an! t#ro(g# progress in (sages wit# respect to t#e owners#ip an! in#eritance of property. "#e t#eory of #(man !egra!ation to explain t#e existence of sa;ages an! of barbarians is no longer tenable. It came in as a corollary from t#e Mosaic cosmogony, an! was ac5(iesce! in from a s(ppose! necessity w#ic# no longer exists. &s a t#eory, it is not only incapable of explaining t#e existence of sa;ages, b(t it is wit#o(t s(pport in t#e facts of #(man experience. "#e remote ancestors of t#e &ryan nations pres(mpti;ely passe! t#ro(g# an experience similar to t#at of existing barbaro(s an! sa;age tribes. "#o(g# t#e experience of t#ese nations embo!ies all t#e information necessary to ill(strate t#e perio!s of ci;iliBation, bot# ancient an! mo!ern, toget#er wit# a part of t#at in t#e later perio! of barbarism, t#eir anterior experience m(st be !e!(ce!, in t#e main, from t#e traceable connection between t#e elements of t#eir existing instit(tions an! in;entions, an! similar elements still preser;e! in t#ose of sa;age an! barbaro(s tribes. It may be remar2e! finally t#at t#e experience of man2in! #as r(n in nearly (niform c#annels; t#at #(man necessities in similar con!itions #a;e been s(bstantially t#e same; an! t#at t#e operations of t#e mental principle #a;e been (niform in ;irt(e of t#e specific i!entity of t#e brain of all t#e races of man2in!. "#is, #owe;er, is b(t a part of t#e explanation of (niformity in res(lts. "#e germs of t#e principal instit(tions an! arts of life were !e;elope! w#ile man was still a sa;age. "o a ;ery great extent t#e experience of t#e s(bse5(ent perio!s of barbarism an! of ci;iliBation #as been expen!e! in t#e f(rt#er !e;elopment of t#ese

1G original conceptions. 6#ere;er a connection can be trace! on !ifferent continents between B present instit(tion an! a common germ, t#e !eri;ation of t#e people t#emsel;es from a common original stoc2 is implie!. "#e !isc(ssion of t#ese se;eral classes of facts will be facilitate! by t#e establis#ment of a certain n(mber of 't#nical 3erio!s; eac# representing a !istinct con!ition of society, an! !isting(is#able by a mo!e of life pec(liar to itself. "#e terms E&ge of Stone,F Eof Bron#e$F an! Eof %ron,F intro!(ce! by <anis# arc#aeologists, #a;e been extremely (sef(l for certain p(rposes, an! will remain so for t#e classification of ob:ects of ancient art; b(t t#e progress of 2nowle!ge #as ren!ere! ot#er an! !ifferent s(b? !i;isions necessary. %tone implements were not entirely lai! asi!e wit# t#e intro!(ction of tools of iron, nor of t#ose of bronBe. "#e in;ention of t#e process of smelting iron ore create! an et#nical epoc#, yet we co(l! scarcely !ate anot#er from t#e pro!(ction of bronBe. Moreo;er, since t#e perio! of stone implements o;erlaps t#ose of bronBe an! of iron, an! since t#at of bronBe also o;erlaps t#at of iron, t#ey are not capable of a circ(mscription t#at wo(l! #a;e eac# in!epen!ent an! !istinct. It is probable t#at t#e s(ccessi;e arts of s(bsistence w#ic# arose at long inter;als will (ltimately, from t#e great infl(ence t#ey m(st #a;e exercise! (pon t#e con!ition of man2in!, affor! t#e most satisfactory bases for t#ese !i;isions. /(t in;estigation #as not been carrie! far eno(g# in t#is !irection to yiel! t#e necessary information. 6it# o(r present 2nowle!ge t#e main res(lt, can be attaine! by selecting s(c# ot#er in;entions or !isco;eries as will affor! s(fficient tests of progress to c#aracteriBe t#e commencement of s(ccessi;e et#nical perio!s. ';en t#o(g# accepte! as pro;isional, t#ese perio!s will #e fo(n! con;enient, an! (sef(l. 'ac# of t#ose abo(t to be propose! will be fo(n! to co;er a !istinct c(lt(re, an! to represent a partic(lar mo!e of life. "#e perio! of sa;agery, of t#e early part of w#ic# ;ery little is 2nown, may be !i;i!e!, pro;isionally, into t#ree s(b?perio!s. "#ese may be name! respecti;ely t#e &lder$ t#e 'iddle$ an! t#e later perio! of sa;agery; an! t#e con!ition of society in eac#, respecti;ely, may be !isting(is#e! as t#e Lo(er, t#e 'iddle$ an! t#e )pper Status of sa;agery. In li2e manner, t#e perio! of barbarism !i;i!es nat(rally into t#ree s(b?perio!s, w#ic# will be calle!, respecti;ely, t#e &lder$ t#e 'iddle$ an! t#e Later perio! of barbarism; an! t#e con!ition of society in eac#, respecti;ely, will be !isting(is#e! as t#e Lo(er$ t#e 'iddle$ an! t#e )pper Status of barbarism. It is !iffic(lt, if not impossible; to fin! s(c# tests of progress to mar2 t#e commencement of t#ese se;eral perio!s as will be fo(n! absol(te in t#eir application, an! wit#o(t exceptions (pon all t#e continents. =eit#er is it necessary, for t#e p(rpose in #an!, t#at exceptions s#o(l! not exist. It will be s(fficient if t#e principal tribes of man2in! can be classifie!, accor!ing to t#e !egree of t#eir relati;e progress, into con!itions w#ic# can be recogniBe! as !istinct.

I. Lower Status of Sa/agery.

"#is perio! commence! wit# t#e infancy of t#e #(man race, an! may be sai! to

17 #a;e en!e! wit# t#e ac5(isition of a fis# s(bsistence an! of a 2nowle!ge of t#e (se of fire. Man2in! were t#en li;ing in t#eir original restricte! #abitat an! s(bsisting (pon fr(its an! n(ts. "#e commencement of artic(late speec# belongs to t#is perio!. =o exemplification of tribes of man2in! in t#is con!ition remaine! to t#e #istorical perio!.

II. Middle Status of Sa/agery.

It commence! wit# t#e ac5(isition of a fis# s(bsistence an! a 2nowle!ge of t#e (se of fire, an! en!e! wit# t#e in;ention of t#e bow an! arrow. Man2in!, w#ile in t#is con!ition, sprea! from t#eir original #abitat o;er t#e greater portion of t#e eart#Fs s(rface. &mong tribes still existing, it will lea;e in t#e mi!!le %tat(s of sa;agery, for example, t#e &(stralians an! t#e greater part of t#e 3olynesians w#en !isco;ere!. It will be s(fficient to gi;e one or more exemplifications of eac# stat(s.

III. 0pper Status of sa/agery.

It commence! wit# t#e in;ention of t#e bow an! arrow, an! en!e! wit# t#e in;ention of t#e art of pottery. It lea;es in t#e $pper %tat(s of %a;agery t#e &t#apascan tribes of t#e H(!sonFs /ay "erritory, t#e tribes of t#e ;alley of t#e Col(mbia, an! certain coast tribes of =ort# an! %o(t# &merica; b(t wit# relation to t#e time of t#eir !isco;ery. "#is closes t#e perio! of %a;agery.

I(. Lower Status of #arbaris .

"#e in;ention or practice of t#e art of pottery, all t#ings consi!ere!, is probably t#e most effecti;e an! concl(si;e test t#at, can #e selecte! to fix a bo(n!ary line, necessarily arbitrary, between sa;agery an! barbarism. "#e !istinctness of t#e two con!itions #as long been recogniBe!, b(t no criterion of progress o(t of t#e former into t#e latter #as #it#erto been bro(g#t forwar!. &ll s(c# tribes, t#en, as ne;er attaine! to t#e art of pottery will be classe! as sa;ages, an! t#ose possessing t#is art, b(t w#o ne;er attaine! a p#onetic alp#abet an! t#e (se of writing will be classe! as barbarians. "#e first s(b?perio! of barbarism commence! wit# t#e man(fact(re of pottery, w#et#er by original in;ention or a!option. In fin!ing its termination, an! t#e commencement of t#e Mi!!le %tat(s, a !iffic(lty is enco(ntere! in t#e (ne5(al en!owments of t#e two #emisp#eres, w#ic# began to be infl(ential (pon #(man affairs after t#e perio! of sa;agery, #a! passe!. It may be met, #owe;er, by t#e a!option of e5(i;alents. In t#e 'astern #emisp#ere, t#e !omestication of animals, an! t#e 6estern, t#e c(lti;ation of maiBe an! plants by irrigation, toget#er wit# t#e (se of a!obe?bric2 an! stone in #o(se b(il!ing #a;e been selecte! as s(fficient e;i!ence of progress to wor2 a transition o(t of t#e ower an! into t#e Mi!!le %tat(s of barbarism. It lea;es, for example, in t#e ower %tat(s, t#e In!ian tribes of t#e $nite! %tates east of t#e Misso(ri 0i;er, an! s(c# tribes of '(rope an! &sia as practice! t#e art of pottery, b(t, were wit#o(t !omestic animals. I. 'iddle Status of Barbarism. It commence! wit# t#e !omestication of animals in t#e 'astern #emisp#ere, an! in t#e 6estern wit# c(lti;ation by irrigation an! wit# t#e (se of a!obe bric2 an! stone in arc#itect(re, as s#own. Its termination may be fixe! wit# t#e in;ention of t#e process of smelting iron ore. "#is places in

18 t#e Mi!!le %tat(s, for example, t#e Iillage In!ians of =ew Mexico, Mexico, Central &merica an! 3er(, an! s(c# tribes in t#e 'astern #emisp#ere as possesse! !omestic animals, b(t were wit#o(t a 2nowle!ge of iron. "#e ancient, /ritons, alt#o(g# familiar wit# t#e (se of iron, fairly belong in t#is connection. "#e ;icinity of more a!;ance! continental tribes #a! a!;ance! t#e arts of life among t#em far beyon! t#e state of !e;elopment of t#eir !omestic instit(tions.

(I. 0pper Status of #arbaris .

It commence! wit# t#e man(fact(re of iron, an! en!e! wit# t#e in;ention of a p#onetic alp#abet, an! t#e (se of writing in literary composition. Here ci;iliBation begins. "#is lea;es in t#e $pper %tat(s, for example, t#e 9recian tribes of t#e Homeric age, t#e Italian tribes s#ortly before t#e fo(n!ing of 0ome, an! t#e 9ermanic tribes of t#e time of Cesar.

(II. Status of Ci/ili"ation.

It commence!, as state!, wit# t#e (se of a p#onetic alp#abet an! t#e pro!(ction of literary recor!s, an! !i;i!es into Ancient an! 'odern. &s an e5(i;alent, #ieroglyp#ical writing (pon stone may be a!mitte!.

RECAPI%0LA%I!,
Periods I. >l!er 3erio! of %a;agery, II. Mi!!le 3erio! of %a;agery, III. ater 3erio! of %a;agery, II. >l!er 3erio! of /arbarism, I. Mi!!le 3erio! of /arbarism, II. ater 3erio! of /arbarism, Conditions. I. ower %tat(s of %a;agery II. Mi!!le %tat(s of %a;agery, III. $pper %tat(s of %a;agery, II. ower %tat(s of /arbarism, I. Mi!!le %tat(s of /arbarism II. $pper %tat(s of /arbarism Conditions *rom t#e Infancy of t#e H(man 0ace to t#e commencement of t#e next 3erio!. *rom t#e ac5(isition of a fis# s(bsistence an! a 2nowle!ge of t#e (se of fire to etc. *rom t#e In;ention of t#e /ow an! &rrow, to etc. *rom t#e In;ention of t#e &rt of 3ottery, to etc. *rom t#e <omestication of

(II. Status of Ci/ili"ation+

Periods I. ower %tat(s of %a;agery,

II. Mi!!le %tat(s of %a;agery,

III. $pper %tat(s of %a;agery, 1I. ower %tat(s of /arbarism, I. Mi!!le %tat(s of /arbarism,

1, animals on t#e 'astern #emisp#ere, an! in t#e 6estern from t#e c(lti;ation of maiBe an! plants by Irrigation, wit# t#e (se of a!obe?bric2 an! stone, to etc. II. $pper %tat(s of /arbarism, *rom t#e In;ention of t#e process of %melting Iron >re, wit# t#e (se of iron tools, to etc. *rom t#e In;ention of a 3#onetic &lp#abet, wit# t#e (se of writing, to t#e present time.

III. %tat(s of Ci;iliBation,

'ac# of t#ese perio!s #as a !istinct c(lt(re an! ex#ibits a mo!e of life more or less special an! pec(liar to itself. "#is specialiBation of et#nical perio!s ren!ers it possible to treat a partic(lar society accor!ing to its con!ition of relati;e a!;ancement, an! to ma2e it a s(b:ect of in!epen!ent st(!y an! !isc(ssion. It !oes not affect t#e main res(lt t#at !ifferent tribes an! nations on t#e same continent, an! e;en of t#e same ling(istic family, are in !ifferent con!itions at t#e same time, since for o(r p(rpose t#e con!ition of eac# is t#e material fact, t#e time being immaterial. %ince t#e (se of pottery is less significant t#an t#at of !omestic animals, of iron, or of a p#onetic alp#abet, employe! to mar2 t#e commencement of s(bse5(ent et#nical perio!s, t#e reasons for its a!option s#o(l! be state!. "#e man(fact(re of pottery pres(pposes ;illage life, an! consi!erable progress in t#e simple arts.[1] *lint an! stone implements are ol!er t#an pottery, remains of t#e former #a;ing been fo(n! in ancient repositories in n(mero(s instances (naccompanie! by t#e latter. & s(ccession of in;entions of greater nee! an! a!apte! to a lower con!ition m(st #a;e occ(rre! before t#e want of pottery wo(l! be felt. "#e commencement of ;illage life, wit# some !egree of control o;er s(bsistence, woo!en ;essels an! (tensils, finger wea;ing wit# filaments of bar2, bas2et ma2ing, an! t#e bow an! arrow ma2e t#eir appearance before t#e art of pottery. "#e Iillage In!ians w#o were in t#e Mi!!le %tat(s of barbarism, s(c# as t#e Kinnias t#e &Btecs an! t#e C#ol(lans, man(fact(re! pottery in large 5(antities an! in many forms of consi!erable excellence; t#e partially Iillage In!ians of t#e $nite! %tates, w#o were in t#e ower %tat(s of barbarism, s(c# as t#e Iro5(ois, t#e C#octas, an! t#e C#ero2ees, ma!e it in smaller 5(antities an! in a limite! n(mber of forms; b(t t#e =on?#ortic(lt(ral In!ians, w#o were in t#e %tat(s of sa;agery, s(c# as t#e &t#apascans, t#e tribes of California an! of t#e ;alley of Col(mbia were ignorant of its (se.[[2]] In (bboc2Fs !re*Historic Times$ in "ylorFs Early History of 'an+ind$ an! in 3esc#elFs Recess of 'an$ t#e partic(lars respecting t#is art, an! t#e extent of its !istrib(tion, #a;e been collecte! wit# remar2able brea!t# of researc#. %t was (n2nown in 3olynesia +wit# t#e exception of t#e Islan!s of t#e "ongans an! *i:ians., in &(stralia, in California, an! in t#e H(!sonFs /ay "erritory. Mr. "ylor remar2s t#at )t#e art of wea;ing was (n2nown in most of t#e Islan!s away from &sia,8 an! t#at )in most of t#e %o(t# %ea Islan!s t#ere was no 2nowle!ge of

DH pottery8.[[3]] "#e 0e;. orimer *ison, an 'nglis# missionary resi!ing in &(stralia,, informe! t#e a(t#or in ans(er to in5(iries, t#at )t#e &(stralians #a! no wo;en fabrics, no pottery, an! were ignorant of t#e bow an! arrow. "#is last fact is also tr(e in general of t#e 3olynesians. "#e intro!(ction of t#e ceramic art pro!(ce! a new epoc# in #(man progress in t#e !irection of an impro;e! li;ing an! increase! !omestic con;eniences. 6#ile flint an! stone implements ? w#ic# came in earlier an! re5(ire! long perio!s of time to !e;elop all t#eir (ses ? ga;e t#e canoe, woo!en ;essels an! (tensils, an! (ltimately timber an! plan2 in #o(se arc#itect(re, [[4]] pottery ga;e a !(rable ;essel for boiling foo!, w#ic# before t#at #a! been r(!ely accomplis#e! in bas2ets coate! wit# clay, an! in gro(n! ca;ities line! wit# s2in, t#e boiling being effecte! wit# #eate! stones.8[5] 6#et#er t#e pottery of t#e aborigines was #ar!ene! by fire or c(re! by t#e simple process of !rying, #as been ma!e a 5(estion. 3rof. '. ". Cox, of In!ianapolis, #as s#own by comparing t#e analyses of ancient pottery an! #y!ra(lic cements, )t#at so far as c#emical constit(ents are concerne! it, +t#e pottery. agrees ;ery well wit# t#e composition of #y!ra(lic stones.[6]8 He remar2s f(rt#er t#at )all t#e pottery belonging to t#e mo(n!?b(il!ers age, w#ic# I #a;e seen, is compose! of all(;ial clay an! san!, or a mixt(re of t#e former wit# p(l;eriBe! fres#?water s#ells. & paste ma!e of s(c# a mixt(re possesses in a #ig# !egree t#e properties of #y!ra(lic 3(BB(olani an! 3ortlan! cement, so t#at ;essels forme! of it #ar!ene! wit#o(t being b(rne!, as is c(stomary wit# mo!ern pottery. "#e fragments of s#ells ser;e! t#e p(rpose of gra;el or fragments of stone as at present (se! in connection wit# #y!ra(lic lime for t#e man(fact(re of artificial stone.8 "#e composition of In!ian pottery in analogy wit# t#at of #y!ra(lic cement s(ggests t#e !iffic(lties in t#e way of in;enting t#e art, an! ten!s also to explain t#e lateness of its intro!(ction in t#e co(rse of #(man experience. =otwit#stan!ing t#e ingenio(s s(ggestion of 3rof. Cox, it is probable t#at pottery was #ar!ene! by artificial #eat. In some cases t#e fact is !irectly atteste!. "#(s &!air, spea2ing of t#e 9(lf "ribes, remar2s t#at )t#ey ma2e eart#en pots of ;ery !ifferent siBes, so as to contain, from two to ten gallons, large pitc#ers to carry water, bowls, !is#es, platters, basins, an! a pro!igio(s n(mber of ot#er ;essels of s(c# anti5(ate! forms as wo(l! be te!io(s to !escribe, an! impossible to name. "#eir met#o! of glaBing t#em is t#at t#ey place t#em o;er a large fire of smo2y pitc#?pine, w#ic# ma2es t#em smoot#, blac2 an! firm.8[7] &not#er a!;antage of fixing !efinite et#nical perio!s is t#e !irection of special in;estigation to t#ose tribes an! nations w#ic# affor! t#e best exemplification of eac# status$ wit# t#e ;iew of ma2ing eac# bot# stan!ar! an! ill(strati;e. %ome tribes an! families #a;e been left in geograp#ical isolation to wor2 o(t t#e problems of progress by original mental effort; an! #a;e, conse5(ently, retaine! t#eir arts an! instit(tions p(re an! #omogeneo(s; w#ile t#ose of ot#er tribes an! nations #a;e been a!(lterate! t#ro(g# external infl(ence. "#(s, w#ile &frica was an! is an et#nical c#aos of sa;agery an! barbarism, &(stralia an! 3olynesia were in sa;agery, p(re an! simple, wit# t#e arts an! instit(tions belonging to t#at con!ition. In t#e li2e manner, t#e In!ian family of &merica, (nli2e any ot#er existing family, exemplifie! t#e con!ition of man2in! in t#ree s(ccessi;e et#nical perio!s. In t#e (n!ist(rbe! possession of a great, continent, of common !escent, an! wit# #omogeneo(s instit(tions, t#ey ill(strate!, w#en !isco;ere!, eac# of t#ese

D1 con!itions, an! especially t#ose of t#e ower an! of t#e Mi!!le %tat(s of barbarism, more elaborately an! completely t#an any ot#er portion of man2in!. "#e far nort#ern In!ians an! some of t#e coast tribes of =ort# an! %o(t# &merica were in t#e $pper %tat(s of sa;agery; t#e partially Iillage In!ians east of t#e Mississippi were in t#e ower %tat(s of barbarism, an! t#e Iillage In!ians of =ort# an! %o(t# &merica were in t#e Mi!!le %tat(s. %(c# an opport(nity to reco;er f(ll an! min(te information of t#e co(rse of #(man experience an! progress in !e;eloping t#eir arts an! instit(tions t#ro(g# t#ese s(ccessi;e con!itions #as not been offere! wit#in t#e #istorical perio!. It m(st be a!!e! t#at it #as been in!ifferently impro;e!. >(r greatest !eficiencies relate to t#e last perio! name!. <ifferences in t#e c(lt(re of t#e same perio! in t#e 'astern an! 6estern #emisp#eres (n!o(bte!ly existe! in conse5(ence of t#e (ne5(al en!owments of t#e continents; b(t t#e con!ition of society in t#e correspon!ing stat(s m(st #a;e been, in t#e main, s(bstantially similar. "#e ancestors of t#e 9recian, 0oman, an! 9erman tribes passe! t#ro(g# t#e stages we #a;e in!icate!, in t#e mi!st of t#e last of w#ic# t#e lig#t of #istory fell (pon t#em. "#eir !ifferentiation from t#e (n!isting(is#able mass of barbarians !i! not occ(r, probably, earlier t#an t#e commencement of t#e Mi!!le 3erio! of barbarism. "#e ex? presence of t#ese tribes #as been lost, wit# t#e exception of so m(c# as is represente! by t#e instit(tions, in;entions an! !isco;eries w#ic# t#ey #a! bro(g#t wit# t#em, an! possesse! w#en t#ey first came (n!er #istorical obser;ation. "#e 9recian, an! atin tribes of t#e Homeric an! 0om(lian perio!s affor! t#e #ig#est exemplification of t#e $pper %tat(s of barbarism. "#eir instit(tions were li2ewise p(re an! #omogeneo(s, an! t#eir experience stan!s !irectly connecte! wit# t#e final ac#ie;ement of ci;iliBation. Commencing, t#en, wit# t#e &(stralians an! 3olynesians, following wit# t#e &merican In!ian tribes, an! concl(!ing wit# t#e 0oman an! 9recian, w#o affor! t#e #ig#est exemplifications respecti;ely of t#e six great stages of #(man progress, t#e s(m of t#eir (nite! experiences may be s(ppose! fairly to represent t#at of t#e #(man family from t#e Mi!!le %tat(s of sa;agery to t#e en! of ancient ci;iliBation. Conse5(ently, t#e &ryan nations will fin! t#e type of t#e con!ition of t#eir remote ancestors, w#en in sa;agery, in t#at of t#e &(stralians an! 3olynesians; w#en in t#e ower %tat(s of barbarism in t#at of t#e partially Iillage In!ians of &merica; an! w#en in t#e Mi!!le %tat(s in t#at of t#e Iillage In!ians, wit# w#ic# t#eir own experience in t#e $pper %tat(s !irectly connects. %o essentially i!entical are t#e arts, instit(tions an! mo!e of life in t#e same stat(s (pon all t#e continents, t#at t#e arc#aic form of t#e principal !omestic instit(tions of t#e 9ree2s an! 0omans m(st e;en now be so(g#t in t#e correspon!ing instit(tions of t#e &merican aborigines, as will be s#own, in t#e co(rse of t#is ;ol(me. "#is fact forms a part of t#e acc(m(lating e;i!ence ten!ing to s#ow t#at t#e principal instit(tions of man2in! #a;e been !e;elope! from a few primary germs of t#o(g#t; an! t#at t#e co(rse an! manner of t#eir !e;elopment was pre!etermine!, as well as restricte! wit#in narrow limits of !i;ergence, by t#e nat(ral logic of t#e #(man min! an! t#e necessary limitations of its powers. 3rogress #as been fo(n! to be s(bstantially t#e same in 2in! in tribes an! nations in#abiting !ifferent an! e;en !isconnecte!

DD continents, w#ile in t#e same stat(s, wit# !e;iations from (niformity in partic(lar instances pro!(ce! by special ca(ses. "#e arg(ment w#en exten!e! ten!s to establis# t#e (nity of origin of man2in!. In st(!ying t#e con!ition of tribes an! nations in t#ese se;eral et#nical perio!s we are !ealing s(bstantially, wit# t#e ancient #istory an! con!ition of o(r own remote ancestors.

Footnotes
1 Mr, '!win /. "ylor obser;es t#at 9o5(et )first propo(n!e!, in t#e last cent(ry, t#e notion t#at t#e way in w#ic# pottery came to be ma!e, was t#at people !a(be! s(c# comb(stible ;essels as t#ese wit# clay to protect t#em from fire, till t#ey fo(n! t#at clay alone wo(l! answer t#e p(rpose, an! t#(s t#e art of pottery came into t#e worl!.8 +'arly History of Man2in!, p. ,-.. 9o5(et relates of Capt. 9onne;ille w#o ;isite! t#e so(t#?east coast of %o(t# &merica in 14HA, t#at #e fo(n! )t#eir #o(se#ol! (tensils of woo! e;en t#eir boiling pots, b(t plastere! wit# a 2in! of clay, a goo! finger t#ic2, w#ic# pre;ente! t#e fire from b(rning t#em.8 lb. D7A. ! 3ottery #as been fo(n! in aboriginal mo(n!s in >regon wit#in a few years past.? *osterFs )3re?Historic 0aces of t#e $nite! %tates,8 I, /0,. "#e first ;essels of pottery among t#e &borigines of t#e $nite! %tates seem to #a;e been ma!e in bas2ets of r(s#es or willows (se! as mo(l!s w#ic# were b(rne! off after t#e ;essel #ar!ene!.? ConesFs )&nti5(ities of t#e %o(t#ern In!ians,8 p. -G1. 3rof. 0a(Fs article on E3ottery.F )%mit#sonian 0eport8 18GG, p. .0,. " )'arly History of Man2in!8, p. 181; 3re?Historic "imes, pp. -A7, --1, -GD, -77, 0..$ 4-D. # ewis an! Clar2e +18H4. fo(n! plan2 in (se in #o(ses among t#e tribes of t#e Col(mbia 0i;er.? E"ra;elsF, ongmanFs '!. 181-, p. 01.. Mr. Co#n 7east or! fo(n! ce!ar plan2 c#ippe! from t#e soli! tree wit# c#isels an! #atc#ets ma!e of stone, in In!ian #o(ses on Ianco(;erFs Islan!.?)=at(ralist in /ritis# Col(mbia8, I, 1G,. $ )"ylorFs )'arly History of Man2in!,8 p. DG4, et se5. % )9eological %(r;ey of In!iana8, 187A, p. 11,. He gi;es t#e following analysis: &ncient 3ottery, E/one /an2F 3osey Co., In!iana. Moist(re at D1D*., 1.HH %ilica, at D1D *., AG.HH Carbonate of ime, D4.4H Carbonate of Magnesia A.HD &l(mina, at D1D *., 4.HH >rganic Matter +al2alies an! loss., DA.GH 1HH. HH 3eroxi!e of Iron, 4.4H %(lp#(ric &ci!, .DH

& )History of t#e &merican In!ians,8 on!on, e!., 1774, p. -D-. "#e Iro5(ois affirm t#at

DA
in ancient times t#eir forefat#ers c(re! t#eir pottery before a fire.

Chapter II ARTS OF SUBSISTENCE

"#e important fact t#at man2in! commence! at t#e bottom of t#e scale an! wor2e! (p, is re;eale! in an expressi;e manner by t#eir s(ccessi;e arts of s(bsistence. $pon t#eir s2ill in t#is !irection, t#e w#ole 5(estion of #(man s(premacy on t#e eart# !epen!e!. Man2in! are t#e only beings w#o may be sai! to #a;e gaine! an absol(te control o;er t#e pro!(ction of foo!; w#ic# at t#e o(tset t#ey !i! not possess abo;e ot#er animals. 6it#o(t enlarging t#e basis of s(bsistence, man2in! co(l! not #a;e propagate! t#emsel;es into ot#er areas not possessing t#e same 2in!s of foo!, an! (ltimately o;er t#e w#ole s(rface of t#e eart#; an! lastly, wit#o(t obtaining an absol(te control o;er bot# its ;ariety an! amo(nt, t#ey co(l! not #a;e m(ltiplie! into pop(lo(s nations. It is accor!ingly probable t#at t#e great epoc#s of #(man progress #a;e been i!entifie!, more or less !irectly, wit# t#e enlargement of t#e so(rces of s(bsistence. 6e are able to !isting(is# fi;e of t#ese so(rces of #(man foo!, create! by w#at may be calle! as many s(ccessi;e arts, one s(pera!!e! to t#e ot#er, an! bro(g#t o(t at long separate! inter;als of time. "#e first two originate! in t#e perio! of sa;agery, an! t#e last t#ree, in t#e perio! of barbarism. "#ey are t#e following, state! in t#e or!er of t#eir appearance:

I. ,atural Subsistence upon )ruits and Roots on a Restricted Habitat.

"#is proposition carries (s bac2 to t#e strictly primiti;e perio! of man2in!, w#en few in n(mbers, simple in s(bsistence, an! occ(pying limite! areas, t#ey were :(st entering (pon t#eir new career. "#ere is neit#er an art, nor an instit(tion, t#at can be referre! to t#is perio!; an! b(t one in;ention, t#at of lang(age, w#ic# can be connecte! wit# an epoc# so remote. "#e 2in! of s(bsistence in!icate! ass(mes a tropical or s(btropical climate. In s(c# a climate, by common consent, t#e #abitat of primiti;e man #as been place!. In fr(it an! n(t?bearing forests (n!er a tropical s(n, we are acc(stome!, an! wit# reason, to regar! o(r progenitors as #a;ing commence! t#eir existence. "#e races of animals prece!e! t#e race of man2in!, in t#e or!er of time. 6e are warrante! in s(pposing t#at t#ey were in t#e plenit(!e of t#eir strengt# an! n(mbers w#en t#e #(man race first appeare!. "#e classical poets pict(re! t#e tribes of man2in! !welling in gro;es, in ca;es an! in forests, for t#e possession of w#ic# t#ey !isp(te! wit# wil! beasts[1] w#ile t#ey s(staine! t#emsel;es wit# t#e spontaneo(s fr(its of t#e eart#. If man2in! commence! t#eir career wit#o(t experience, wit#o(t weapons, an! s(rro(n!e! wit# ferocio(s animals, it is not improbable t#at t#ey were at least partially, tree?li;ers, as a means of protection an! sec(rity. "#e maintenance of life, t#ro(g# t#e constant ac5(isition of foo!, is t#e great

Db(r!en impose! (pon existence in all species of animals. &s we !escen! in t#e scale of str(ct(ral organiBation, s(bsistence becomes more an! more simple at eac# stage, (ntil t#e mystery finally ;anis#es. /(t, in t#e ascen!ing scale, it becomes increasingly !iffic(lt (ntil t#e #ig#est str(ct(ral form, t#at of man, is reac#e!, w#en it attains t#e maxim(m. Intelligence from #encefort# be? comes a more prominent factor. &nimal foo!, in all probability, entere! from a ;ery early perio! into #(man cons(mption; b(t w#et#er it, was acti;ely so(g#t w#en man2in! were essentially fr(gi;oro(s in practice, t#o(g# omni;oro(s in str(ct(ral organiBation, m(st remain a matter of con:ect(re. "#is mo!e of s(stenance belongs to t#e strictly primiti;e perio!.

II. )ish Subsistence.

In fis# m(st be recogniBe! t#e first 2in! of artificial foo!, beca(se it was not f(lly a;ailable wit#o(t coo2ing. *ire was first (tiliBe!, not (nli2ely, for t#is p(rpose. *is# were (ni;ersal in !istrib(tion, (nlimite! in s(pply, an! t#e only 2in! of foo! at all times attainable. "#e cereals in t#e primiti;e perio! were still (n2nown, if in fact t#ey existe!, an! t#e #(nt for game was too precario(s e;er to #a;e forme! an excl(si;e means of #(man s(pport. $pon t#is species of foo! man2in! became in!epen!ent of climate an! of locality; an! by following t#e s#ores of t#e seas an! la2es, an! t#e co(rses of t#e ri;ers co(l!, w#ile in t#e sa;age state, sprea! t#emsel;es o;er t#e greater portion of t#e eart#Fs s(rface. >f t#e fact of t#ese migrations t#ere is ab(n!ant e;i!ence in t#e remains of flint an! stone implements of t#e %tat(s of %a;agery fo(n! (pon all t#e continents. In reliance (pon fr(its an! spontaneo(s s(bsistence a remo;al from t#e original #abitat wo(l! #a;e been impossible. /etween t#e intro!(ction of fis#, followe! by t#e wi!e migrations name!, an! t#e c(lti;ation of farinaceo(s foo!, t#e inter;al of time was immense. It co;ers a large part of t#e perio! of sa;agery. /(t !(ring t#is inter;al t#ere was an important increase in t#e ;ariety an! amo(nt of foo!. %(c#, for example, as t#e brea! roots coo2e! in gro(n! o;ens, an! in t#e permanent a!!ition of game t#ro(g# impro;e! weapons, an! especially t#ro(g# t#e bow an! arrow. [2] "#is remar2able in;ention, w#ic# came in after t#e spear war cl(b, an! ga;e t#e first !ea!ly weapon for t#e #(nt, appeare! late in sa;agery. It #as been (se! to mar2 t#e commencement of its $pper %tat(s. It m(st #a;e gi;en a powerf(l (pwar! infl(ence to ancient society, stan!ing in t#e same relation to t#e perio! of sa;agery, as t#e iron swor! to t#e perio! of barbarism, an! fire?arms to t#e perio! of ci;iliBation. *rom t#e precario(s nat(re of all t#ese so(rces of foo!, o(tsi!e of t#e great fis# areas, cannibalism became t#e !ire resort of man2in!. "#e ancient (ni;ersity of t#is practice is being gra!(ally !emonstrate!.

III. )arinaceous Subsistence through Culti/ation.

6e now lea;e %a;agery an! enter t#e lower %tat(s of barbarism. "#e c(lti;ation of cereals an! plants was (n2nown in t#e 6estern #emisp#ere except among t#e tribes w#o #a! emerge! from sa;agery; an! it seems to #a;e been (n2nown in t#e 'astern #emisp#ere (ntil after t#e tribes of &sia an! '(rope #a! passe! t#ro(g# t#e ower,

D4 an! #a! !rawn near to t#e close of t#e Mi!!le %tat(s of barbarism. It gi;es (s t#e sing(lar fact t#at t#e &merican aborigines in t#e ower %tat(s of barbarism were in possession of #ortic(lt(re one entire et#nical perio! earlier t#an t#e in#abitants of t#e 'astern #emisp#ere. It was a conse5(ence of t#e (ne5(al en!owments of t#e two #emisp#eres; t#e 'astern possessing all t#e animals a!apte! to !omestication, sa;e one, an! a ma:ority of t#e cereals; w#ile t#e 6estern #a! only one cereal fit for c(lti;ation, b(t t#at t#e best. It ten!e! to prolong t#e ol!er perio! of barbarism in t#e former, to s#orten it in t#e latter; an! wit# t#e a!;antage of con!ition in t#is perio! in fa;o(r of t#e &merican aborigines. /(t w#en t#e most a!;ance! tribes in t#e 'astern #emisp#ere, at t#e commencement, of t#e Mi!!le 3erio! of barbarism, #a! !omesticate! animals w#ic# ga;e t#em meat an! mil2, t#eir con!ition, wit#o(t a 2nowle!ge of t#e cereals, was m(c# s(perior to t#at of t#e &merican aborigines in t#e correspon!ing perio!, wit# maiBe an! plants, b(t wit#o(t !omestic animals. "#e !ifferentiation of t#e %emitic an! &ryan families from t#e mass of barbarians seems to #a;e commence! wit# t#e !omestication of animals. "#at t#e !isco;ery an! c(lti;ation of t#e cereals by t#e &ryan family was s(bse5(ent to t#e !omestication of animals is s#own by t#e fact, t#at t#ere are common terms for t#ese animals in t#e se;eral !ialects of t#e &ryan lang(age, an! no common terms for t#e cereals or c(lti;ate! plants. Mommsen, after s#owing t#at t#e !omestic animals #a;e t#e same names in t#e %ans2rit, 9ree2, an! atin +w#ic# Max M(ller afterwar!s exten!e! to t#e remaining &ryan !ialects [3]. t#(s pro;ing t#at t#ey were 2nown an! pres(mpti;ely !omesticate! before t#e separation of t#ese nations from eac# ot#er, procee!s as follows: >n t#e ot#er #an!, we #a;e as yet no certain proofs of t#e existence of agric(lt(re at t#is perio!. ang(age rat#er fa;o(rs t#e negati;e ;iew. >f t#e atin?9ree2 names of grain none occ(r in t#e %ans2rit wit# t#e single exception of #ea$ w#ic# p#ilologically represents t#e %ans2rit yava#$ b(t !enotes in In!ian, barley; in 9ree2, spelt. It m(st in!ee! lie grante! t#at t#is !i;ersity in t#e names of c(lti;ate! plants, w#ic# so strongly contrasts wit# t#e essential agreement in t#e appellations of !omestic animals, !oes not absol(tely precl(!e t#e s(pposition of a common original; agric(lt(re. "#e c(lti;ation of rice among t#e In!ians, t#at of w#eat an! spelt among t#e 9ree2s, an! t#at of rye an! oats among t#e 9ermans an! Celts, may all be traceable to a common system of original tillage [4]. "#is last concl(sion is force!. Hortic(lt(re prece!e! fiel! c(lt(re, as t#e gar!en +hortos. prece!e! t#e fiel! +ager.2 an! alt#o(g# t#e latter implies bo(n!aries, t#e former signifies !irectly an enclose! space. "illage, #owe;er, m(st #a;e been ol!er t#an t#e enclose! gar!en; t#e nat(ral or!er being first, tillage of patc#es of open all(;ial lan!, secon! of enclose! spaces or gar!ens an! t#ir!, of t#e fiel! by means of t#e plow !rawn by animal power. 6#et#er t#e c(lti;ation of s(c# plants as t#e pea, bean, t(rnip, parsnip, beet, s5(as# an! melon, one or more of t#em, prece!e! t#e c(lti;ation of t#e cereals, we #a;e at present no means of 2nowing. %ome of t#ese #a;e common terms in 9ree2 an! atin; b(t, I am ass(re! by o(r eminent p#ilologist, 3rof. 6. <. 6#itney, t#at neit#er of t#em #as a, common term in 9ree2 or atin an! %ans2rit. Hortic(lt(re seems to #a;e originate! more in t#e necessities of t#e !omestic animals t#an in t#ose of man? 2in!. In t#e 6estern #emisp#ere it, commence! wit# maiBe. This new era, alt#o(g# not sync#rono(s in t#e two #emisp#eres, #a!

DG immense infl(ence (pon t#e !estiny of man2in!. "#ere are reasons for belie;ing t#at it re5(ires ages to establis# t#e art of c(lti;ation, an! ren!er farinaceo(s foo! a principal reliance. %ince in &merica it le! to localiBation an! to ;illage life, it ten!e!, especially among t#e Iillage In!ians, to ta2e t#e place of fis# an! game. *rom t#e cereals an! c(lti;ate! plants, moreo;er, man2in! obtaine! t#eir first impression of t#e possibility of an ab(n!ance of foo!. "#e ac5(isition of farinaceo(s foo! in &merica an! of !omestic animals in &sia an! '(rope, were t#e means of !eli;ering t#e a!;ance! tribes, t#(s pro;i!e!, from t#e sco(rge of cannibalism, w#ic# as elsew#ere state!, t#ere are reasons for belie;ing was practice! (ni;ersally t#ro(g#? o(t t#e perio! of sa;agery (pon capt(re! enemies, an!, in time of famine, (pon frien!s an! 2in!re!. Cannibalism in war, practice! by war parties in t#e fiel!, s(r;i;e! among t#e &merican aborigines, not only in t#e ower, b(t also in t#e Mi!!le %tat(s of barbarism, as, for example, among t#e Iro5(ois an! t#e &Btecs; b(t t#e general practice #a! !isappeare!. "#is forcibly ill(strates t#e great, importance w#ic# is exercise! by a permanent increase of foo! in ameliorating t#e con!ition of man2in!.

I(. Meat and Mil1 Subsistence.

"#e absence of animals a!apte! to !omestication in t#e 6estern #emisp#ere, excepting t#e llama[5], an! t#e specific !ifferences in t#e cereals of t#e two #emisp#eres exercise! an important infl(ence (pon t#e relati;e a!;ancement of t#eir in#abitants. 6#ile t#is ine5(ality of en!owments was immaterial to man2in! in t#e perio! of sa;agery, an! not mar2e! in its effects in t#e ower %tat(s of barbarism, it ma!e an essential !ifference wit# t#at portion w#o #a! attaine! to t#e Mi!!le %tat(s. "#e !omestication of animals pro;i!e! a permanent meat an! mil2 s(bsistence w#ic# ten!e! to !ifferentiate t#e tribes w#ic# possesse! t#em from t#e mass of ot#er barbarians. In t#e 6estern #emisp#ere, meat was restricte! to t#e precario(s s(pplies of game. "#is limitation (pon an essential species of foo! was (nfa;o(rable to t#e Iillage In!ians; an! !o(btless s(fficiently explains t#e inferior siBe of t#e brain among t#em in comparison wit# t#at of In!ians in t#e ower %tat(s of barbarism. In t#e 'astern #emisp#ere, t#e !omestication of animals enable! t#e t#rifty an! in!(strio(s to sec(re for t#emsel;es a permanent s(pply of animal foo!, incl(!ing mil2[6]; t#e #ealt#f(l an! in;igorating infl(ence of w#ic# (pon t#e race, an! especially (pon c#il!ren, was (n!o(bte!ly remar2able. It is at least s(pposable t#at t#e &ryan an! %emitic families owe t#eir pre?eminent en!owments to t#e great scale (pon w#ic#, as tar bac2 as o(r 2nowle!ge exten!s, t#ey #a;e i!entifie! t#emsel;es wit# t#e maintenance in n(mbers of t#e !omestic animals. In fact, t#ey incorporate! t#em, fles#, mil2, an! m(scle into t#eir plan of life. =o ot#er family of man2in! #a;e !one t#is to an e5(al extent, an! t#e &ryan #a;e !one it to a greater extent, t#an t#e %emitic. "#e !omestication of animals gra!(ally intro!(ce! a new mo!e of life, t#e pastoral, (pon t#e plains of t#e '(p#rates an! of In!ia, an! (pon t#e steppes of &sia; on t#e confines of one or t#e ot#er of w#ic# t#e !omestication of animals was probably first accomplis#e!. "o t#ese areas, t#eir ol!est tra!itions an! t#eir #istories ali2e refer t#em. "#ey were t#(s !rawn to regions w#ic#, so far from being t#e cra!le

D7 lan!s of t#e human race, were areas t#ey wo(l! not #a;e occ(pie! as sa;ages, or as barbarians in t#e ower %tat(s of barbarism, to w#om forest areas were nat(ral #omes. &fter becoming #abit(ate! to pastoral life, it m(st #a;e been impossible for eit#er of t#ese families to re?enter t#e forest areas of 6estern &sia an! of '(rope wit# t#eir floc2s an! #er!s wit#o(t first learning to c(lti;ate some of t#e cereals wit# w#ic# to s(bsist t#e latter at a !istance from t#e grass plains. It seems extremely probable, t#erefore, as before state!, t#at t#e c(lti;ation of t#e cereals originate! in t#e necessities of t#e !omestic animals, an! in connection wit# t#ese western migrations; an! t#at t#e (se of farinaceo(s foo! by t#ese tribes was a conse5(ence of t#e 2nowle!ge t#(s ac5(ire!. In t#e 6estern #emisp#ere, t#e aborigines were enable! to a!;ance generally into tae ower %tat(s of barbarism, an! a portion of t#em into t#e Mi!!le %tat(s, wit#o(t !omestic animals, excepting t#e llama in 3er(, an! (pon a single cereal, maiBe, wit# t#e a!:(ncts of t#e bean, s5(as#, an! tobacco, an! in some areas, cacao, cotton an! pepper. /(t maiBe, from its growt# in t#e #ill ? w#ic# fa;o(re! !irect c(lti;ation ? from its (seableness bot# green an! ripe an! from its ab(n!ant yiel! an! n(triti;e properties, was a ric#er en!owment in ai! of early #(man progress t#an all ot#er cereals p(t toget#er. It ser;es to explain t#e remar2able progress t#e. American aborigines #a! ma!e wit#o(t t#e !omestic animals; t#e 3er(;ians #a;ing pro!(ce! bronBe, w#ic# stan!s next, an! 5(ite near, in t#e or!er of time, to t#e process of smelting iron ore.

(. 0nli ited Subsistence through )ield Agriculture.

"#e !omestic animals s(pplementing #(man m(scle wit# animal power, contrib(te! a new factor of t#e #ig#est ;al(e. In co(rse of time, t#e pro!(ction of iron ga;e t#e plo(g# wit# an iron point, an! a better spa!e an! axe. >(t of t#ese, an! t#e pre;io(s #ortic(lt(re, came fiel! agric(lt(re; an! wit# it, for t#e first time, (nlimite! s(bsistence. "#e plo(g# !rawn by animal power may be regar!e! as ina(g(rating a new art. =ow, for t#e first time, came t#e t#o(g#t of re!(cing t#e forest, an! bringing wi!e fiel!s (n!er c(lti;ation.[7] Moreo;er, !ense pop(lations in limite! areas now became possible. 3rior to fiel! agric(lt(re it is not probable t#at #alf a million people were !e;elope! an! #el! toget#er (n!er one go;ernment in any part of t#e eart#. If exceptions occ(rre!, t#ey m(st #a;e res(lte! from pastoral life on t#e plains, or from #ortic(lt(re impro;e! by irrigation, (n!er pec(liar an! exceptional con!itions. In t#e co(rse of t#ese pages it will become necessary to spea2 of t#e family as it, existe! in !ifferent et#nical perio!s; its form in one perio! being sometimes entirely !ifferent from its form in anot#er. In 3art III t#ese se;eral forms of t#e family will be treate! specially. /(t as t#ey will be fre5(ently mentione! in t#e next ens(ing 3art, t#ey s#o(l! at least be !efine! in a!;ance for t#e information of t#e rea!er. "#ey are t#e following:

I. The Consanguine Family.

It was fo(n!e! (pon t#e intermarriage of brot#ers an! sisters in a gro(p. ';i!ence still remains in t#e ol!est of existing systems of Consang(inity, t#e Malayan,

D8 ten!ing to s#ow t#at t#is, t#e first form of t#e family, was anciently as (ni;ersal as t#is system of consang(inity w#ic# it create!

II. The Punaluan Family.

Its name is !eri;e! from t#e Hawaiian relations#ip of !unalua. It was fo(n!e! (pon t#e intermarriage of se;eral brot#ers to eac# ot#erFs wi;es in a gro(p; an! of se;eral sisters to eac# ot#erFs #(sban!s in a gro(p. /(t t#e term brot#er, as #ere (se!, incl(!e! t#e first, secon!, t#ir!, an! e;en more remote male co(sins, all of w#om were consi!ere! brot#ers to eac# ot#er, as we consi!er own brot#ers; an! t#e term sister incl(!e! t#e first, secon!, t#ir!, an! e;en more remote female co(sins, all of w#om were sisters to eac# ot#er, t#e same as own sisters. "#is form of t#e family s(per;ene! (pon t#e consang(ine. It create! t#e "(ranian an! 9anowanian systems of consang(inity. /ot# t#is an! t#e pre;io(s form belong to t#e perio! of sa;agery.

III. The Syndyasmian Family.

"#e term is from syn!yaBo, to pair, syn!yasmos, a :oining two toget#er. It was fo(n!e! (pon t#e pairing of a male wit# a female (n!er t#e form of marriage, b(t wit#o(t an excl(si;e co#abitation. It was t#e germ of t#e Monogamian *amily. <i;orce or separation was at t#e option of bot# #(sban! an! wife. "#is form of t#e family faile! to create a system of consang(inity.

IV. The Patriarchal Family.

It was fo(n!e! (pon t#e marriage of one man to se;eral wi;es. "#e term is #ere (se! in a restricte! sense to !efine t#e special family of t#e Hebrew pastoral tribes, t#e c#iefs an! principal men of w#ic# practise! polygamy. It exercise! b(t little infl(ence (pon #(man affairs for want of (ni;ersality.

V. The Monogamian Family

It was fo(n!e! (pon t#e marriage of one man wit# one woman, wit# an excl(si;e co#abitation; t#e latter constit(ting t#e essential of t#e instit(tion. It is pre? eminently t#e family of ci;iliBe! society, an! was t#erefore essentially mo!ern. "#is form of t#e family also create! an in!epen!ent system of consang(inity. ';i!ence will elsew#ere be pro!(ce! ten!ing to s#ow bot# t#e existence an! t#e general pre;alence of t#ese se;eral forms of t#e family at !ifferent stages of #(man progress.

Footnotes
1 ) (cr. <e 0e. =at.,8 lib. ;, ,41. ! &s a combination of forces it is so abstr(se t#at it not (nli2ely owe! its origin to acci!ent. "#e elasticity an! to(g#ness of certain 2in!s of woo!, t#e tension of a cor! of sinew or ;egetable fibre by means of a bent bow an! finally t#eir combination to propel an arrow by #(man m(scle, are not ;ery ob;io(s s(ggestions to t#e min! of a sa;age. &s elsew#ere notice!, t#e bow an! arrow are (n2nown to t#e 3olynesians in general, an! to

D,
t#e &(stralians. *rom t#is fact alone it is s#own t#at man2in! were well a!;ance! in t#e sa;age state w#en t#e bow an! arrow ma!e t#eir first appearance. " C#ips from a 9erman 6or2s#op, Comp. "able, ii, p. -D. # )History of 0ome,8 %cribnerFs e!., 1871, I+ p. A8. $ "#e early %panis# writers spea2 of a E!(mb !ogF fo(n! !omesticate! in t#e 6est In!ia Islan!s, an! also in Mexico an! Central &merica. +%ee fig(res of t#e &Btec !og in pl. iii, ;ol. I, of Cla;igeroFs )History of Mexico8.. I #a;e seen no i!entification of t#e animal. "#ey also spea2 of po(ltry as well as t(r2eys on t#e continent. "#e aborigines #a! !omesticate! t#e t(r2ey, an! t#e =a#(atlac tribes some species of wil! fowl. % 6e learn from t#e Ilia! t#at t#e 9ree2s mil2e! t#eir s#eep, as well as t#eir cows an! goats. %ee )Ilia!,8 i;, -AA. & ) (cr. <e 0e. =at.,8 ;, 1AG,.

Chapter III RATIO OF HUMAN PROGRESS

It is well to obtain an impression of t#e relati;e amo(nt an! of t#e ratio of #(man progress in t#e se;eral et#nical perio!s name!, by gro(ping toget#er t#e ac#ie;ements of eac#, an! comparing t#em wit# eac# ot#er as !istinct classes of facts. "#is will also enable (s to form some conception of t#e relati;e !(ration of t#ese perio!s. "o ren!er it forcible, s(c# a s(r;ey m(st be general, an! in t#e nat(re of a recapit(lation. It s#o(l!, li2ewise, be limite! to t#e principal wor2s of eac# perio!. /efore man co(l! #a;e attaine! to t#e ci;iliBe! state it was necessary t#at #e s#o(l! gain all t#e elements of ci;iliBation. "#is implies an amaBing c#ange of con!ition, first from a primiti;e sa;age to a barbarian of t#e lowest type, an! t#en from t#e latter to a 9ree2 of t#e Homeric perio!, or to a Hebrew of t#e time of &bra#am "#e progressi;e !e;elopment w#ic# #istory recor!s in t#e perio! of ci;iliBation was not less tr(e of man in eac# of t#e pre;io(s perio!s. /y re? ascen!ing along t#e se;eral lines of #(man progress towar!s t#e primiti;e ages of manFs existence, an! remo;ing one by one #is principal instit(tions, in;entions, an! !isco;eries, in t#e or!er in w#ic# t#ey #a;e appeare!, t#e a!;ance ma!e in eac# perio! will be realiBe!. "#e principal contrib(tions of mo!ern ci;iliBation are t#e electric telegrap#; coal gas; t#e spinning?:enny; an! t#e power loom; t#e steam? engine wit# its n(mero(s !epen!ent mac#ines, incl(!ing t#e locomoti;e, t#e railway, an! t#e steams#ip; t#e telescope; t#e !isco;ery of t#e pon!erability of t#e atmosp#ere an! of t#e solar system; t#e art of printing; t#e canal loc2; t#e marinerFs compass; an! g(npow!er. "#e mass of ot#er in;entions, s(c#, for example, as t#e 'ricsson propeller, will be fo(n! to #inge (pon one or anot#er of t#ose name! as antece!ents: #(t t#ere are exceptions, as p#otograp#y, an! n(mero(s mac#ines not necessary to be notice!. 6it# t#ese also s#o(l! be remo;e! t#e mo!ern sciences; religio(s free!om an! t#e common sc#ools; representati;e !emocracy; constit(tional monarc#y wit# parliaments; t#e fe(!al 2ing!om; mo!ern pri;ilege!

AH classes; international, stat(te an! common law. Mo!ern ci;iliBation reco;ere! an! absorbe! w#ate;er was ;al(able in t#e ancient ci;iliBations an! alt#o(g# its contrib(tions to t#e s(m of #(man 2nowle!ge #a;e been ;ast, brilliant an! rapi!, t#ey are far from being so !isproportionately large as to o;ers#a!ow t#e ancient ci;iliBations an! sin2 t#em into comparati;e insignificance. 3assing o;er t#e me!iae;al perio!, w#ic# ga;e 9ot#ic arc#itect(re, fe(!al aristocracy wit# #ere!itary titles of ran2, an! a #ierarc#y (n!er t#e #ea!s#ip of a pope, we enter t#e 0oman an! 9recian ci;iliBations. "#ey will be fo(n! !eficient in great in;entions an! !isco;eries, b(t !isting(is#e! in art, in p#ilosop#y, an! in organic instit(tions. "#e principal contrib(tions of t#ese ci;iliBations were imperial an! 2ingly go;ernment; t#e ci;il law; C#ristianity; mixe! aristocratical an! !emocratical go;ernment, wit# a senate an! cons(ls; !emocratical go;ernment wit# a co(ncil an! pop(lar assembly; t#e organiBation of armies into ca;alry an! infantry, wit# military !iscipline; t#e establis#ment of na;ies, wit# t#e practice of na;al warfare; t#e formation of great, cities, wit# m(nicipal law; commerce on t#e seas; t#e coinage of money; an! t#e state, fo(n!e! (pon territory an! (pon property; an! among in;entions, fire?ba2e! bric2, t#e crane, t#e water?w#eel for !ri;ing mills, t#e bri!ge, a5(e!(ct an! sewer; lea! pipe (se! as a con!(it wit# t#e fa(cet; t#e arc#, t#e balance scale; t#e arts an! sciences of t#e classical perio!, wit# t#eir res(lts, incl(!ing t#e or!ers of arc#itect(re; t#e &rabic n(merals an! alp#abetic writing. "#ese ci;iliBations !rew largely from, as well as reste! (pon, t#e in;entions an! !isco;eries an! t#e instit(tions of t#e pre;io(s perio! of barbarism. "#e ac#ie;ements of ci;iliBe! man, alt#o(g# ;ery great an! remar2able are ne;ert#eless ;ery far from s(fficient to eclipse t#e wor2s of man as a barbarian. &s s(c# #e #a! wro(g#t o(t an! possesse! all t#e elements of ci;iliBation, excepting alp#abetic writing. His ac#ie;ements as a barbarian s#o(l! be consi!ere! in t#eir relation to t#e s(m of #(man progress; an! we may be force! to a!mit t#at t#ey transcen!, in relati;e importance, all #is s(bse5(ent wor2s. "#e (se of writing, or its e5(i;alent in #ieroglyp#ics (pon stone, affor!s a fair test of t#e commencement of ci;iliBation.[2] 6it#o(t literary recor!s neit#er #istory nor ci;iliBation can properly be sai! to exist. "#e pro!(ction of t#e Homeric poems, w#et#er transmitte! orally or committe! to writing at t#e time, fixes wit# s(fficient nearness t#e intro!(ction of ci;iliBation among t#e 9ree2s. "#ese poems, e;er fres# an! e;er mar;ello(s, possess an et#nological ;al(e w#ic# en#ances immensely t#eir ot#er excellences. "#is is especially tr(e of t#e Ilia!, w#ic# contains t#e ol!est as well as t#e most circ(mstantial acco(nt now existing of t#e progress of man2in! (p to t#e time of its composition. %trabo compliments Homer as t#e fat#er of geograp#ical science;[3] b(t t#e great poet #as gi;en, per#aps wit#o(t !esign, w#at was infinitely more important to s(ccee!ing generations; namely, a remar2ably f(ll exposition of t#e arts, (sages, in;entions an! !isco;eries, an! mo!e of life of t#e ancient 9ree2s. It presents o(r first compre#ensi;e pict(re of &ryan society w#ile still in barbarism, s#owing t#e progress t#en ma!e, an! of w#at partic(lars it consiste!. "#ro(g# t#ese poems we are enable! confi!ently to state t#at certain t#ings were 2nown among t#e 9ree2s before t#ey entere! ci;iliBation. "#ey also cast an ill(minating lig#t far bac2war! into t#e perio! or barbarism.

A1 $sing t#e Homeric poems as a g(i!e an! contin(ing t#e retrospect into t#e ater 3erio! of barbarism, let (s stri2e off from t#e 2nowle!ge an! experience of man2in! t#e in;ention of poetry; t#e ancient myt#ology in its elaborate form, wit# t#e >lympian !i;inities; temple arc#itect(re; t#e 2nowle!ge of t#e cereals, excepting maiBe an! c(lti;ate! plants, wit# fiel! agric(lt(re; cities encompasse! wit# walls of stone, wit# battlements, towers an! gates; t#e (se of marble in arc#itect(re; s#ip?b(il!ing wit# plan2 an! probably wit# t#e (se of nails; t#e wagon an! t#e c#ariot; metallic plate armo(r; t#e copper?pointe! spear an! embosse! s#iel!; t#e iron swor!; t#e man(fact(re of wine, probably; t#e mec#anical powers excepting t#e screw; t#e potterFs w#eel an! t#e #an!?mill for grin!ing grain; wo;en fabrics of linen an! woollen from t#e loom; t#e iron axe an! spa!e; t#e iron #atc#et an! t#e #ammer an! t#e an;il; t#e bellows an! t#e forge; an! t#e si!e?#ill f(rnace for smelting iron ore, toget#er wit# a 2nowle!ge of iron. &long wit# t#e abo;e? name! ac5(isitions m(st be remo;e! t#e monogamian family; military !emocracies of t#e #eroic age; t#e later p#ase of t#e organiBation into gentes, p#ratries an! tribes; t#e agora or pop(lar assembly, probably; a 2nowle!ge of in!i;i!(al property in #o(ses an! lan!s; an! t#e a!;ance! form of m(nicipal life in fortifie! cities. 6#en t#is #as been !one, t#e #ig#est class of barbarians will #a;e s(rren!ere! t#e principal portion of t#eir mar;ello(s wor2s, toget#er wit# t#e mental an! moral growt# t#ereby ac5(ire!. *rom t#is point bac2war! t#ro(g# t#e Mi!!le 3erio! of barbarism t#e in!ications become less !istinct, an! t#e relati;e or!er in w#ic# instit(tions, in;entions an! !isco;ere! appeare! is less clear; b(t we are not wit#o(t some 2nowle!ge to g(i!e o(r steps e;en in t#ese !istant ages of t#e &ryan family. *or reasons pre;io(sly state!, ot#er families, besi!es t#e &ryan, may now be resorte! to for t#e !esire! information. 'ntering next t#e Mi!!le 3erio!, let us$ in li2e manner, stri2e o(t of #(man experience t#e process of ma2ing bronBe; Hoc2s an! #er!s of !omestic animals; comm(nal #o(ses wit# walls of a!obe, an! of !resse! stone lai! in co(rses wit# mortar of lime an! san!; cyclopean walls; la2e !wellings constr(cte! on piles; t#e 2nowle!ge of nati;e metals,[4] wit# t#e (se of c#arcoal an! t#e cr(cible for melting t#em; t#e copper axe an! c#isel; t#e s#(ttle an! embryo loom; c(lti;ation by irrigation, ca(seways, reser;oirs an! irrigating canals; pa;e! roa!s; osier s(spension bri!ges; personal go!s, wit# a priest#oo! !isting(is#e! by a cost(me, an! organiBe! in a #ierarc#y; #(man sacrifices; military !emocracies of t#e &Btec type; wo;en fabrics of cotton an! ot#er ;egetable fibre in t#e 6estern #emisp#ere, an! of wool an! flax in t#e 'astern; ornamental pottery: t#e swor! of woo!, wit# t#e e!ges pointe! wit# flints; polis#e! flint an! stone implements; a 2nowle!ge of cotton an! flax; an! t#e !omestic animals. "#e aggregate of ac#ie;ements in t#is perio! was less t#an in t#at, w#ic# followe!; b(t in its relations to t#e s(m of #(man progress it was ;ery great. It incl(!es t#e !omestication of animals in t#e 'astern #emisp#ere, w#ic# intro!(ce! in time a permanent meat an! mil2 s(bsistence, an! (ltimately fiel! agric(lt(re; an! also ina(g(rate! t#ose experiments wit# t#e nati;e metals w#ic# res(lte! in pro!(cing bronBe,[5] as well as prepare! t#e way for t#e #ig#er process of smelting iron ore. In

AD t#e 6estern #emisp#ere it was signaliBe! by t#e !isco;ery an! treatment of t#e nati;e metals, w#ic# res(lte! in t#e pro!(ction in!epen!ently of bronBe; by t#e intro!(ction of irrigation in t#e c(lti;ation of maiBe an! plants, an! by t#e (se of a!obe? bric2 an! stone in t#e constr(ction of great :oint tenement #o(ses in t#e nat(re of fortresses. 0es(ming t#e retrospect an! entering t#e >l!er 3erio! of barbarism, let (s next remo;e from #(man ac5(isitions t#e confe!eracy, base! (pon gentes, p#ratries an! tribes (n!er t#e go;ernment of a co(ncil of c#iefs w#ic#, ga;e a more #ig#ly organiBe! state of society t#an before t#at #a! been 2nown, &lso t#e !isco;ery an! c(lti;ation of maiBe an! t#e bean, s5(as# an! tobacco, in t#e 6estern #emisp#ere, toget#er wit# a 2nowle!ge of farinaceo(s foo!; finger wea;ing wit# warp an! woof; t#e 2ilt, moccasin an! legging of tanne! !eer?s2in; t#e blowg(n for bir! s#ooting; ;illage stoc2a!e for !efence; tribal games; element wors#ip, wit# a ;ag(e recognition of t#e 9reat %pirit; cannibalism in time of war; an! lastly, t#e art of pottery. &s we ascen! in t#e or!er of time an! of !e;elopment; b(t !escen! in t#e scale of #(man a!;ancement, in;entions become more simple, an! more !irect in t#eir relations to primary wants; an! instit(tions approac# nearer an! nearer to t#e elementary form of a gens compose! of consang(inei, (n!er a c#ief of t#eir own election, an! to t#e tribe compose! of 2in!re! gentes, (n!er t#e go;ernment of a co(ncil of c#iefs. "#e con!ition of &siatic an! '(ropean tribes in t#is perio!; +for t#e &ryan an! %emitic families !i! not probably t#en exist., is s(bstantially lost. It is represente! by t#e remains of ancient art between t#e in;ention of pottery an! t#e !omestication of animals; an! incl(!es t#e people w#o forme! t#e s#ell?#eaps on t#e coast of t#e /altic, w#o seem to #a;e !omesticate! t#e !og, b(t no ot#er animals. In any :(st estimate of t#e magnit(!e of t#e ac#ie;ements of man2in! in t#e t#ree s(b?perio!s of barbarism, t#ey m(st be regar!e! as immense, not only in n(mber an! in intrinsic ;al(e, b(t also in t#e mental an! moral !e;elopment, by w#ic# t#ey were necessarily accompanie!. &scen!ing next t#ro(g# t#e prolonge! perio! of sa;agery, let (s stri2e o(t of #(man 2nowle!ge t#e organiBation into gentes, p#ratries an! tribes; t#e syn!yasmian family; t#e wors#ip of t#e elements in its lowest form; syllabical lang(age; t#e bow an! arrow; stone an! bone implements; cane an! splint bas2ets; s2in garments; t#e p(nal(an family; t#e organiBation (pon t#e basis of sex; t#e ;illage, consisting of cl(stere! #o(ses; boat craft, incl(!ing t#e bar2 an! !(g?o(t canoe; t#e spear pointe! wit# flint, an! t#e war cl(b; flint implements of t#e r(!er 2in!s; t#e consang(ine family; monosyllabical lang(age; fetic#ism; cannibalism; a 2nowle!ge of t#e (se of fire; an! lastly, gest(re lang(age [6]. 6#en t#is wor2 of elimination #as been !one in t#e or!er in w#ic# t#ese se;eral ac5(isitions were ma!e, we s#all #a;e approac#e! 5(ite near t#e infantile perio! of manFs existence, w#en man2in! were learning t#e (se of fire, w#ic# ren!ere! possible a fis# s(bsistence an! a c#ange of #abitat, an! w#en t#ey were attempting t#e formation of artic(late lang(age. In a con!ition so absol(tely primiti;e, man is seen to be not only a c#il! in t#e scale of #(manity, b(t possesse! of a brain into w#ic# not a

AA t#o(g#t or conception expresse! by t#ese instit(tions, in;entions an! !isco;eries #a! penetrate!; an! ? in a wor!, #e stan!s at t#e bottom of t#e scale, b(t potentially all #e #as since become. 6it# t#e pro!(ction of in;entions an! !isco;eries, an! wit# t#e growt# of instit(tions, t#e #(man min! necessarily grew an! expan!e!; an! we are le! to recogniBe a gra!(al enlargement of t#e brain itself, partic(larly of t#e cerebral portion. "#e slowness of t#is mental growt# was ine;itable, in t#e perio! of sa;agery, from t#e extreme !iffic(lty of compassing t#e simplest in;ention o(t of not#ing, or wit# next to not#ing to assist mental effort; an! of !isco;ering any s(bstance or force in nat(re a;ailable in s(c# a r(!e con!ition of life. It was not less !iffic(lt to organiBe t#e simplest form of society o(t of s(c# sa;age an! intractable materials. "#e first in;entions an! t#e first social organiBations were !o(btless t#e #ar!est to ac#ie;e, an! were conse5(ently separate! from eac# ot#er by t#e longest inter;als of time. & stri2ing ill(stration is fo(n! in t#e s(ccessi;e forms of t#e family. In t#is law of progress, w#ic# wor2s in a geometrical ratio, a s(fficient explanation is fo(n! of t#e prolonge! !(ration of t#e perio! of sa;agery. "#at t#e early con!ition of man2in! was s(bstantially as abo;e in!icate! is not excl(si;ely a recent, nor e;en a mo!ern opinion. %ome of t#e ancient poets an! p#ilosop#ers recogniBe! t#e fact, t#at man2in! commence! in a state of extreme r(!eness from w#ic# t#ey #a! risen by slow an! s(ccessi;e steps. "#ey also percei;e! t#at t#e co(rse of t#eir !e;elopment was registere! by a progressi;e series of in;entions an! !isco;eries, b(t wit#o(t noticing as f(lly t#e more concl(si;e arg(ment from social instit(tions. "#e important 5(estion of t#e ratio of t#is progress, w#ic# #as a !irect bearing (pon t#e relati;e lengt# of t#e se;eral et#nical perio!s, now presents itself. H(man progress, from first to last, #as been in a ratio not rigoro(sly b(t essentially geometrical. "#is is plain on t#e face of t#e facts; an! it co(l! not, t#eoretically, #a;e occ(rre! in any ot#er way. ';ery item of absol(te 2nowle!ge gaine! became a factor in f(rt#er ac5(isitions, (ntil t#e present complexity of 2nowle!ge was attaine!. Conse5(ently, w#ile progress was slowest in time in t#e first perio!, an! most rapi! in t#e last, t#e relati;e amo(nt may #a;e been greatest in t#e first, w#en t#e ac#ie;ements of eit#er perio! are consi!ere! in t#eir relations to t#e s(m. It may be s(ggeste!, as not improbable of (ltimate recognition, t#at t#e progress of man2in! in t#e perio! of sa;agery, in its relations to t#e s(m of #(man progress, was greater in !egree t#an it was afterwar!s in t#e t#ree s(b?perio!s of barbarism; an! t#at t#e progress ma!e in t#e w#ole perio! of barbarism was, in li2e manner, greater in !egree t#an it #as been since in t#e entire perio! of ci;iliBation. 6#at may #a;e been t#e relati;e lengt# of t#ese et#nical perio!s is also a fair s(b:ect of spec(lation. &n exact meas(re is not attainable, #(t an approximation may be attempte!. >n t#e t#eory of geometrical progression, t#e perio! of sa;agery was necessarily longer in !(ration t#an t#e perio! of barbarism, as t#e latter was longer t#an t#e perio! of ci;iliBation. If we ass(me a #(n!re! t#o(san! years as t#e meas(re of manFs existence (pon t#e eart# in or!er to fin! t#e relati;e lengt# of eac# perio!,? an! for t#is p(rpose, it may #a;e been longer or s#orter,? it will be seen at, once t#at at least sixty t#o(san! years m(st be assigne! to t#e perio! of

Asa;agery. "#ree?fift#s of t#e life of t#e most a!;ance! portion of t#e #(man race, on t#is apportionment, were spent in sa;agery. >f t#e remaining years, twenty t#o(san!, or one?fift#, s#o(l! be assigne! to t#e >l!er 3erio! of barbarism. *or t#e Mi!!le an! later 3erio!s t#ere remain fifteen t#o(san! years, lea;ing fi;e t#o(san!, more or less, for t#e perio! of ci;iliBation. "#e relati;e lengt# of t#e perio! of sa;agery is more li2ely (n!er t#an o;er state!. 6it#o(t !isc(ssing t#e principles on w#ic# t#is apportionment is ma!e, it may be remar2e! t#at in a!!ition to t#e arg(ment from t#e geometrical progression (n!er w#ic# #(man !e;elopment of necessity #as occ(rre!, a gra!(ate! scale of progress #as been (ni;ersally obser;e! in remains of ancient art, an! t#is will be fo(n! e5(ally tr(e of instit(tions. It is a concl(sion of !eep importance in et#nology t#at t#e experience of man2in! in sa;agery was longer in !(ration t#an all t#eir s(bse5(ent experience, an! t#at, t#e perio! of ci;iliBation co;ers b(t a fragment of t#e life of t#e race. "wo families of man2in!, t#e &ryan an! %emitic, by t#e commingling of !i;erse stoc2s, s(periority of s(bsistence or a!;antage of position, an! possibly from all toget#er, were t#e first to emerge from barbarism. "#ey were s(bstantially t#e fo(n!ers of ci;iliBation[7]. /(t t#eir existence as !istinct families was (n!o(bte!ly, in a comparati;e sense, a late e;ent. "#eir progenitors are lost in t#e (n!isting(is#able mass of earlier barbarism. "#e first ascertaine! appearance of t#e &ryan family was in connection wit# t#e !omestic animals, at w#ic# time t#ey were one people in lang(age an! nationality. It is not probable t#at t#e &ryan or %emitic families were !e;elope! into in!i;i!(ality earlier t#an t#e commencement of t#e Mi!!le 3erio! of barbarism an! t#at t#eir !ifferentiation from t#e mass of barbarians occ(rre! t#ro(g# t#eir ac5(isition of t#e !omestic animals. "#e most a!;ance! portion of t#e #(man race were #alte!, so to express it, at a certain stages of progress, (ntil some great in;ention or !isco;ery, s(c# as t#e !omestication of animals or t#e smelting of iron ore, ga;e a new an! powerf(l imp(lse forwar!. 6#ile t#(s restraine!, t#e r(!er tribes, contin(ally a!;ancing, approac#e! in !ifferent !egrees of nearness to t#e same stat(s; for w#ere;er a continental connection existe!, all t#e tribes m(st #a;e s#are! in some meas(re in eac# ot#erFs progress. &ll great in;entions an! !isco;eries propagate t#emsel;es; b(t t#e inferior tribes m(st #a;e appreciate! t#eir ;al(e before t#ey co(l! appropriate t#em. In t#e continental areas certain tribes wo(l! lea!; b(t t#e lea!ers#ip wo(l! be apt to s#ift a n(mber of times in t#e co(rse of an et#nical perio!. "#e !estr(ction of t#e et#nic bon! an! life of partic(lar tribes, followe! by !eca!ence, m(st #a;e arreste! for a time, in many instances an! in all perio!s, t#e (pwar! flow of #(man progress. *rom t#e Mi!!le 3erio! of barbarism, #owe;er, t#e &ryan an! %emitic families seem fairly to represent t#e central t#rea!s of t#is progress, w#ic# in t#e perio! of ci;iliBation #as been gra!(ally ass(me! by t#e &ryan family alone. "#e tr(t# of t#is general position may be ill(strate! by t#e con!itions of t#e &merican aborigines at t#e epoc# of t#eir !isco;ery "#ey commence! t#eir career on t#e &merican continent in sa;agery; an!, alt#o(g# possesse! of inferior mental en!owments, t#e bo!y of t#em #a! emerge! from sa;agery an! attaine! to t#e

A4 ower %tat(s of barbarism; w#ilst a portion of t#em, t#e Iillage In!ians of =ort# an! %o(t# &merica, #a! risen to t#e Mi!!le %tat(s. "#ey #a! !omesticate! t#e llama, t#e only 5(a!r(pe! nati;e to t#e continent w#ic# promise! (sef(lness in t#e !omesticate! state, an! #a! pro!(ce! bronBe by alloying copper wit# tin. "#ey nee!e! b(t one in;ention, an! t#at t#e greatest, t#e art of smelting iron ore, to a!;ance t#emsel;es into t#e $pper %tat(s. Consi!ering t#e absence of all connection wit# t#e most a!;ance! portion of t#e #(man family in t#e 'astern #emisp#ere, t#eir progress in (nai!e! self?!e;elopment from t#e sa;age state m(st be acco(nte! remar2able. 6#ile t#e &siatic an! '(ropean were waiting patiently for t#e boon of iron tools, t#e &merican In!ian was !rawing near to t#e possession of bronBe, w#ic# stan!s next to iron in t#e or!er of time. <(ring t#is perio! of arreste! progress in t#e 'astern #emisp#ere, t#e &merican aborigines a!;ance! t#emsel;es, not, to t#e stat(s in w#ic# t#ey were fo(n!, b(t s(fficiently near to reac# it w#ile t#e former were passing t#ro(g# t#e last perio! of barbarism, an! t#e first fo(r t#o(san! years of ci;iliBation. It gi;es (s a meas(re of t#e lengt# of time t#ey #a! fallen be#in! t#e &ryan family in t#e race of progress: namely t#e !(ration of t#e ater 3erio! of barbarism, to w#ic# t#e years of ci;iliBation m(st be a!!e!. "#e &ryan an! 9anowanian families toget#er exemplify t#e entire experience of man in fi;e et#nical perio!s, wit# t#e exception of t#e first portion of t#e later perio! of sa;agery. %a;agery was t#e formati;e perio! of t#e #(man race. Commencing at Bero in 2nowle!ge an! experience, wit#o(t fire, wit#o(t artic(late speec# an! wit#o(t arts, o(r sa;age progenitors fo(g#t t#e great battle, first for existence, an! t#en for progress, (ntil t#ey sec(re! safety from t#e ferocio(s animals, an! permanent s(bsistence. &ut of t#ese efforts t#ere came gra!(ally a !e;elope! speec#, an! t#e occ(pation of t#e entire s(rface of t#e eart#. /(t society from its r(!eness was still incapable of organiBation in n(mbers. 6#en t#e most a!;ance! portion of man2in! #a! emerge! from sa;agery, an! entere! t#e ower %tat(s of barbarism, t#e entire pop(lation of t#e eart# m(st #a;e been small in n(mbers. "#e earliest in;entions were t#e most !iffic(lt to accomplis# beca(se of t#e feebleness of t#e power of abstract reasoning. 'ac# s(bstantial item of 2nowle!ge gaine! wo(l! form a basis for f(rt#er a!;ancement; b(t t#is m(st #a;e been nearly imperceptible for ages (pon ages, t#e obstacles to progress nearly balancing t#e energies arraye! against t#em. "#e ac#ie;ements of sa;agery are not partic(larly remar2able in c#aracter, b(t t#ey represent an amaBing amo(nt of persistent labo(r wit# feeble means contin(e! t#ro(g# long perio!s of time before reac#ing a fair !egree of completeness. "#e bow an! arrow affor! an ill(stration. "#e inferiority of sa;age man in t#e mental an! moral scale, (n!e;elope!, inexperience!, an! #el! !own by #is low animal appetites an! passions, t#o(g# rel(ctantly recogniBe!, is, ne;ert#eless, s(bstantially !emonstrate! by t#e remains of ancient art in flint stone an! bone implements, by #is ca;e life in certain areas, an! by #is osteological remains. It is still f(rt#er ill(strate! by t#e present con!ition of tribes of sa;ages in a low state of !e;elopment, left in isolate! sections of t#e eart# as mon(ments of t#e past. &n! yet to t#is great perio! of sa;agery belongs t#e formation of artic(late lang(age an! its a!;ancement to t#e syllabical stage, t#e establis#ment of two forms of t#e family, an! possibly a t#ir!, an! t#e organiBation

AG into gentes w#ic# ga;e t#e first form of society wort#y of t#e name. &ll t#ese concl(sions are in;ol;e! in t#e proposition, state! at t#e o(tset, t#at man2in! commence! t#eir career at t#e bottom of t#e scale; w#ic# mo!ern science claims to be pro;ing by t#e most caref(l an! ex#a(sti;e st(!y of man an! #is wor2s.[8] In li2e manner, t#e great perio! of barbarism was signaliBe! by fo(r e;ents of pre? eminent importance: namely, t#e !omestication of animals, t#e !isco;ery of t#e cereals, t#e (se of stone in arc#itect(re, an! t#e in;ention of t#e process of smelting iron ore. Commencing probably wit# t#e !og as a companion in t#e #(nt, followe! at a later. perio! by t#e capt(re of t#e yo(ng of ot#er animals an! rearing t#em, not (nli2ely, from t#e merest frea2 of fancy, it, re5(ire! time an! experience to !isco;er t#e (tility of eac#, to fin! means of raising t#em in n(mbers an! to learn t#e forbearance necessary to spare t#em in t#e face of #(nger. Co(l! t#e special #istory of t#e !omestication of eac# animal be 2nown, it, co(l! ex#ibit a series of mar;ello(s facts. "#e experiment carrie!, loc2e! (p in its !o(btf(l c#ances, m(c# of t#e s(bse5(ent !estiny of man2in!. %econ!ly, t#e ac5(isition of farinaceo(s foo! by c(lti;ation m(st be regar!e! as one of t#e greatest e;ents in #(man experience. It was less essential in t#e 'astern #emisp#ere, after t#e !omestication of animals, t#an in t#e 6estern, w#ere it became t#e instr(ment of a!;ancing a large portion of t#e &merican aborigines into t#e ower, an! anot#er portion into t#e Mi!!le %tat(s of barbarism. If man2in! #a! ne;er a!;ance! beyon! t#is last con!ition, t#ey #a! t#e means of a comparati;ely easy an! en:oyable life. "#ir!ly, wit# t#e (se of a!obe?bric2 an! of stone in #o(se b(il!ing, an impro;e! mo!e of life was intro!(ce!, eminently calc(late! to stim(late t#e mental capacities, an! to create t#e #abit of in!(stry? t#e fertile so(rce of impro;ements. /(t, in its relations to t#e #ig# career of man2in!, t#e fo(rt# in;ention m(st be #el! t#e greatest e;ent in #(man experience, preparatory to ci;iliBation. 6#en t#e barbarian, a!;ancing step by step, #a! !isco;ere! t#e nati;e metals an! learne! to melt t#em in t#e cr(cible an! to cast t#em in mo(l!s; w#en #e #a! alloye! nati;e copper wit# tin an! pro!(ce! bronBe; an!, finally, w#en by a still greater effort of t#o(g#t #e #a! in;ente! t#e f(rnace, an! pro!(ce! iron from t#e ore, nine?tent#s of t#e battle for ci;iliBation was gaine![9]. *(rnis#e! wit# iron tools, capable of #ol!ing bot# an e!ge an! a point$ man2in! were certain of attaining to ci;iliBation. "#e pro!(ction of iron was t#e e;ent of e;ents in #(man experience, wit#o(t a parallel, an! wit#o(t an e5(al, besi!e w#ic# ai! ot#er in;entions an! !isco;eries were inconsi!erable, or at least s(bor!inate, >(t of it came t#e metallic #ammer an! an;il, t#e axe an! t#e c#isel, t#e plo(g# wit# an iron point, t#e iron swor!; in fine, t#e basis of ci;iliBation, w#ic# may be sai! to rest (pon t#is metal. "#e want of iron tools arreste! t#e progress of man2in! in barbarism. "#ere t#ey wo(l! #a;e remaine! to t#e present #o(r, #a! t#ey faile! to bri!ge t#e c#asm. It seems probable t#at t#e conception an! t#e process of smelting iron ore came b(t once to man. It wo(l! be a sing(lar satisfaction co(l! it be 2nown to w#at tribe an! family we are in!ebte! for t#is 2nowle!ge, an! wit# it for ci;iliBation. "#e %emitic family were t#en in a!;ance of t#e &ryan, an! in t#e lea! of t#e #(man race. "#ey ga;e t#e p#onetic alp#abet to man2in! an! it seems not (nli2ely t#e 2nowle!ge of iron as well. &t, t#e epoc# of t#e Homeric poems, t#e 9recian tribes #a! ma!e immense material progress. &ll t#e common metals were 2nown, incl(!ing t#e process of smelting

A7 ores, an! possibly of c#anging iron into steel; t#e principal cereals #a! been !isco;ere!, toget#er wit# t#e art, of c(lti;ation, an! t#e (se of t#e plo(g# in fiel! agric(lt(re; t#e !og, t#e #orse, t#e ass, t#e cow, t#e sow, t#e s#eep an! t#e goat #a! been !omesticate! an! reare! in floc2s an! #er!s, as #as been s#own. &rc#itect(re #a! pro!(ce! a #o(se constr(cte! of !(rable materials, containing separate apartments[10], an! consisting of more t#an a single story[11]; s#ip?b(il!ing, weapons, textile fabrics, t#e man(fact(re of wine from t#e grape, t#e c(lti;ation of t#e apple, t#e pear, t#e oli;e an! t#e fig [11], toget#er wit# comfortable apparel, an! (sef(l implements an! (tensils, #a! been pro!(ce! an! bro(g#t into #(man (se. /(t t#e early #istory of man2in! was lost in t#e obli;ion of t#e ages t#at #a! passe! away. "ra!ition ascen!e! to an anterior barbarism t#ro(g# w#ic# it was (nable to penetrate. ang(age #a! attaine! s(c# !e;elopment t#at poetry of t#e #ig#est str(ct(ral form was abo(t to embo!y t#e inspirations of geni(s. "#e closing perio! of barbarism bro(g#t t#is portion of t#e #(man family to t#e t#res#ol! of ci;iliBation, animate! by t#e great attainments of t#e past, grown #ar!y an! intelligent in t#e sc#ool of experience, an! wit# t#e (n!iscipline! imagination in t#e f(ll splen!o(r of its creati;e powers. /arbarism en!s wit# t#e pro!(ction of gran! barbarians. 6#ilst t#e con!ition of society in t#is perio! was (n!er? stoo! by t#e later 9ree2 an! 0oman writers, t#e anterior state, wit# its !istincti;e c(lt(re an! experience, was as !eeply conceale! from t#eir appre#ension as from o(r own; except as occ(pying a nearer stan!?point in time, t#ey saw more !istinctly t#e relations of t#e present wit# t#e past. It was e;i!ent to t#em t#at a certain se5(ence existe! in t#e series of in;entions an! !isco;eries, as well as a certain or!er of !e;elopment of instit(tions, t#ro(g# w#ic# man2in! #a! a!;ance! t#emsel;es from t#e stat(s of sa;agery to t#at of t#e Homeric age; b(t t#e immense inter;al of time between t#e two con!itions !oes not appear to #a;e been ma!e a s(b:ect e;en of spec(lati;e consi!eration.

Footnotes
1 "#e 'gyptians may #a;e in;ente! t#e crane +%ee Hero!ot(s, ii, 1D4.. "#ey also #a! t#e balance scale. ! "#e p#onetic alp#abet came, li2e ot#er great in;entions, at t#e en! of s(ccessi;e efforts. "#e slow 'gyptian, a!;ancing t#e #ieroglyp# t#ro(g# its se;eral forms, #a! reac#e! a syllab(s compose! of p#onetic c#aracters, an! at t#is stage was resting (pon #is labo(rs. He co(l! write in permanent c#aracters (pon stone. "#en came in t#e in5(isiti;e 3#oenician, t#e first na;igator an! tra!er on t#e sea, w#o, w#et#er pre;io(sly ;erse! in #ieroglyp#s or ot#erwise seems to #a;e entere! at a #o(n! (pon t#e labo(rs of t#e 'gyptian, an! by an inspiration geni(s to #a;e mastere! t#e problem o;er w#ic# t#e latter was !reaming. He pro!(ce! t#at won!ro(s alp#abet of sixteen letters w#ic# in time ga;e to man2in! a written lang(age an! t#e means for literary an! #istorical recor!s. " )%trabo,8 1+ D. # Homer mentions t#e nati;e metals; b(t t#ey were 2nown long before #is time, an! before iron. "#e (se of c#arcoal an! t#e cr(cible in melting t#em prepare! t#e way for

A8
smelting iron ore. $ "#e researc#es of /ec2mann #a;e left a !o(bt (pon t#e existence of a tr(e bronBe earlier t#an a 2nowle!ge of iron among t#e 9ree2s an! atins. He t#in2s Eelectr(m,F mentione! in t#e )Ilia!,8 was a mixt(re of gol! an! sil;er +)History of In;entions,8 /o#nFs e!., ii, D1D.; an! t#at t#e Estann(mF of t#e 0omans, w#ic# consiste! of sil;er an! lea!, was t#e same as t#e E2assiteronF of Homer +lb., ii, D17.. "#is wor! #as (s(ally been interprete! as tin. In commenting (pon t#e composition calle! bronBe, #e remar2s: )In my opinion t#e greater part of t#ese t#ings were ma!e of Estann(m,F properly calle!, w#ic# by t#e a!mixt(re of t#e noble metals, an! some !iffic(lty of f(sion, was ren!ere! fitter for (se t#an p(re copper.8 +lb., ii, D1A.. "#ese obser;ations were limite! to t#e nations of t#e Me!iterranean, wit#in w#ose areas tin was not pro!(ce!. &xes, 2ni;es, raBors, swor!s, !aggers, an! personal ornaments !isco;ere! in %witBerlan!, &(stria, <enmar2, an! ot#er parts of =ort#ern '(rope, #a;e been fo(n!, on analysis, compose! of copper an! tin, an! t#erefore fall (n!er t#e strict !efinition of bronBe. "#ey were also fo(n! in relations in!icating priority of iron. % "#e origin of lang(age #as been in;estigate! far eno(g# to fin! t#e gra;e !iffic(lties in t#e way of any sol(tion of t#e problem. It seems to #a;e been aban!one!, by common consent, as an (nprofitable s(b:ect. It is more a 5(estion of t#e laws of #(man !e;elopment an! of t#e necessary operations of t#e mental principle, t#an of t#e materials of lang(age. (creti(s remar2s t#at wit# so(n!s an! wit# gest(re, man2in! in t#e primiti;e perio! intimate! t#eir t#o(g#ts stammeringly to eac# ot#er +? ;. 1HD1.. He ass(mes t#at t#o(g#t prece!e! speec#, an! t#at gest(re lang(age prece!e! artic(late lang(age. 9est(re or sign lang(age seems to #a;e been primiti;e, t#e el!er sister of artic(late speec#. It is still t#e (ni;ersal lang(age of barbarians, if not of sa;ages, in t#eir m(t(al interco(rse w#en t#eir !ialects are not t#e same. "#e &merican aborigines #a;e !e;elope! s(c# a lang(age, t#(s s#owing t#at one may be forme! a!e5(ate for general interco(rse. &s (se! by t#em it is bot# gracef(l an! expressi;e, an! affor!s pleas(re in its (se. It is a lang(age of nat(ral symbols, an! t#erefore possesses t#e elements of a (ni;ersal lang(age. & sign lang(age is easier to in;ent t#an one of so(n!s; an! since it is mastere! wit# greater facility, a pres(mption arises t#at it prece!e! artic(late speec#. "#e so(n!s of t#e ;oice wo(l! first come in, on t#is #ypot#esis, in ai! of gest(re; an! as t#ey gra!(ally ass(me! a con;entional signification, t#ey wo(l! s(perse!e, to t#at extent, t#e lang(age of signs, or become incorporate! in it. It wo(l! also ten! to !e;elop t#e capacity of t#e ;ocal organs. =o proposition can be plainer t#an t#at gest(re #as atten!e! artic(late lang(age from its birt#. It is still inseparable from it; an! may embo!y t#e remains, by s(r;i;al of an ancient mental #abit. If lang(age were perfect, a gest(re to lengt#en o(t or emp#asiBe its meaning wo(l! be a fa(lt. &s we !escen! t#ro(g# t#e gra!ations of lang(age into its r(!er lengt#en o(t or emp#asiBe its meaning wo(l! be a fa(lt. &s we !escen! t#ro(g# t#e gra!ations of lang(age into its r(!er forms, t#e gest(re element increases in t#e 5(antity an! ;ariety of its forms (ntil we fin! lang(ages so !epen!ent (pon gest(res t#at wit#o(t t#em t#ey wo(l!

A,
be s(bstantially (nintelligible. 9rowing (p an! flo(ris#ing si!e by si!e t#ro(g# sa;agery, an! far into t#e perio! of barbarism, t#ey remain, in mo!ifie! forms, in!issol(bly (nite!. "#ose w#o are c(rio(s to sol;e t#e problem of origin of lang(age wo(l! !o well to loo2 to t#e possible s(ggestions from gest(re lang(age. & "#e 'gyptians are s(ppose! to affiliate remotely wit# t#e %emitic family. ' 6#itneyFs )>riental an! ing(istic %t(!ies8 p. A-1. ( M. J(i5(ereB, a %wiss engineer, !isco;ere! in t#e canton of /erne t#e remains of a n(mber of si!e?#ill f(rnaces for smelting iron ore; toget#er wit# tools, fragments of iron an! c#arcoal. "o constr(ct one, an exca;ation was ma!e in t#e si!e of a #ill in w#ic# a bos# was forme! of clay, wit# a c#imney in t#e form of a !ome abo;e it to create a !raft. =o e;i!ence was fo(n! of t#e (se of t#e bellows. "#e bos#es seem to #a;e been c#arge! wit# alternate layers of p(l;eriBe! ore an! c#arcoal, comb(stion being s(staine! by fanning t#e flames. "#e res(lt was a spongy mass of partly f(se! ore w#ic# was afterwar!s wel!e! into a compact mass by #ammering. & !eposit of c#arcoal was fo(n! beneat# a be! of peat twenty feet in t#ic2ness. It is not probable t#at t#ese f(rnaces were coe;al wit# t#e 2nowle!ge of smelting iron ore; b(t t#ey were not (nli2ely, close copies of t#e original f(rnace.? Ii!e 3ig(ierFs )3rimiti;e Man,8 3(tnamFs e!., p. AH1. 1) 3alace of 3riam.? II., ;i, D-D. 11 Ho(se of $lysses.? &d.$ x;i, --8. 1! >!., ;ii, 114.

Part II G*+,T- +F T-. ID./ +F G+V.*01.0T

Chapter I ORGANIZATION OF SOCIETY UPON THE BASIS OF SEX

In treating t#e s(b:ect of t#e growt# of t#e i!ea of go;ernment, t#e organiBation into gentes on t#e basis of 2in nat(rally s(ggests itself as t#e arc#aic framewor2 of ancient society; b(t t#ere is a, still ol!er an! more arc#aic organiBation, t#at into classes on t#e basis of sex, w#ic# first !eman!s attention. It will not be ta2en (p beca(se of its no;elty in #(man experience, b(t for t#e #ig#er reason t#at it seems to contain t#e germinal principle of t#e gens. If t#is inference is warrante! by t#e facts it will gi;e to t#is organiBation into male an! female classes, now fo(n! in f(ll ;itality among t#e &(stralian aborigines, an ancient pre;alence as wi!esprea!, in t#e tribes of man2in!, as t#e original organiBation into gentes. It will soon be percei;e! t#at low !own in sa;agery comm(nity of #(sban!s an! wi;es, wit#in prescribe! limits, was t#e central principle of t#e social system. "#e

-H marital rig#ts an! pri;ileges, +3ura con3ugialia$.[1] establis#e! in t#e gro(p, grew into a st(pen!o(s sc#eme, w#ic# became t#e organic principle on w#ic# society was constit(te!. *rom t#e nat(re of t#e case t#ese rig#ts an! pri;ileges roote! t#emsel;es so firmly t#at emancipation from t#em was slowly accomplis#e! t#ro(g# mo;ements w#ic# res(lte! in (nconscio(s reformations. &ccor!ingly it will be fo(n! t#at t#e family #as a!;ance! from a lower to a #ig#er form as t#e range of t#is con:(gal system was gra!(ally re!(ce!. "#e family, commencing in t#e consang(ine, fo(n!e! (pon t#e intermarriage of brot#ers an! sisters in a gro(p, passe! into t#e secon! form, t#e p(nal(an, (n!er a social system al in to t#e &(stralian classes, w#ic# bro2e (p t#e first species of marriage by s(bstit(ting gro(ps of brot#ers w#o s#are! t#eir wi;es in common, an! gro(ps of sisters w#o s#are! t#eir #(sban!s in common, ? marriage in bot# cases being in t#e gro(p. "#e organiBation into classes (pon sex, an! t#e s(bse5(ent #ig#er organiBation into gentes (pon 2in, m(st be regar!e! as t#e res(lts of great social mo;ements wor2e! o(t (nconscio(sly t#ro(g# nat(ral selection. *or t#ese reasons t#e &(stralian system, abo(t to be presente!, !eser;es attenti;e consi!eration, alt#o(g# it carries (s into a low gra!e of #(man life. It represents a stri2ing p#ase of t#e ancient social #istory of o(r race. "#e organiBation into classes on t#e basis of sex, an! t#e inc#oate organiBation into gentes on t#e basis of 2in, now pre;ail among t#at portion of t#e &(stralian aborigines w#o spea2 t#e 7amilaroi lang(age. "#ey in#abit t#e <arling 0i;er !istrict nort# of %y!ney. /ot# organiBations are also fo(n! in ot#er &(stralian tribes, an! so wi!e sprea! as to ren!er probable t#eir ancient (ni;ersal pre;alence among t#em. It is e;i!ent from internal consi!erations t#at t#e male an! female classes are ol!er t#an t#e gentes: firstly, beca(se t#e gentile organiBation is #ig#er t#an t#at into classes; an! secon!ly, beca(se t#e former, among t#e 7amilaroi, are in process of o;ert#rowing t#e latter. "#e class in its male an! female branc#es is t#e (nit of t#eir social system, w#ic# place rig#tf(lly belongs to t#e gens w#en in f(ll !e;elopment. & remar2able combination of facts is t#(s presente!; namely, a sex(al an! a gentile organiBation, bot# in existence at t#e same time, t#e former #ol!ing t#e central position. an! t#e latter inc#oate b(t a!;ancing to completeness t#ro(g# encroac#ments (pon t#e former. "#is organiBation (pon sex #as not been fo(n!, as yet, in any tribes of sa;ages o(t of &(stralia, b(t t#e slow !e;elopment of t#ese islan!ers in t#eir secl(!e! #abitat, an! t#e more arc#aic c#aracter of t#e organiBation (pon sex t#an t#at into gentes, s(ggests t#e con:ect(re, t#at t#e former may #a;e been (ni;ersal in s(c# branc#es of t#e #(man family as afterwar!s possesse! t#e gentile organiBation. &lt#o(g# t#e class system, w#en trace! o(t f(lly, in;ol;es some bewil!ering complications, it will rewar! t#e attention necessary for its mastery. &s a c(rio(s social organiBation among sa;ages it possesses b(t little interest; b(t as t#e most primiti;e form of society #it#erto !isco;ere!, an! more especially wit# t#e contingent probability t#at t#e remote progenitors of o(r own &ryan family were once similarly organiBe!, it becomes important, an! may pro;e instr(cti;e. "#e &(stralians ran2 below t#e 3olynesians, an! far below t#e &merican aborigines. "#ey stan! below t#e &frican negro an! near t#e bottom of t#e scale.

-1 "#eir social instit(tions, t#erefore, m(st approac# t#e primiti;e type as nearly as t#ose of any existing people[2]. Inasm(c# as t#e gens is ma!e t#e s(b:ect of t#e s(ccee!ing c#apter, it will be intro!(ce! in t#is wit#o(t !isc(ssion, an! only for t#e necessary explanation of t#e classes. "#e 7amilaroi are !i;i!e! into six gentes, stan!ing wit# reference to t#e rig#t of marriage, in two !i;isions, as follows: I. Ig(ana, +<(li.. D. 7angaroo, +M(rriira.. .. >poss(m, +M(te.. II .-. 'm(, +<ino(n.. 4. /an!icoot, +/ilba., G. /lac2sna2e, +=(rai.. >riginally t#e first t#ree gentes were not allowe! to intermarry wit# eac# ot#er, beca(se t#ey were s(b!i;isions of an original gens; b(t t#ey were permitte! to marry into eit#er of t#e ot#er gentes, an! vice versa. "#is ancient r(le is now mo!ifie!, among t#e 7amilaroi, in certain !efinite partic(lars b(t not carrie! to t#e f(ll extent of permitting marriage into any gens b(t t#at of t#e in!i;i!(al. =eit#er males nor females can marry into t#eir own gens, t#e pro#ibition being absol(te, <escent is in t#e female line, w#ic# assigns t#e c#il!ren to t#e gens of t#eir mot#er. "#ese are among t#e essential c#aracteristics of t#e gens, w#ere;er t#is instit(tion is fo(n! in its arc#aic form. In its external feat(res, t#erefore, it is perfect an! complete among t#e 7amilaroi. /(t t#ere is a f(rt#er an! ol!er !i;ision of t#e people into eig#t classes, fo(r of w#ic# are compose! excl(si;ely of males, an! fo(r excl(si;ely of females. It is accompanie! wit# a reg(lation in respect to marriage an! !escent w#ic# obstr(cts t#e gens, an! !emonstrates t#at t#e latter organiBation is in process of !e;elopment into its tr(e logical form. >ne only of t#e fo(r classes of males can marry into one only of t#e fo(r classes of females. In t#e se5(el it will be fo(n! t#at all t#e males of one class are, t#eoretically, t#e #(sban!s of all t#e females of t#e class into w#ic# t#ey are allowe! to marry. Moreo;er, if t#e male belongs to one of t#e first t#ree gentes t#e female m(st belong to one of t#e opposite t#ree. Marriage is t#(s restricte! to a portion of t#e males of one gens, wit# a portion of t#e females of anot#er gens, w#ic# is oppose! to t#e tr(e t#eory of t#e gentile instit(tion, for all t#e members of eac# gens s#o(l! be allowe! to marry persons of t#e opposite sex in all t#e gentes except t#eir own. "#e classes are t#e following: Male /* %ppai ,* 4umbo. .. 'urri. 5. 4ubbi. )e ale /*%ppata ,*Buta .* 'ata 5*4apota

&ll t#e Ippais of w#ate;er gens, are brot#ers to eac# ot#er. "#eoretically, t#ey are !escen!e! from a s(ppose! common female ancestor. &ll t#e 7(mbos are t#e same; an! so are all t#e M(rris an! 7(bbis, respecti;ely, an! for t#e same reason.

-D In li2e manner, all t#e Ippatas, of w#ate;er gens, are sisters to eac# ot#er, an! for t#e same reason; all t#e /(tas are t#e same, an! so are all t#e Matas an! 7apotas, respecti;ely. In t#e next place, all t#e Ippais an! Ippatas are brot#ers an! sisters to eac# ot#er, w#et#er c#il!ren of t#e same mot#er or collateral consang(inei, an! in w#ate;er gens t#ey are fo(n!. "#e 7(mbos an! /(tas are brot#ers an! sisters; an! so are t#e M(rris an! Matas, an! t#e 7(bbis an! 7apotas respecti;ely. If an Ippai an! Ippata meet, w#o #a;e ne;er seen eac# ot#er before, t#ey a!!ress eac# ot#er as brot#er an! sister. "#e 7amilaroi, t#erefore, are organiBe! into fo(r great primary gro(ps of brot#ers an! sisters, eac# gro(p being compose! of a male an! a female branc#; b(t intermingle! o;er t#e areas of t#eir occ(pation. *o(n!e! (pon sex, instea! of 2in, it is ol!er t#an t#e gentes, an! more arc#aic, it may be repeate!, t#an any form of society #it#erto 2nown. "#e classes embo!y t#e germ of t#e gens, b(t fall s#ort of its realiBation. In reality t#e Ippais an! Ippatas form a single class in two branc#es, an! since t#ey cannot intermarry t#ey wo(l! form t#e basis of a gens #(t for t#e reason t#at t#ey fall (n!er two names, eac# of w#ic# is integral for certain p(rposes, an! for t#e f(rt#er reason t#at t#eir c#il!ren ta2e !ifferent names from t#eir own. "#e !i;ision into classes is (pon sex instea! of 2in, an! #as its primary relation to a r(le of marriage as remar2able as it is original. %ince brot#ers an! sisters are not allowe! to intermarry, t#e classes stan! to eac# ot#er in a !ifferent or!er wit# respect, to t#e rig#t of marriage, or rat#er, of co#abitation, w#ic# better expresses t#e relation. %(c# was t#e original law, t#(s: Ippai can marry 7apota, an! no ot#er. 7(mbo can marry Mata, an! no ot#er. M(rri can marry /(ta, an! no ot#er. 7(bbi can marry Ippata, an! no ot#er. "#is excl(si;e sc#eme #as been mo!ifie! in one partic(lar, as will #ereafter be s#own: namely, in gi;ing to eac# class of males t#e rig#t of intermarriage wit# one a!!itional class of females. In t#is fact, e;i!ence of t#e encroac#ment of t#e gens (pon t#e class is f(rnis#e!, ten!ing to t#e o;er t#row of t#e latter. It is t#(s seen t#at eac# male in t#e selection of a wife, is limite! to one?fo(rt# part of all t#e 7amilaroi females. "#is, #owe;er, is not t#e remar2able part of t#e system. "#eoretically e;ery 7apota is t#e wife of e;ery Ippai; e;ery Mata is t#e wife of e;ery 7(mbo; e;ery /(ta is t#e wife of e;ery M(rri; an! e;ery Ippata of e;ery 7(bbi. $pon t#is material point t#e information is specific. Mr. *ison, before mentione!, after obser;ing t#at Mr. ance #a! #a! m(c# interco(rse wit# t#e nati;es, #a;ing li;e! among t#em many years on frontier cattle?stations on t#e <arling 0i;er, an! in t#e trans?<arling co(ntry, 5(otes from #is letter as follows: )If a 7(bbi meets a stranger Ippata, t#ey a!!ress eac# ot#er as Goleer6Spouse.... & 7(bbi t#(s meeting an Ippata, e;en t#o(g# s#e were of anot#er tribe, wo(l! treat #er as #is wife, an! #is rig#t to !o so wo(l! be recogniBe! by #er tribe.8 ';ery Ippata wit#in t#e imme!iate circle of #is ac5(aintance wo(l! conse5(ently be #is wife as well.

-A Here we fin!, in a !irect an! !efinite form, p(nal(an marriage in a, gro(p of (n(s(al extent; b(t bro2er, (p into lesser gro(ps, eac# a miniat(re representation of t#e w#ole, (nite! for #abitation an! s(bsistence. $n!er t#e con:(gal system t#(s bro(g#t to lig#t one?5(arter of all t#e males are (nite! in marriage wit# one?5(arter of all t#e females of t#e 7amilaroi tribes. "#is pict(re of sa;age life nee! not re;olt t#e min!, beca(se to t#em it was a form of t#e marriage relation, an! t#erefore !e;oi! of impropriety. It is b(t an exten!e! form of polygyny an! polyan!ry, w#ic#, wit#in narrower limits, #a;e pre;aile! (ni;ersally among sa;age tribes. "#e e;i!ence of t#e fact still exists, in (nmista2able form, in t#eir systems of consang(inity an! affinity, w#ic# #a;e o(tli;e! t#e c(stoms an! (sages in w#ic# t#ey originate!. It will be notice! t#at t#is sc#eme of intermarriage is b(t a step from promisc(ity, beca(se it is tantamo(nt to t#at wit# t#e a!!ition of a met#o!. %till, as it is ma!e a s(b:ect of organic reg(lation, it is far re? mo;e! from general promisc(ity. Moreo;er, it re;eals an existing state of marriage an! of t#e family of w#ic# no a!e5(ate conception co(l! #a;e been forme! apart from t#e facts. It affor!s t#e first !irect e;i!ence of a state of society w#ic# #a! pre;io(sly been !e!(ce!, as extremely probable, from systems of consang(inity an! affinity[3]. 6#ilst t#e c#il!ren remaine! in t#e gens of t#eir mot#er, t#ey passe! into anot#er class, in t#e same gens, !ifferent from t#at of eit#er parent. "#is will be ma!e apparent by t#e following table: 'ale. Ippai marries 7(mbo marries M(rri marries 7(bbi marries emale 7apota. Mata. /(ta. Ippata. 'ale. "#eir c#il!ren are M(rri an! "#eir c#il!ren are 7(bbi an! "#eir c#il!ren are Ippai an! "#eir c#il!ren are 7(mbo an! emale. Mata. 7apota. Ippata. /(ta.

If t#ese !escents are followe! o(t it will be fo(n! t#at, in t#e female line, 7apota is t#e mot#er of Mata, an! Mata in t(rn is t#e mot#er of 7apota; so Ippata is t#e mot#er of /(ta, an! t#e latter in t(rn is t#e mot#er of Ippata. It is t#e same wit# t#e male classes; b(t since !escent is in t#e female line, t#e 7amilaroi tribes !eri;e t#emsel;es from two s(ppose! female ancestors, w#ic# lai! t#e fo(n!ation for two original gentes. /y tracing t#ese !escents still f(rt#er it will be fo(n! t#at t#e bloo! of eac# class passes t#ro(g# all t#e classes. &lt#o(g# eac# in!i;i!(al bears one of t#e class names abo;e gi;en, it will be (n!erstoo! t#at eac# #as in a!!ition t#e single personal name, w#ic# is common among sa;age as well as barbaro(s tribes. "#e more closely t#is organiBation (pon sex is scr(tiniBe!, t#e more remar2able it seems as t#e wor2 of sa;ages. 6#en once establis#e!, an! after t#at transmitte! t#ro(g# a few generations, it wo(l! #ol! society wit# s(c# power as to become !iffic(lt of !isplacement It wo(l! re5(ire a similar an! #ig#er system, an! cent(ries of time, to accomplis# t#is res(lt; partic(larly if t#e range of t#e con:(gal system wo(l! t#ereby be abri!ge!. "#e gentile organiBation s(per;ene! nat(rally (pon t#e classes as a #ig#er organiBation, by simply enfol!ing t#em (ncappe! "#at it was s(bse5(ent in point

-of time, is s#own by t#e relations of t#e two systems, by t#e inc#oate con!ition of t#e gentes, by t#e impaire! con!ition of t#e classes t#ro(g# encroac#ments by t#e gens, an! by t#e fact t#at t#e class is still t#e (nit of organiBation. "#ese concl(sions will be ma!e apparent in t#e se5(el. *rom t#e prece!ing statements t#e composition of t#e gentes will be (n!erstoo! w#en place! in t#eir relations to t#e classes. "#e latter are in pairs of brot#ers an! sisters !eri;e! from eac# ot#er; an! t#e gentes t#emsel;es, t#ro(g# t#e classes, are in pairs, as follows: 9entes. 1. Ig(ana: D. 'm(: A: 7angaroo: -. /an!icoot: 4. >poss(m: G. /lac2sna2e: Male. *emale. &ll are M(rri & Mata, &ll are 7(mbo & /(ta, &ll are M(rri & Mata, &ll are 7(mbo & /(ta, &ll are M(rri & Mata, &ll are 7(mbo & /(ta, Male. *emale or 7(bbi & 7apota. or Ippai & Ippata. or 7(bbi & 7apota. or Ippai & Ippata. or 7(bbi & 7apota. or Ippai & Ippata.

"#e connection of c#il!ren wit# a partic(lar gens is pro;en by t#e law of marriage. "#(s, Ig(ana?Mata m(st marry 7(mbo; #er c#il!ren are 7(bbi an! 7apota, an! necessarily Ig(ana in gens, beca(se !escent is in t#e female line. Ig(ana?7apota m(st marry Ippai; #er c#il!ren are M(rri an! Mata, an! also Ip(ana in gens, for t#e same reason. In li2e manner 'm(?/(ta m(st marry M(rri; #er c#il!ren are Ippai an! Ippata, an! of t#e 'm( gens. %o 'm(?Ippata m(st marry 7(bbi; #er c#il!ren are 7(mbo an! /(ta, an! also of t#e 'm( gens. In t#is manner t#e pens is maintaine! by 2eeping in its members#ip t#e c#il!ren of all its female members. "#e same is tr(e in all respects of eac# of t#e remaining gentes. It will be notice! t#at eac# gens is ma!e (p, t#eoretically, of t#e !escen!ants of two s(ppose! female ancestors, an! contains fo(r of t#e eig#t classes. It seems probable t#at originally t#ere were #(t two male, an! two female classes, w#ic# were set opposite to eac# ot#er in respect to t#e rig#t of marriage; an! t#at t#e fo(r afterwar! s(b!i;i!e! into eig#t. "#e classes as an anterior organiBation were e;i!ently arrange! wit#in t#e gentes, an! not forme! by t#e s(b!i;ision of t#e latter. Moreo;er, since t#e Ig(ana, 7angaroo an! >poss(m gentes are fo(n! to be co(nterparts of eac# ot#er, in t#e classes t#ey contain, it follows t#at t#ey are s(b!i;isions of an original gens. 3recisely t#e same is tr(e of 'm(, /an!icoot an! /lac2sna2e, in bot# partic(lars; t#(s re!(cing t#e six to two original gentes, wit# t#e rig#t in eac# to marry into t#e ot#er, b(t not into itself. It is confirme! by t#e fact t#at t#e members of t#e first t#ree gentes co(l! not originally intermarry; neit#er co(l! t#e members of t#e last t#ree. "#e reason w#ic# pre;ente! intermarriage in t#e gens, w#en t#e t#ree were one, wo(l! follow t#e s(b!i;isions beca(se t#ey were of t#e same !escent alt#o(g# (n!er !ifferent gentile names. 'xactly t#e same t#ing is fo(n! among t#e %eneca?Iro5(ois, as will #ereafter be s#own.

-4 %ince marriage is restricte! to partic(lar classes, w#en t#ere were b(t two gentes, one?#alf of all t#e females of one were, t#eoretically, t#e wi;es of one?#alf of all t#e males of t#e ot#er. &fter t#eir s(b!i;ision into six t#e benefit of marrying o(t of t#e gens, w#ic# was t#e c#ief a!;antage of t#e instit(tion, was arreste!, if not ne(traliBe!, by t#e presence of t#e classes toget#er wit# t#e restrictions mentione!. It res(lte! in contin(o(s in?an!?in marriages beyon! t#e imme!iate !egree of brot#er an! sister. If t#e gens co(l! #a;e era!icate! t#e classes t#is e;il wo(l!, in a great meas(re #a;e been remo;e!. "#e organiBation into classes seems to #a;e been !irecte! to t#e single ob:ect of brea2ing (p t#e intermarriage of brot#ers an! sisters, w#ic# affor!s a probable explanation of t#e origin of t#e system. /(t since it !i! not loo2 beyon! t#is special abomination it retaine! a con:(gal system nearly as ob:ectionable, as well as cast it in a permanent form. It remains to notice an inno;ation (pon t#e original constit(tion of t#e classes, an! in fa;o(r of t#e gens, w#ic# re;eals a mo;ement, still pen!ing, in t#e !irection of t#e tr(e i!eal of t#e gens. It is s#own in two partic(lars: firstly, in allowing eac# tria! of gentes to intermarry wit# eac# ot#er, to a limite! extent; secon!ly, to marry into classes not before permitte!. "#(s, Ig(ana?M(rri can now marry Mata in t#e 7angaroo gens, #is collateral sister, w#ereas originally #e was restricte! to /(ta in t#e opposite t#ree. %o Ig(ana?7(bbi can now marry 7apota, #is collateral sister. 'm(?7(mbo can now marry /(ta, an! 'm(?Ippai can marry Ippata in t#e /lac2sna2e gens, contrary to original limitations. 'ac# class of males in eac# tria! of gentes seems now to be allowe! one a!!itional class of females in t#e two remaining gentes of t#e same tria!, from w#ic# t#ey were before excl(!e!. "#e memoran!a sent by Mr. *ison, #owe;er, !o not s#ow a c#ange to t#e f(ll extent #ere in!icate![5]. "#is inno;ation wo(l! plainly #a;e been a retrogra!e mo;ement b(t t#at it ten!e! to brea2 !own t#e classes. "#e line of progress among t#e 7amilaroi, so far as any is obser;able, was from classes into gentes, followe! by a ten!ency to ma2e t#e gens instea! of t#e class t#e (nit of t#e social organism. In t#is mo;ement t#e o;ers#a!owing system of co#abitation was t#e resisting element. %ocial a!;ancement was impossible wit#o(t !iminis#ing its extent, w#ic# was e5(ally impossible so long as t#e classes, wit# t#e pri;ileges t#ey conferre!, remaine! in f(ll ;itality. "#e 3ura con3ugialia$ w#ic# appertaine! to t#ese classes, were t#e !ea! weig#t (pon t#e 7amilaroi, wit#o(t emancipation from w#ic# t#ey wo(l! #a;e remaine! for a!!itional t#o(san!s of years in t#e same con!ition, s(bstantially, in w#ic# t#ey were fo(n!. &n organiBation somew#at similar is in!icate! by t#e punalua of t#e Hawaiians w#ic# will be #ereafter explaine!. 6#ere;er t#e mi!!le or lower strat(m of sa;agery is (nco;ere!, marriages of entire gro(ps (n!er (sages !efining t#e gro(ps, #a;e been !isco;ere! eit#er in absol(te form, or s(c# traces as to lea;e little !o(bt t#at s(c# marriages were normal t#ro(g#o(t t#is perio! of manFs #istory. It is immaterial w#et#er t#e gro(p, t#eoretically, was large or small, t#e necessities of t#eir con!ition wo(l! set a practical limit to t#e siBe of t#e gro(p li;ing toget#er (n!er t#is c(stom. If t#en comm(nity of #(sban!s an! wi;es is fo(n! to #a;e been a law of t#e sa;age state, an!, t#erefore, t#e essential con!ition of society in

-G sa;agery, t#e inference wo(l! be concl(si;e t#at o(r own sa;age ancestors s#are! in t#is common experience of t#e #(man race. In s(c# (sages an! c(stoms an explanation of t#e low con!ition of sa;ages is fo(n!. If men in sa;agery #a! not been left be#in!, in isolate! portions of t#e eart#, to testify concerning t#e early con!ition of man2in! in general, it wo(l! #a;e been impossible to form any !efinite conception of w#at it m(st #a;e been. &n important inference at once arises, namely, t#at t#e instit(tions of man2in! #a;e spr(ng (p in a progressi;e connecte! series. eac# of w#ic# represents t#e res(lt of (nconscio(s reformatory mo;ements to extricate society from existing e;ils "#e wear of ages is (pon t#ese instit(tions, for t#e proper (n!erstan!ing of w#ic# t#ey m(st be st(!ie! in t#is lig#t. It cannot be ass(me! t#at t#e &(stralian sa;ages are now at t#e bottom of t#e scale, for t#eir arts an! instit(tions, #(mble as t#ey are, s#ow t#e contrary; neit#er is t#ere any gro(n! for ass(ming t#eir !egra!ation from a #ig#er con!ition, beca(se t#e facts of #(man experience affor! no so(n! basis for s(c# a #ypot#esis. Cases of p#ysical an! mental !eterioration in tribes an! nations may be a!mitte!, for reasons w#ic# are 2nown, b(t t#ey ne;er interr(pte! t#e general progress of man2in!. &ll t#e facts of #(man 2nowle!ge an! experience ten! to s#ow t#at t#e #(man race, as a w#ole, #a;e stea!ily progresse! from a lower to a #ig#er con!ition. "#e arts by w#ic# sa;ages maintain t#eir li;es are remar2ably persistent. "#ey are ne;er lost (ntil s(perse!e! by ot#ers #ig#er in !egree. /y t#e practice of t#ese arts, an! by t#e experience gaine! t#ro(g# social organiBations, man2in! #a;e a!;ance! (n!er a necessary law of !e;elopment, alt#o(g# t#eir progress may #a;e been s(bstantially imperceptible for cent(ries. It was t#e same wit# races as wit# in!i;i!(als, alt#o(g# tribes an! nations #a;e peris#e! t#ro(g# t#e !isr(ption of t#eir et#nic life. "#e &(stralian classes affor! t#e first, an!, so far as t#e writer is aware, t#e only case in w#ic# we are able to loo2 clown into t#e incipient stages of t#e organiBation into gentes, an! e;en t#ro(g# it (pon an interior organiBation so arc#aic as t#at (pon sex, It seems to affor! a glimpse at society w#en it ;erge! (pon t#e primiti;e. &mong ot#er tribes t#e gens seems to #a;e a!;ance! in proportion to t#e c(rtailment of t#e con:(gal system. Man2in! rise in t#e scale an! t#e family a!;ances t#ro(g# its s(ccessi;e forms, as t#ese rig#ts sin2 !own before t#e efforts of society to impro;e its internal organiBation, "#e &(stralians mig#t not #a;e effecte! t#e o;ert#row of t#e classes in t#o(san!s of years if t#ey #a! remaine! (n!isco;ere!; w#ile more fa;o(re! continental tribes #a! long before perfecte! t#e gens, t#en a!;ance! it t#ro(g# its s(ccessi;e p#ases, an! at last lai! it asi!e after entering (pon ci;iliBation. *acts ill(strating t#e rise of s(ccessi;e social organiBations, s(c# as t#at (pon sex, an! t#at (pon 2in, are of t#e #ig#est et#nological ;al(e. & 2nowle!ge of w#at t#ey in!icate is eminently !esirable, if t#e early #istory of man2in! is to be meas(rably reco;ere!. &mong t#e 3olynesian tribes t#e gens was (n2nown; b(t traces of a system analogo(s to t#e &(stralian classes appear in t#e Hawaiian c(stom of p(nal(a. >riginal i!eas, absol(tely in!epen!ent of pre;io(s 2nowle!ge an! experience, are necessarily few in n(mber. 6ere it possible to re!(ce t#e s(m of #(man i!eas to (n?!eri;e! originals, t#e small n(merical res(lt wo(l! be startling. <e;elopment is

-7 t#e met#o! of #(man progress. In t#e lig#t of t#ese facts some of t#e excrescences of mo!ern ci;iliBation, s(c# as Mormonism, are seen to be relics of t#e ol! sa;agism not yet era!icate! from t#e #(man brain. 6e #a;e t#e same brain, perpet(ate! by repro!(ction, w#ic# wor2e! in t#e s2(lls of barbarians an! sa;ages in by?gone ages; an! it #as come !own to (s la!en an! sat(rate! wit# t#e t#o(g#ts, aspirations an! passions, wit# w#ic# it was b(sie! t#ro(g# t#e interme!iate perio!s. It is t#e same brain grown ol!er an! larger wit# t#e experience of t#e ages. "#ese o(tcrops of barbarism are so many re;elations of its ancient procli;ities. "#ey are explainable as a species of mental ata;ism. >(t, of a few germs of t#o(g#t, concei;e! in t#e early ages, #a;e been e;ol;e! all t#e principal instit(tions of man2in!. /eginning t#eir growt# in t#e perio! of sa;agery, fermenting t#ro(g# t#e perio! of barbarism, t#ey #a;e contin(e! t#eir a!;ancement t#ro(g# t#e perio! of ci;iliBation. "#e e;ol(tion of t#ese germs of t#o(g#t #as been g(i!e! by a nat(ral logic w#ic# forme! an essential attrib(te of t#e brain itself. %o (nerringly #as t#is principle performe! its f(nctions in all con!itions of experience, an! in all perio!s of time, t#at its res(lts are (niform, co#erent an! traceable in t#eir co(rses. "#ese res(lts alone will in time yiel! con;incing proofs of t#e (nity of origin of man2in!. "#e mental #istory of t#e #(man race, w#ic# is re;eale! in instit(tions, in;entions an! !isco;eries, is pres(mpti;ely t#e #istory of a single species, perpet(ate! t#ro(g# in!i;i!(als, an! !e;elope! t#ro(g# experience. &mong t#e original germs of t#o(g#t, w#ic# #a;e exercise! t#e most powerf(l infl(ence (pon t#e #(man min!, an! (pon #(man !estiny, are t#ese w#ic# relate to go;ernment, to t#e family, to lang(age, to religion, an! to property. "#ey #a! a !efinite beginning far bac2 in sa;agery, an! a logical progress, b(t can #a;e no final cons(mmation, beca(se t#ey are still progressing, an! m(st e;er contin(e to progress.

Footnotes
1 "#e 0omans ma!e a !istinction between Econn(bi(m,F w#ic# relate! to marriage consi!ere! as a ci;il instit(tion, an! Econ:(gi(m,F w#ic# was a mere p#ysical (nion. ! *or t#e !etaile! facts of t#e &(stralian system I am in!ebte! to t#e 0e;. orimer *ison, an 'nglis# missionary in &(stralia, w#o recei;e! a portion of t#em from t#e 0e;. 6. 0i!ley, an! anot#er portion from ". '. ance, 's5., bot# of w#om #a! spent many years among t#e &(stralian aborigines, an! en:oye! excellent opport(nities for obser;ation. "#e facts were sent by Mr. *ison wit# a critical analysis an! !isc(ssion of t#e system, w#ic#, wit# obser;ations of t#e writer were p(blis#e! in t#e E3rocee!ings of t#e &m. &ca!. of &rts an! %ciences for 187D. %ee ;ol. ;iii, p. -1D. & brief notice of t#e 7amilaroi classes is gi;en in Mc ennanFs )3rimiti;e Marriage,8 p. 118; an! in "ylorFs )'arly History of Man2in!,8 p, D88. " )%ystems of Consang(inity an! &ffinity of t#e H(man *amily, +%mit#sonian Contrib(tions to 2nowle!ge.,8 ;ol. x;ii p. -D>+ Eet se5.F

-8
# If a !iagram of !escents is ma!e, for example, of Ippai an! 7apota, an! carrie! to t#e fo(rt# generation, gi;ing to eac# interme!iate pair two c#il!ren a male an! a female, t#e following res(lts will appear. "#e c#il!ren of Ippai an! 7apota are M(rri an! Mata. &s brot#ers an! sisters t#e latter cannot marry. &t t#e secon! !egree, t#e c#il!ren of M(rri, marrie! to /(ta, are Ippai an! Ippata, an! of Mata marrie! to 7(mbo, are 7(bbi an! 7apota. >f t#ese, Ippai marries #is co(sin 7apota; an! 7(bbi marries #is co(sin Ippata. It will be notice! t#at t#e eig#t classes are repro!(ce! from two in t#e secon! an! t#ir! generations, wit# t#e exception of 7(mbo an! /(ta. &t t#e next or t#ir! !egree, t#ere are two M(rris, two Matas, two 7(mbos, an! two /(tas; of w#om t#e M(rris marry t#e /(tas, t#eir secon! co(sins, an! t#e 7(bbis t#e Matas t#eir secon! co(sins. &t t#e fo(rt# generation t#ere are fo(r eac# of Ippais 7apotas 7(bbis an! Ippatas, w#o are t#ir! co(sins. >f t#ese, t#e Ippais marry t#e 7apotas, an! t#e 7(bbis t#e Ippatas; an! t#(s it r(ns from generation to generation. & similar c#art of t#e remaining marriageable classes will pro!(ce li2e res(lts. "#ese !etails are te!io(s, b(t t#ey ma2e t#e fact apparent t#at in t#is con!ition of ancient society t#ey not only intermarry constantly, b(t are compelle! to !o so t#ro(g# t#is organiBation (pon sex. Co#abitation wo(l! not follow t#is in;ariable co(rse beca(se an entire male an! female class were marrie! in a gro(p; b(t its occ(rrence m(st #a;e been constant (n!er t#e system. >ne of t#e primary ob:ects sec(re! by t#e gens, w#en f(lly mat(re!, was t#(s !efeate!: namely, t#e segregation of moiety of t#e !escen!ants of s(ppose! common ancestor (n!er a pro#ibition of intermarriage, followe! by a rig#t of marrying into any ot#er gens. $ )3roc. &m. &ca!. &rts an! %ciences,8 ;iii, -AG.

Chapter II THE IROQUOIS GENS

"#e experience of man2in!, as elsew#ere remar2e!, #as !e;elope! b(t two plans of go;ernment, (sing t#e wor! plan in its scientific sense. /ot# were !efinite an! systematic organiBations of society. "#e first an! most ancient was a social organi#ation$ fo(n!e! (pon gentes, p#ratries an! tribes. "#e secon! an! latest in time was a political organi#ation$ fo(n!e! (pon territory an! (pon property. $n!er t#e first, a gentile society was create!, in w#ic# t#e go;ernment !ealt wit# persons t#ro(g# t#eir relations to a gens an! tribe. "#ese relations were p(rely personal. $n!er t#e secon! a political society was instit(te!, in w#ic# t#e go;ernment !ealt, wit# persons t#ro(g# t#eir relations to territory, e.g. t#e towns#ip, t#e co(nty, an! t#e state. "#ese relations were p(rely territorial. "#e two plans were f(n!amentally !ifferent. >ne belongs to ancient society, an! t#e ot#er to mo!ern. "#e gentile organiBation opens to (s one of t#e ol!est an! most wi!ely pre;alent instit(tions of man2in!. It f(rnis#e! t#e nearly (ni;ersal plan of go;ernment of ancient society, &siatic, '(ropean, &frican an! &(stralian. It was t#e instr(mentality by means of w#ic# society was organiBe! an! #el! toget#er. Commencing in sa;agery, an! contin(ing t#ro(g# t#e t#ree s(b?perio!s of barbarism, it remaine! (ntil t#e

-, establis#ment of political society, w#ic# !i! not occ(r (ntil after ci;iliBation #a! commence!. "#e 9recian gens, p#ratry an! tribe, t#e 0oan gens, curia an! tribe fin! t#eir analog(es in t#e gens, p#ratry an! tribe of t#e &merican aborigines. In li2e manner, t#e Iris# sept$ t#e %cottis# clan$ t#e phrara$ of t#e &lbanians, an! t#e %ans2rit ganas$ wit#o(t exten!ing t#e comparison f(rt#er, are t#e same as t#e &merican In!ian gens, w#ic# #as (s(ally been calle! a clan. &s far as o(r 2nowle!ge ex? ten!s, t#is organiBation r(ns t#ro(g# t#e entire ancient worl! (pon all t#e continents, an! it was bro(g#t !own to t#e #istorical perio! by s(c# tribes as attaine! to ci;iliBation. =or is t#is all. 9entile society w#ere;er fo(n! is t#e same in str(ct(ral organiBation an! in principles of action; #(t c#anging from lower to #ig#er forms wit# t#e progressi;e a!;ancement of t#e people. "#ese c#anges gi;e t#e #istory of !e;elopment of t#e same original conceptions Gens$ genos$ an! ganas in Latin$ Gree+ an! Sans+rit #a;e ali2e t#e primary signification of +in. "#ey contain t#e same element as gigno$ gignomai$ and ganamia$ in t#e same lang(ages, signifying to beget2 t#(s implying in eac# an imme!iate common !escent of t#e members of a gens. & gens, t#erefore, is a bo!y of consang(inei !escen!e! from t#e same common ancestor, !isting(is#e! by a gentile name, an! bo(n! toget#er by affinities of bloo!. It incl(!es a moiety only of s(c# !escen!ants. 6#ere !escent is in t#e female line, as it was (ni;ersally in t#e arc#aic perio!, t#e gens is compose! of a s(ppose! female ancestor an! #er c#il!ren, toget#er wit# t#e c#il!ren of #er female !escen!ants, t#ro(g# females, in perpet(ity; an! w#ere !escent is in t#e male line ? into w#ic# it was c#ange! after t#e appearance of property in masses ? of a s(ppose! male ancestor an! #is c#il!ren, toget#er wit# t#e c#il!ren of #is male !escen!ants, t#ro(g# males, in perpet(ity. "#e family name among o(rsel;es is a s(r;i;al of t#e gentile name, wit# !escent in t#e male line, an! passing in t#e same manner. "#e mo!ern family, as expresse! by its name, is an (norganiBe! gens; wit# t#e bon! of 2in bro2en, an! its members as wi!ely !isperse! as t#e family name is fo(n!. &mong t#e nations name!, t#e gens in!icate! a social organiBation of remar2able c#aracter, w#ic# #a! pre;aile! from an anti5(ity so remote t#at its origin was lost in t#e obsc(rity of far !istant ages. It was also t#e (nit of organiBation of a social an! go;ernmental system, t#e f(n!amental basis of ancient society. "#is organiBation was not confine! to t#e atin, 9recian an! %ans2rit spea2ing tribes, wit# w#om it became s(c# a conspic(o(s instit(tion. It #as been fo(n! in ot#er branc#es of t#e &ryan family of nations, in t#e %emitic. $ralian an! "(ranian families, among t#e tribes of &frica an! &(stralia, an! of t#e &merican aborigines &n exposition of t#e elementary constit(tion of t#e gens, wit# its f(nctions, rig#ts, an! pri;ileges, re5(ires o(r first attention; after w#ic# it will be trace!, as wi!ely as possible, among t#e tribes an! nations of man2in! in or!er to pro;e, by comparisons, its f(n!amental (nity. It will t#en #e seen t#at it m(st be regar!e! as one of t#e primary instit(tions of man2in!. "#e gens #as passe! t#ro(g# s(ccessi;e stages of !e;elopment in its transition from its arc#aic to its final form wit# t#e progress of man2in!. "#ese c#anges were limite!, in t#e main, to two: *irstly, c#anging !escent from t#e female line, w#ic# was t#e arc#aic r(le, as among t#e 9recian an! 0oman gentes; an!, secon!ly,

4H c#anging t#e in#eritance of t#e property of a !ecease! member of t#e gens from #is gentiles, w#o too2 it in t#e arc#aic perio!, first to #is agnatic 2in!re!, an! finally to #is c#il!ren,. "#ese c#anges, slig#t as t#ey may seem, in!icate ;ery great c#anges of con!ition as well as a large !egree of progressi;e !e;elopment. "#e gentile organiBation, originating in t#e perio! of sa;agery, en!(ring t#ro(g# t#e t#ree s(b?perio!s of barbarism, finally pa;e way, among t#e more a!;ance! tribes, w#en t#ey attaine! ci;iliBation. "#e re5(irements of w#ic# it was (nable to meet. &mong t#e 9ree2s an! 0omans, political society s(per;ene! (pon gentile society, #(t not (ntil ci;iliBation #a! commence!. "#e towns#ip +an! its e5(i;alent, t#e city war!., wit# its fixe! property, an! t#e in#abitants it containe!, organiBe! as a bo!y politic, became t#e (nit an! t#e basis of a new an! ra!ically !ifferent system of go;ernment. &fter political society was instit(te!, t#is ancient an! time? #ono(re! organiBation, wit# t#e p#ratry an! tribe !e;elopment from it, gra!(ally yiel!e! (p t#eir existence. It will be my ob:ect, in t#e co(rse of t#is ;ol(me, to trace t#e progress of t#is organiBation from its rise in sa;agery to its final o;ert#row in ci;iliBation; for it was (n!er gentile instit(tions t#at barbarism was won by some of t#e tribes of man2in! w#ile in sa;agery, an! t#at ci;iliBation was won by t#e !escen!ants of some of t#e same tribes w#ile in barbarism 9entile instit(tions carrie! a portion of man2in! from sa;agery to ci;iliBation. "#is organiBation may be s(ccessf(lly st(!ie! bot# in its li;ing an! in its #istorical forms in a large n(mber of tribes an! races. In s(c# an in;estigation it is preferable to commence wit# t#e gens in its arc#aic form, an! t#en to follow it t#ro(g# its s(ccessi;e mo!ifications among a!;ance! nations, in or!er to !isco;er bot# t#e c#anges an! t#e ca(ses w#ic# pro!(ce! t#em. I s#all commence, t#erefore, wit# t#e gens as it now exists among t#e &merican aborigines, w#ere it is fo(n! in its arc#aic form, an! among w#om its t#eoretical constit(tion an! practical; wor2ings can be in;estigate! more s(ccessf(lly t#an in t#e #istorical gentes of t#e 9ree2s an! 0omans. In fact to (n!erstan! f(lly t#e gentes of t#e latter nations a 2nowle!ge of t#e f(nctions, an! of t#e rig#ts, pri;ileges an! obligations of t#e members of t#e &merican In!ian gens is imperati;ely necessary. In &merican 't#nograp#y tribe an! clan #a;e been (se! in t#e place of gens as an e5(i;alent term, from not percei;ing its (ni;ersality. In pre;io(s wor2s, an! following my pre!ecessors, I #a;e so (se! t#em. & comparison of t#e In!ian clan wit# t#e gens of t#e 9ree2s an! 0omans re;eals at once t#eir i!entity in str(ct(re an! f(nctions. It also exten!s to t#e p#ratry an! tribe. If t#e i!entity of t#ese se;eral organiBations can be s#own, of w#ic# t#ere can be no !o(bt t#ere is a manifest propriety in ret(rning to t#e atin an! 9recian terminologies w#ic# are f(ll an! precise as well as #istorical. I #a;e ma!e #erein t#e s(bstit(tions re5(ire!, an! propose to s#ow t#e parallelism of t#ese se;eral organiBations. "#e plan of go;ernment of t#e &merican aborigines commence! wit# t#e gens an! en!e! wit# t#e confe!eracy, t#e latter being t#e #ig#est point to w#ic# t#eir go;ernmental instit(tions attaine!. It ga;e for t#e organic series: first, t#e gens, a bo!y of consang(inei #a;ing a common gentile name; secon!, t#e p#ratry, an assemblage of relate! gentes (nite! in a #ig#er association for certain common ob:ects; t#ir!, t#e tribe, an assemblage of gentes, (s(ally organiBe! in p#ratries, all

41 t#e members of w#ic# spo2e t#e same !ialect; an! fo(rt#, a confe!eracy of tribes, t#e members of w#ic# respecti;ely spo2e !ialects of t#e same stoc2 lang(age. It res(lte! in a gentile society +societas.$ as !isting(is#e! from a political society or state +civitas.. "#e !ifference between t#e two is wi!e an! f(n!amental. "#ere was neit#er a political society, nor a citiBen, nor a state, nor any ci;iliBation in &merica w#en it was !isco;ere!. >ne entire et#nical perio! inter;ene! between t#e #ig#est &merican In!ian tribes an! t#e beginning of ci;iliBation, as t#at term is properly (n!erstoo!. In li2e manner t#e plan of go;ernment of t#e 9recian tribes, anterior to ci;iliBation, in;ol;e! t#e same organic series, wit# t#e exception of t#e last member: *irst, t#e gens, a bo!y of consang(inei bearing a common gentile name; secon!, t#e p#ratry, an assemblage of gentes, (nite! for social an! religio(s ob:ects; t#ir!, t#e tribe, an assemblage of gentes of t#e same lineage organiBe! in p#ratries; an! fo(rt#, a nation, an assemblage of tribes w#o #a! coalesce! in a gentile society (pon one common territory, as t#e fo(r tribes of t#e &t#enians in &ttica, an! t#e t#ree <orian tribes at %parta. Coalescence was a #ig#er process t#an confe!erating. In t#e latter case t#e tribes occ(pie! in!epen!ent territories. "#e 0oman plan an! series were t#e same: *irst, t#e gens, a bo!y of consang(ine bearing a common gentile name; secon!, t#e curia$ an assemblage of gentes (nite! in. a #ig#er association for t#e performance of religio(s an! go;ernmental f(nctions; t#ir!, t#e tribe, an assemblage of gentes organiBe! in curiae2 an! fo(rt#, a nation, an assemblage of tribes w#o #a! coalesce! in a gentile society. "#e early 0omans style! t#emsel;es, wit# entire propriety, t#e !opulus Romanus. 6#ere;er gentile instit(tions pre;aile!, an! prior to t#e establis#ment of political society, we fin! peoples or nations in gentile societies, an! not#ing beyon!. "#e state !i! not exist. "#eir go;ernments were essentially !emocratical, beca(se t#e principles on w#ic# t#e gens, p#ratry an! tribe were organiBe! were !emocratical. "#is last proposition, t#o(g# contrary to recei;e! opinions, is #istorically important. "#e tr(t# of it can be teste! as t#e gens, p#ratry an! tribe of t#e &merican aborigines, an! t#e same organiBations among t#e 9ree2s an! 0omans are s(ccessi;ely consi!ere!. &s t#e gens, t#e (nit of organiBation, was essentially !emocratical, so necessarily was t#e p#ratry compose! of gentes, t#e tribe compose! of p#raties, an! t#e gentile society forme! by t#e con? fe!erating, or coalescing of tribes. "#e gens, t#o(g# a ;ery ancient social organiBation fo(n!e! (pon 2in, !oes not incl(!e all t#e !escen!ants of a common ancestor. It was for t#e reason t#at w#en t#e gens came in, marriage between single pairs was (n2nown, an! !escent t#ro(g# males co(l! not be trace! wit# certainty. 7in!re! were lin2e! toget#er c#iefly t#ro(g# t#e bon! of t#eir maternity. In t#e ancient gens !escent was limite! to t#e female line. It embrace! all s(c# persons as trace! t#eir !escent from a s(ppose! common female ancestor, t#ro(g# females, t#e e;i!ence of t#e fact being t#e possession of a common gentile name. It wo(l! incl(!e t#is ancestor an! #er c#il!ren, t#e c#il!ren of #er !a(g#ters, an! t#e c#il!ren of #er female !escen!ants, t#ro(g# females, in perpet(ity; w#ilst t#e c#il!ren of #er sons, an! t#e c#il!ren of #er male !escen!ants, t#ro(g# males, wo(l! belong to ot#er gentes; namely, t#ose

4D of t#eir respecti;e mot#ers. %(c# was t#e gens in. its arc#aic form, 6#en t#e paternity of c#il!ren was not certainly ascertain? able an! w#en t#eir maternity affor!e! t#e only certain criterion of !escents. "#is state of !escents, w#ic# can be trace! bac2 to t#e Mi!!le %tat(s of sa;agery, as among t#e &(stralians, remaine! among t#e &merican aborigines t#ro(g# t#e $pper %tat(s of sa;agery, an! into an! t#ro(g# t#e ower %tat(s of barbarism, wit# occasional exceptions. In t#e Mi!!le %tat(s barbarism, t#e In!ian tribes began to c#ange !escent from t#e female line to t#e male, as t#e syn!yasmian family of t#e perio! began to ass(me monogamian c#aracteristics. In t#e $pper %tat(s of barbarism, !escent #a! become c#ange! to t#e male line among t#e 9recian tribes, wit# t#e exception of t#e ycians, an! among t#e Italian tribes, wit# t#e exception of t#e 'tr(scans. "#e infl(ence of property an! its in#eritance in pro!(cing t#e monogamian family w#ic# ass(re! t#e paternity of c#il!ren, an! in ca(sing a c#ange of !escent from t#e female line to t#e male, will be consi!ere! elsew#ere. /etween t#e two extremes, represente! by t#e two r(les of !escent, t#ree entire et#nical perio!s inter;ene, co;ering many t#o(san!s of years. 6it# !escent in t#e male line, t#e gens embrace! all persons w#o trace! t#eir !escent from a s(ppose! common male ancestor, t#ro(g# males only, t#e e;i!ence of t#e fact being, as in t#e ot#er case, t#e possession of a common gentile name. It wo(l! incl(!e t#is ancestor an! #is c#il!ren, t#e c#il!ren of #is sons, an! t#e c#il!ren of #is male !escen!ants, t#ro(g# males, in perpet(ity; w#ilst t#e c#il!ren of #is !a(g#ters, an! t#e c#il!ren of #is female !escen!ants, t#ro(g# females, wo(l! belong to ot#er gentes; namely, t#ose of t#eir respecti;e fat#ers. "#ose retaine! in t#e gens in one case were t#ose excl(!e! in t#e ot#er, an! vice versa. %(c# was t#e gens in its final form, after t#e paternity of c#il!ren became ascertainable t#ro(g# t#e rise of monogamy. "#e transition of a. gens from one form into t#e ot#er was perfectly simple, wit#o(t in;ol;ing its o;ert#row. &ll t#at was nee!e! was an a!e5(ate moti;e, as will elsew#ere be s#own. "#e same gens, wit# !escent c#ange! to t#e male line, remaine! t#e (nit of t#e social system. It co(l! not #a;e reac#e! t#e secon! form wit#? o(t pre;io(sly existing in t#e first. &s intermarriage in t#e gens was pro#ibite!, it wit#!rew its members from t#e e;ils of consang(ine marriages an! t#(s ten!e! to increase t#e ;igo(r of t#e stoc2. "#e gens came into being (pon t#ree principal conceptions, namely; t#e bon! of 2in, a p(re lineage t#ro(g# !escent in t#e female line, an! non?intermarriage in t#e gens. 6#en t#e i!ea of a gens was !e;elope!, it wo(l! nat(rally #a;e ta2en t#e form of gentes in pairs, beca(se t#e c#il!ren of t#e males were excl(!e!, an! beca(se it was e5(ally necessary to organiBe bot# classes of !escen!ants. 6it# two gentes starte! into being sim(ltaneo(sly t#e w#ole res(lt wo(l! #a;e been attaine!; since t#e males an! females of one gens wo(l! marry t#e females an! males of t#e ot#er; an! t#e c#il!ren, following t#e gentes of t#eir respecti;e mot#ers, wo(l! be !i;i!e! between t#em. 0esting on t#e bon! of 2in as its co#esi;e principle t#e gens affor!e! to eac# in!i;i!(al member t#at personal protection w#ic# no ot#er existing power co(l! gi;e. &fter consi!ering t#e rig#ts, pri;ileges an! obligations of its members it will be necessary to follow t#e gens in its organic relations to a p#ratry, tribe an!

4A confe!eracy, in or!er to fin! t#e (ses to w#ic# it was applie!, t#e pri;ileges w#ic# it conferre!, an! t#e principles w#ic# it fostere!. "#e gentes of t#e Iro5(ois will be ta2en as t#e stan!ar! exemplification of t#is instit(tion in t#e 3anamanian family. "#ey #a! carrie! t#eir sc#eme of go;ernment from t#e gens to t#e confe!eracy, ma2ing it complete in eac# of its parts, an! an excellent ill(stration bf t#e capabilities of t#e gentile organiBation in its arc#aic form. 6#en !isco;ere! t#e Iro5(ois were in t#e ower %tat(s of barbarism, an! well a!;ance! in t#e arts of life pertaining to t#is con!ition. "#ey man(fact(re! nets, twine an! rope from filaments of bar2; wo;e belts an! b(r!en straps, wit# warp an! woof, from t#e same materials; t#ey man(fact(re! eart#en ;essels an! pipes from clay mixe! wit# siliceo(s materials an! #ar!ene! by fire, some of w#ic# were ornamente! wit# r(!e me!allions; t#ey c(lti;ate! maiBe, beans, s5(as#es, an! tobacco, in gar!en be!s, an! ma!e (nlea;ene! brea! from po(n!e! maiBe w#ic# t#ey boile! in eart#en ;essels[2]; t#ey tanne! s2ins into leat#er wit# w#ic# t#ey man(fact(re! 2ilts, leggins, an! moccasins; t#ey (se! t#ebow an! arrow an! war?cl(b as t#eir principal weapons; (se! flint stone an! bone implements, wore s2in garments, an! were expert #(nters an! fis#ermen. "#ey constr(cte! long :oint?tenement #o(ses large eno(g# to accommo!ate fi;e, ten, an! twenty families, an! eac# #o(se#ol! practise! comm(nism in li;ing; b(t t#ey were (n? ac5(ainte! wit# t#e (se of stone or a!obe?bric2 in #o(se arc#itect(re, an! wit# t#e (se of t#e nati;e metals. In mental capacity an! in general a!;ancement t#ey were t#e representati;e branc# of t#e In!ian family nort# of =ew Mexico. 9eneral 3. &. 6al2er #as s2etc#e! t#eir military career in two paragrap#s: )"#e career of t#e Iro5(ois was simply terrific. "#ey were t#e sco(rge of 9o! (pon t#e aborigines of t#e continent[3].8 *rom lapse of time t#e Iro5(ois tribes #a;e come to !iffer slig#tly in t#e n(mber, an! in t#e names of t#eir respecti;e gentes. "#e largest n(mber being eig#t, as follows: Senecas2 1. 6olf. D. /ear. A. "(rtle. -. /ea;er. 4. <eer. G. %nipe. 7. Heron. 8. Haw2. Cayugas2 1. 6olf. D. /ear. A. "(rtle. -. /ea;er. 4. <eer. G. %nipe. 7. 'el. 8. Haw2. !nondegas2 1. 6olf. D. /ear. A. "(rtle. -. /ea;er. 4. <eer. G. %nipe. 7. 'el. 8. /all. !neidas2 1. 6olf. D. /ear. A. "(rtle. Mohaw1s2 1. 6olf. D. /ear. A. "(rtle. %uscaroras2 1. 9ray 6olf. D. /ear. A. 9reat "(rtle. -. /;a;er. 4. 1ellow 6olf. G. %nipe. 7. 'el. 8. ittle "(rtle. "#ese c#anges s#ow t#at certain gentes in some of t#e tribes #a;e become extinct t#ro(g# t#e ;icissit(!es of time; an! t#at ot#ers #a;e been forme! by t#e segmentation of o;er?f(ll gentes. 6it# a 2nowle!ge of t#e rig#ts, pri;ileges an! obligations of t#e members of a gens, its capabilities as t#e (nit of a social an! go;ernmental system will be more

4f(lly (n!erstoo!, as well as t#e manner in w#ic# it entere! into t#e #ig#er organiBations of t#e p#ratry, tribe, an! confe!eracy. "#e gens is in!i;i!(aliBe! by t#e following rig#ts, pri;ileges, an! obligations conferre! an! impose! (pon its members, an! w#ic# ma!e (p t#e 3us gentilicium. I. "#e rig#t of electing its sac#em an! c#iefs II. "#e rig#t of !eposing its sac#em an! c#iefs. III. "#e obligation not to marry in t#e gens. II. M(t(al rig#ts of in#eritance of t#e property of !ecease! members. I. 0eciprocal obligations of #elp, !efence, an! re!ress of in:(ries. II. "#e rig#t of bestowing names (pon its members. III. "#e rig#t of a!opting strangers into t#e gens. IIII. Common religio(s rites, 5(ery. IL. & common b(rial place. L. & co(ncil of t#e gens. "#ese f(nctions an! attrib(tes ga;e ;itality as well as in!i;i!(ality to t#e organiBation, (n! protecte! t#e personal rig#ts of its members.

3. %he right of electing its sache

and chiefs.

=early all t#e &merican In!ian tribes #a! two gra!es of c#iefs, w#o may be !isting(is#e! as sac#ems an! common c#iefs. >f t#ese two primary gra!es ell ot#er gra!es were ;arieties. "#ey were electe! in eac# gens from among its members. & son co(l! not be c#osen to s(ccee! #is fat#er, w#ere !escent was in t#e female line, beca(se #e belonge! to a !ifferent gens, an! no gens wo(l! #a;e a c#ief or sac#em from any gens b(t its own. "#e office of sac#em was #ere!itary in t#e gens, in t#e sense t#at it was fille! as often as a ;acancy occ(rre!; w#ile t#e office of c#ief was non?#ere!itary, beca(se it was bestowe! in rewar! of personal merit an! !ie! wit# t#e in!i;i!(al. Moreo;er, #e !(ties of a sac#em were confine! to t#e affairs of peace. He co(l! not go o(t to war as a. sac#em, >n t#e ot#er #an!, t#e c#iefs w#o were raise! to office for personal bra;ery, for wis!om in affairs, or for elo5(ence in co(ncil, were usually t#e superior class in ability, t#o(g# not in a(t#ority o;er t#e gens. "#e relation of t#e sac#em was primarily to t#e gens, of w#ic# #e was t#e official #ea!; w#ile t#at of t#e c#ief was primarily to t#e tribe, of t#e co(ncil of w#ic# #e, as well as t#e sac#em, were member. "#e office of sac#em #a! a nat(ral fo(n!ation in t#e gens, as an organiBe! bo!y of consang(inei w#ic#, as s(c#, nee!e! a representati;e #ea!. &s an office, #owe;er, it is ol!er t#an t#e gentile organiBation, since if, is fo(n! among tribes not t#(s organiBe!, b(t among w#om it #a! a similar basis in t#e p(nal(an gro(p, an! e;en in t#e anterior #or!e. In t#e gens t#e constit(ency of t#e sac#em was clearly !efine!, t#e basis of t#e relation was permanent, an! its !(ties paternal. 6#ile t#e office was #ere!itary in t#e gens it was electi;e among its male members. 6#en t#e In!ian system of consang(inity is consi!ere!, it will be fo(n! t#at all t#e male members of a gens were eit#er brot#ers to eac# ot#er, own or collateral, (ncles or nep#ews, own or collateral, or collateral gran!fat#ers an! gran!sons [4]. "#is will explain t#e s(ccession of t#e office of sac#em w#ic# passe! from brot#er to

44 brot#er, or from (ncle to nep#ew, an! ;ery rarely from gran!fat#er to gran!son. "#e c#oice, w#ic# was by free s(ffrage of bot# males an! females of a!(lt age, (s(ally fell (pon a brot#er of t#e !ecease! sac#em, or (pon one of t#e sons of a sister; an own brot#er, or t#e son of an own sister being most li2ely to #e preferre!. &s between se;eral brot#ers, o(n an! collateral, on t#e one #an!, an! t#e sons of se;eral sisters, o(n an! collateral, on t#e ot#er, t#ere was no priority of rig#t, for t#e reason t#at all t#e male members of t#e gens were e5(ally eligible. "o ma2e a c#oice between t#em was t#e f(nction of t#e electi;e principle. $pon t#e !eat# of a sac#em, for example among t#e %eneca?Iro5(ois, a co(ncil of #is gentiles[5] was con;ene! to name #is s(ccessor. "wo can!i!ates, accor!ing to t#eir (sages, m(st, be ;ote! (pon, bot# of t#em members of t#e gens. 'a.c# person of a!(lt age was calle! (pon to express #is or #er preference, an! t#e one w#o recei;e! t#e largest n(mber of affirmati;e !eclarations was nominate!. It still re5(ire! t#e assent of t#e se;en remaining gentes, before t#e nomination was complete. If t#ese gentes, w#o met for t#e p(rpose by p#ratries, ref(se! to confirm t#e nomination it was t#ereby set asi!e, an! t#e gens procee!e! to ma2e anot#er c#oice. 6#en t#e person nominate! by #is gens was accepte! by t#e remaining gentes t#e election was complete; b(t it was still necessary t#at t#e new sac#em s#o(l! be raise! (p$ to (se t#eir expression, or in;este! wit# #is office by a co(ncil of t#e confe!eracy, before #e co(l! enter (pon its !(ties. 1t was t#eir met#o! of conferring t#e imperium. In t#is manner t#e rig#ts an! interests of t#e se;eral gentes were cons(lte! an! preser;e!; for t#e sac#em of a gens was e" officio a member of t#e co(ncil of t#e tribe, an! of t#e #ig#er co(ncil of t#e confe!eracy. "#e same met#o! of election an! of confirmation existe! wit# respect to t#e office of c#ief, an! for t#e same reasons. /(t a general co(ncil was ne;er con;ene! to raise (p c#iefs below t#e gra!e of a sac#em. "#ey awaite! t#e time w#en sac#ems were in;este!. "#e principle of !emocracy, w#ic# was born of t#e gentes, manifeste! itself in t#e retention by t#e gentiles of t#e rig#t to elect t#eir sac#em an! c#iefs, in t#e safeg(ar!s t#rown aro(n! t#e office to pre;ent (s(rpation, an! in t#e c#ec2 (pon t#e election #el! by t#e remaining gentes. "#e c#iefs in eac# gens were (s(ally proportione! to t#e n(mber of its members. &mong t#e %eneca?Iro5(ois t#ere is one c#ief for abo(t e;ery fifty persons. "#ey now n(mber in =ew 1or2 some t#ree t#o(san! an! #a;e eig#t sac#ems an! abo(t sixty c#iefs. "#ere are reasons for s(pposing t#at t#e proportionate n(mber is now greater t#an in former times, 6it# respect to t#e n(mber of gentes in a tribe, t#e more n(mero(s t#e people, t#e greater, (s(ally, t#e n(mber of gentes. "#e n(mber ;arie! in t#e !ifferent tribes, from t#ree among t#e <elawares an! M(nsees to (pwar!s of twenty among t#e >:ibwas an! Cree2s; six, eig#t, an! ten being common n(mbers.

II. %he right of deposing its sache

and chiefs.

"#is rig#t, w#ic# was not less important, t#an t#at to elect, was reser;e! by t#e members of t#e gens. &lt#o(g# t#e office was nominally for life, t#e ten(re was practically !(ring goo! be#a;io(r, in conse5(ence of t#e power to !epose. "#e installation of a, sac#em was symboliBe! as Ep(tting on t#e #orns,F an! #is !eposition as Eta2ing oft t#e #orns.F &mong wi!ely separate! tribes of man2in!

4G #orns #a;e been ma!e t#e emblem of office an! of a(t#ority, s(ggeste! probably, as "ylor intimates, by t#e comman!ing appearance of t#e males among r(minant animals bearing #orns. $nwort#y be#a;io(r, followe! by a loss of confi!ence, f(rnis#e! a s(fficient ro(n! for !eposition. 6#en a sac#em or c#ief #a! been !epose! in !(e form by a co(ncil of #is gens, #e cease! t#ereafter to be recogniBe! as s(c#, an! became t#encefort# a. pri;ate person. "#e co(ncil of t#e tribe also #a! power to !epose bot# sac#ems an! c#iefs, wit#o(t waiting for t#e action of t#e gens, an! e;en against its wis#es. "#ro(g# t#e existence an! occasional exercise of t#is power t#e s(premacy of t#e gentiles o;er t#eir sac#em an! c#iefs was asserte! an! preser;e!. It also re;eals t#e !emocratic constit(tion of t#e gens.

III. %he obligation not to

arry in the gens.

&lt#o(g# a negati;e proposition it was f(n!amental. It was e;i!ently a primary ob:ect of t#e organiBation to isolate a moiety of t#e !escen!ants of a s(ppose! fo(n!er, an! pre;ent t#eir intermarriage for reasons of 2in, 6#en t#e gens came into existence brot#ers were intermarrie! to eac# ot#erFs wi;es in a gro(p, an! sisters to eac# ot#erFs #(sban!s in a gro(p, to w#ic# t#e gens interpose! no obstacle. /(t, it so(g#t to excl(!e brot#ers an! sisters from t#e marriage relation w#ic# was effecte!, as t#ere are goo! reasons for stating by t#e pro#ibition in 5(estion. Ha! t#e gens attempte! to (proot t#e entire con:(gal system of t#e perio! by its !irect action,, t#ere is not t#e slig#test probability t#at it wo(l! #a;e wor2e! its way into general establis#ment. "#e gens, originating probably in t#e ingen(ity of a small ban! of sa;ages, m(st soon #a;e pro;e! its (tility in t#e pro!(ction of s(perior men. Its nearly (ni;ersal pre;alence in t#e ancient worl! is t#e #ig#est e;i!ence of t#e a!;antages it conferre!, an! of its a!aptability to #(man wan,ts in sa;agery an! in barbarism. "#e Iro5(ois still a!#ere inflexibly to t#e r(le w#ic# forbi!s persons to marry in t#eir own gens.

I(. Mutual rights of inheritance of the property of deceased e bers

In t#e %tat(s of sa;agery, an! in t#e ower %tat(s of barbarism, t#e amo(nt of property was small. It consiste! in t#e former con!ition of personal effects, to w#ic#, in t#e latter, were a!!e! possessory rig#ts in :oint?tenement #o(ses an! in gar!ens. "#e most ;al(able personal articles were b(rie! wit# t#e bo!y of t#e !ecease! owner. =e;ert#eless, t#e 5(estion of in#eritance was certain to arise, to increase in importance wit# t#e increase of property in ;ariety an! amo(nt, an! to res(lt in some settle! r(le of in#eritance. &ccor!ingly we fin! t#e principle establis#e! low !own in barbarism, an! e;en bac2 of t#at in sa;agery, t#at t#e property s#o(l! remain in t#e gens, an! be !istrib(te! among t#e gentiles of t#e !ecease! owner. It was c(stomary law in t#e 9recian an! atin gentes in t#e $pper %tat(s of barbarism, an! remaine! as written law far into ci;iliBation, t#at t#e property of a !ecease! person s#o(l! remain in t#e gens. /(t after t#e time of %olon among t#e &t#enians it was limite! to cases of intestacy. "#e 5(estion, w#o s#o(l! ta2e t#e property, #as gi;en rise to t#ree great an! s(ccessi;e r(les of in#eritance. *irst; t#at it s#o(l! be !istrib(te! among t#e gentiles of t#e !ecease! owner. "#is was t#e r(le in t#e ower %tat(s of barbarism,

47 an! so far as is 2nown in t#e %tat(s of sa;agery. %econ!, t#at t#e property s#o(l! be !istrib(te! among t#e agnatic 2in!re! of t#e !ecease! owner, to t#e excl(sion of t#e remaining gentiles. "#e germ of t#is r(le ma2es its appearance in t#e ower %tat(s of barbarism, an! it probably became completely establis#e! in t#e Mi!!le %tat(s. "#ir!, t#at t#e property s#o(l! be in#erite! by t#e c#il!ren of t#e !ecease! owner, to t#e excl(sion of t#e. remaining agnates. "#is became t#e r(le in t#e $pper %tat(s of barbarism. "#eoretically, t#e Iro5(ois were (n!er t#e first r(le; b(t, practically, t#e effects of a !ecease! person were appropriate! by #is nearest relations wit#in t#e gens. In t#e case of a male #is own brot#ers an! sisters an! maternal (ncles !i;i!e! #is effects among t#emsel;es. "#is practical limitation of t#e in#eritance to t#e nearest gentile 2in !iscloses t#e germ of agnatic in#eritance. In t#e case of a female #er property was in#erite! by #er c#il!ren an! #er sisters, to t#e excl(sion of #er brot#ers. In e;ery case t#e property remaine! in t#e gens. "#e c#il!ren of t#e !ecease! males too2 not#ing from t#eir fat#er beca(se t#ey belonge! to a !ifferent gens. It was for t#e same reason t#at t#e #(sban! too2 not#ing from t#e wife, or t#e wife from #er #(sban!. "#ese m(t(al rig#t of in#eritance strengt#ene! t#e a(tonomy of t#e gens.

(. Reciprocal obligations of help+ defence+ and redress of in4uries.

In ci;iliBe! society t#e state ass(mes t#e protection of persons an! of property. &cc(stome! to loo2 to t#is so(rce for t#e maintenance of personal rig#ts, t#ere #as been a correspon!ing abatement of t#e strengt# of t#e bon! of 2in. /(t (n!er gentile society t#e in!i;i!(al !epen!e! for sec(rity (pon #is gens. It too2 t#e place afterwar!s #el! by t#e state, an! possesse! t#e re5(isite n(mbers to ren!er its g(ar!ians#ip effecti;e. 6it#in its members#ip t#e bon! of 2in was a powerf(l element for m(t(al s(pport. "o wrong a person was to wrong #is gens; an! to s(pport, a person was to stan! be#in! #im wit# t#e entire array of #is gentile 2in!re!. In t#eir trials an! !iffic(lties t#e members of t#e gens assiste! eac# ot#er. "wo or t#ree ill(strations may be gi;en from t#e In!ian tribes at large. %pea2ing of t#e. Mayas of 1(catan, Herrera remar2s, t#at, )w#en any satisfaction was to be ma!e for !amages, if #e w#o was a!:(!ge! to pay was li2e to #e re!(ce! to po;erty, t#e 2in!re! contrib(te![6].8 /y t#e term 2in!re!, as #ere (se!, we are :(stifie! in (n!erstan!ing t#e gens. &n! of t#e *lori!a In!ians: )6#en a brot#er or son !ies t#e people of t#e #o(se will rat#er star;e t#an see2 anyt#ing to eat !(ring t#ree mont#s, b(t t#e 2in!re! an! relations sen! it all in[7]. 3ersons w#o remo;e! from one ;illage to anot#er co(l! not transfer t#eir possessory rig#t to c(lti;ate! lan!s or to a section of :oint?tenement #o(se to a stranger; b(t m(st lea;e t#em to #is gentile 2in!re!.8 Herrera refers to t#is (sage among t#e In!ian tribes of =icarag(a: )He t#at remo;e! from one town to anot#er co(l! not sell w#at #e #a!, b(t m(st lea;e it to #is nearest relation.8[8] %o m(c# of t#eir property was #el! in :oint owners#ip t#at t#eir plan of life wo(l! not a!mit of its alienation to a person of anot#er gens. 3ractically, t#e rig#t to s(c# property was possessory, an! w#en aban!one! it re;erte! to t#e gens. 9arcilasso !e la Iega remar2s of t#e tribes of t#e 3er(;ian

48 &n!es, t#at )w#en t#e commonality, or or!inary sort, marrie!, t#e comm(nities of t#e people were oblige! to b(il! an! pro;i!e t#em #o(ses [9].8 *or communities, as #ere (se!, we are :(stifie! in (n!erstan!ing t#e gens. Herrera spea2ing of t#e same tribes obser;es t#at )t#is ;ariety of tong(es procee! from t#e nations being !i;i!e! into races, tribes, or clans[10].8 Here t#e gentiles were re5(ire! to assist newly marrie! pairs in t#e constr(ction of t#eir #o(ses. "#e ancient practice of bloo! re;enge, w#ic# #as pre;aile! so wi!ely in t#e tribes of man2in!, #a! its birt#place in t#e gen. 1t reste! wit# t#is bo!y to a;enge t#e m(r!er of one of its members. "rib(nals for t#e trial of criminals an! laws prescribing t#eir p(nis#ment came late into existence in gentile society; b(t t#ey ma!e t#eir appearance before t#e instit(tion of. 3olitical society. >n t#e ot#er #an!, t#e crime of m(r!er is as ol! as #(man society, an! its p(nis#ment by t#e re;enge of 2insmen is as ol! as t#e crime itself. &mong t#e Iro5(ois an! ot#er In!ian tribes generally, t#e obligation to a;enge t#e m(r!er of a 2insman was (ni;ersally recogniBe!.[10] It was, #owe;er, t#e !(ty of t#e gens of. t#e slayer, an! of t#e slain, to attempt an a!:(stment of t#e crime before procee!ing to extremities. & co(ncil of t#e members of eac# gens was #el! separately, an! propositions were ma!e in be#alf of t#e m(r!erer for a con!onation of t#e act, (s(ally in t#e nat(re of expressions of regret an! of presents of consi!erable ;al(e. If t#ere were :(stifying or exterminating circ(mstances it generally res(lte! in a composition; b(t if t#e gentile 2in!re! of t#e slain person were implacable, one or more a;engers were appointe! by #is gens from among its members w#ose !(ty is was to p(rs(e t#e criminal (ntil !isco;ere!, an! t#en to slay #im w#ere;er #e mig#t be fo(n!. If t#ey accomplis#e! t#e !ee! it, was no gro(n! of complaint by any member of t#e gens of t#e ;ictim. ife #a;ing answere! for life t#e !eman!s of :(stice were appease!. "#e same sentiment of fraternity manifeste! itself in ot#er ways in relie;ing a fellow gentilis in !istress, an! in protecting #im form in:(ries.

(I. %he right of bestowing na es upon its

e bers.

&mong sa;age an! barbaro(s tribes t#ere is no name for t#e family. "#e personal names of in!i;i!(als of t#e same family !o not in!icate any family connection between t#em. "#e family name is no ol!er t#an ci;iliBation. [12] In!ian personal names, #owe;er, (s(ally in!icate t#e gens of t#e in!i;i!(al to persons of ot#er gentes in t#e same tribe. &s a r(le eac# gens #a! names for persons t#at were its special property, an!, as s(c#, co(l! not #e (se! by ot#er gentes of t#e same tribe. & gentile name conferre! of itself gentile rig#t. "#ese names eit#er proclaime! by t#eir signification t#e gens to w#ic# t#ey belonge!, or were 2nown as s(c# by common rep(tation.[13] &fter t#e birt# of a c#il! a name was selecte! by its mot#er from t#ose not in (se belonging to t#e gens, wit# t#e conc(rrence of #er nearest relati;es, w#ic# was t#en bestowe! (pon t#e infant. /(t t#e c#il! was not f(lly c#ristene! (ntil its birt# an! name, toget#er wit# t#e name an! gens of its mot#er an! t#e name of its fat#er, #a! been anno(nce! at t#e next ens(ing co(ncil of t#e tribe. $pon t#e !eat# of a person #is name co(l! not be (se! again in t#e life?time of t#e ol!est s(r;i;ing son wit#o(t t#e consent of t#e latter.[14]

4, "wo classes of names were in (se, one a!apte! to c#il!#oo!, an! t#e ot#er to ancient line, w#ic# were exc#ange! at t#e proper perio! in t#e same formal manner; one being ta2en away, to (se t#eir expression, an! t#e ot#er bestowe! in its place. &*(iF*go$a canoe floatnig do(n the stre(n$ an! Ah*(auF*ne*ont$ hanging flo(er2 are names for girls among t#e %eneca?Iro5(ois; an! Ga*ni*o*diF*yo$ handsome la+e$ an! 7o*ne*ho*gaF*(eh door*+eeper$ are names of a!(lt males. &t t#e age of sixteen or eig#teen, t#e first name was ta2en away, (s(ally by a c#ief of t#e gens, an! one of t#e secon! class bestowe! in its place. &t t#e next co(ncil of t#e tribe t#e c#ange of names was p(blicly anno(nce!, after w#ic# t#e person, if a male, ass(me! t#e !(ties of man#oo!. In some In!ian tribes t#e yo(t# was re5(ire! to go o(t (pon t#e war?pat# an! earn #is secon! name by some act of personal bra;ery. &fter a se;ere illness it was not (ncommon for t#e person, from s(perstitio(s consi!erations, to solicit an! obtain a secon! c#ange of name. It was sometimes !one again in extreme ol! age. 6#en a person was electe! a sac#em or a c#ief #is name was ta2en away, an! a new one conferre! at t#e time of #is installation,. "#e in!i;i!(al #a! no control o;er t#e 5(estion of a c#ange. It, is t#e prerogati;e of t#e female relati;es an! of t#e c#ief; b(t an a!(lt person mig#t c#ange #is name pro;i!e! #e co(l! in!(ce a c#ief to anno(nce it in co(ncil. & person #a;ing t#e control of a partic(lar name, as t#e el!est son of t#at of #is !ecease! fat#er, mig#t len! it to a frien! in anot#er gens; b(t after t#e !eat# of t#e person t#(s bearing it t#e name re;erte! to t#e gens to w#ic# it belonge!. &mong t#e %#wness an! <elawares t#e mot#er #as now t#e rig#t to name #er c#il! into any gens s#e pleases; an! t#e name gi;en transfers t#e c#il! to t#e gens to w#ic# t#e name belongs. /(t t#is is a wi!e !epart(re from arc#aic (sages, an! exceptional in practice. It ten!s to corr(pt an! confo(n! t#e gentile lineage. "#e names now in (se among t#e Iro5(ois an! among ot#er In!ian tribes are, in t#e main, ancient names #an!e! !own in t#e gentes from time immemorial. "#e preca(tions ta2en wit# respect to t#e (se of names belonging to t#e gens s(fficiently pro;e t#e importance attac#e! to t#em, an! t#e gentle rig#ts t#ey confer. &lt#o(g# t#is 5(estion of personal names branc#es o(t in many !irection it is foreign to my p(rpose to !o more t#an ill(strate s(c# general (sages as re;eal t#e relations of t#e members of a gens. In familiar interco(rse an! in formal sal(tation t#e &merican In!ians a!!ress eac# ot#er by t#e term of relations#ip t#e person spo2en to s(stains to t#e spea2er. 6#en relate! t#ey sal(te by 2in; w#en not relate! Emy frien!F is s(bstit(te!. It wo(l! be esteeme! an act of r(!eness to a!!ress an In!ian by #is personal name, or to in5(ire #is name !irectly from #im self. >(r %axon ancestors #a! single personal names !own to t#e =orman con5(est, wit# none to !esignate t#e family. "#is in!icates t#e late appearance of t#e monogamian family among t#em; an! it raises a pres(mption of t#e existence in an earlier perio! of a %axon gens.

(II. %he right of adopting strangers into the gens.

&not#er !istincti;e rig#t of t#e gens was t#at of a!mitting new members by a!option. Capti;es ta2en in war were eit#er p(t to !eat#, or a!opte! into some gens.

GH 6omen an! c#il!ren ta2en prisoners (s(ally experience! clemency in t#is form. &!option not only conferre! gentile rig#ts, b(t also t#e nationality of t#e tribe. "#e person a!opting a capti;e place! #im or #er in t#e relation of a brot#er or sister; if a mot#er a!opte!, in t#at of a son or !a(g#ter; an! e;er afterwar!s treate! t#e person in all respects as t#o(g# born in t#at relation. %la;ery, w#ic# in t#e $pper %tat(s of barbarism became t#e fate of t#e capti;e, was (n2nown among tribes in t#e ower %tat(s in t#e aboriginal perio!. "#e ga(ntlet also #a! some connection wit# a!option, since t#e person w#o s(ccee!e! t#ro(g# #ar!i#oo! or fa;o(ritism, in r(nning t#ro(g# t#e lines in safety was entitle! to t#is rewar!. Capti;es w#en a!opte! were often assigne! in t#e family t#e places of !ecease! persons slain in battle, in or!er to fill (p t#e bro2en ran2s of relati;es. & !eclining gens mig#t replenis# its n(mbers, t#ro(g# a!option, alt#o(g# s(c# instances are rare. &t one time t#e Haw2 gens of t#e %enecas were re!(ce! to a small n(mber of persons, an! its extinction became imminent. "o sa;e t#e gens a n(mber of persons from t#e 6olf gens by m(t(al consent were transferre! in a bo!y by a!option to t#at of t#e Haw2. "#e rig#t to a!opt seems to be left to t#e !iscretion of eac# gens. &mong t#e Iro5(ois t#e ceremony of a!option was performe! at a p(blic co(ncil of t#e tribe, w#ic# t(rne! it practically into a religio(s rite.[15]

(II. Religious rites in the gens. 5uery

&mong t#e 9recian an! atin tribes t#ese rites #el! a conspic(o(s position. "#e #ig#est polyt#eistic form of religion w#ic# #a! t#en appeare! seems to #a;e spr(ng from t#e gentes in w#ic# religio(s rites were constantly maintaine!. %ome of t#em, from t#e sanctity t#ey were s(ppose! to possess, were nationaliBe!. In some cities t#e office of #ig# priest of certain !i;inities was #ere!itary in a partic(lar gens. [16] "#e gens became t#e nat(ral centre of religio(s growt# an! t#e birt#place of religio(s ceremonies. /(t t#e In!ian tribes, alt#o(g# t#ey #a! a polyt#eistic system, not m(c# (nli2e t#at from w#ic# t#e 9recian an! 0oman m(st #a;e spr(ng, #a! not attaine! t#at religio(s !e;elopment w#ic# was so strongly impresse! (pon t#e gentes of t#e latter tribes. It can scarcely be sai! any In!ian gens #a! special religio(s rites; an! yet t#eir religio(s wors#ip #a! a more or less !irect connection wit# t#e gentes. It was #ere t#at religio(s i!eas wo(l! nat(rally germinate an! t#at forms of wors#ip wo(l! be instit(te!. /(t t#ey wo(l! expan! from t#e gens o;er t#e tribe, rat#er t#an remain special to t#e gens. &ccor!ingly we fin! among t#e Iro5(ois six ann(al religio(s festi;als, +Maple, 3lanting, /erry, 9reen?Corn, Har;est, an! =ew 1ears *esti;als. [17] w#ic# were common to all t#e gentes (nite! in a tribe, an! w#ic# were obser;e! at state! seasons of t#e year. 'ac# gens f(rnis#e! a n(mber of E7eepers of t#e *ait#,F bot# male an! female w#o toget#er were c#arge! wit# t#e celebration of t#ese festi;als. [18] "#e n(mber a!;ance! to t#is office by eac# was regar!e! as e;i!ence of t#e fi!elity of t#e gens to religion. "#ey !esignate! t#e !ays for #ol!ing t#e festi;als, ma!e t#e necessary arrangements for t#e celebration, an! con!(cte! t#e ceremonies in con:(nction wit# t#e sac#ems an! c#iefs of t#e tribe, w#o were, e" officio$ E7eepers of t#e *ait#.F 6it# no official #ea!, an! none of t#e mar2s of a priest#oo!, t#eir f(nctions were

G1 e5(al. "#e female E7eepers of t#e *ait#F were more especially c#arge! wit# t#e preparation of t#e feast, w#ic# was pro;i!e! at all co(ncils at t#e close of eac# !ay for all persons in atten!ance. It was a !inner in common. "#e religio(s rites appertaining to t#ese festi;als, w#ic# #a;e been !escribe! in a pre;io(s wor2, [19] nee! not be consi!ere! f(rt#er t#an to remar2, t#at t#eir wors#ip was one of t#an2sgi;ing, wit# in;ocations to t#e 9reat %pirit, an! to t#e esser %pirits to contin(e to t#em t#e blessings of life. 6it# t#e progress of man2in! o(t of t#e ower into t#e Mi!!le, an! more especially o(t of t#e latter into t#e $pper %tat(s of barbarism, t#e gens became more t#e centre of religio(s infl(ence an! t#e so(rce of religio(s !e;elopment. 6e #a;e only t#e grosser part of t#e &Btec religio(s system; b(t in a!!ition to national go!s, t#ere seem to #a;e been ot#er go!s, belonging to smaller !i;isions of t#e people t#an t#e p#ratries. "#e existence of an &Btec rit(al an! priest#oo! wo(l! lea! (s to expect among t#em a closer connection of religio(s rites wit# t#e gentes t#an is fo(n! among t#e Iro5(ois; b(t t#eir religio(s beliefs an! obser;ances are (n!er t#e same clo(! of obsc(rity as t#eir social organiBation.

I*. A co

on burial place.

&n ancient b(t not excl(si;e mo!e of b(rial was by scaffol!ing t#e bo!y (ntil t#e fles# #a! waste!, after w#ic# t#e bones were collecte! an! preser;e! in bar2 barrels in a #o(se constr(cte! for t#eir reception. "#ose belonging to t#e same gens were (s(ally place! in t#e same #o(se. "#e 0e;. <r. Cyr(s /yington fo(n! t#ese practices among t#e C#octas in 18D7; an! &!air mentions (sages among t#e C#ero2ees s(bstantially t#e same. )I saw t#ree of t#em,8 #e remar2s, )in one of t#eir towns pretty near eac# ot#er. 'ac# #o(se containe! t#e bones of, one tribe separately, wit# t#e #ieroglyplical fig(res of eac# family MgensN on eac# of t#e o!! s#ape! ar2s. "#ey rec2one! it irreligio(s to mix t#e bones of a relati;e wit# t#ose of a stranger, as #one of #one an! fles# of fles# s#o(l! always be :ointe! toget#er.8 "#e Iro5(ois in ancient times (se! scaffol!s an! preser;e! t#e bones of !ecease! relati;es in bar2 barrels, often 2eeping t#em in t#e #o(se t#ey occ(pie!. "#ey also b(rie! in t#e gro(n!. In t#e latter case t#ose of t#e same gens were not always b(rie! locally toget#er (nless t#ey #a! a common cemetery for t#e ;illage. "#e late 0e;. &s#(r 6rig#t, so long a missionary among t#e %enecas, an! a noble specimen of t#e &merican missionary, wrote to t#e a(t#or as follows; )I fin! no trace of t#e infl(ence of clans#ip in t#e b(rial places of t#e !ea!. I belie;e t#at t#ey b(rie! promisc(o(sly. Howe;er, t#ey say t#at formerly t#e members of t#e !ifferent, clans more fre5(ently resi!e! toget#er t#an t#ey !o at t#e present time. &s one family t#ey were more (n!er t#e infl(ence of family feeling, an! #a! less of in!i;i!(al interest. Hence, it mig#t occasionally #appen t#at a large proportion of t#e !ea! in some partic(lar b(rying place mig#t be of t#e same clan.8 Mr. 6rig#t is (n!o(bte!ly correct t#at in a partic(lar cemetery members of all t#e gentes establis#e! in a ;illage wo(l! be b(rie!, b(t t#ey mig#t 2eep t#ose of t#e same gens locally toget#er, &n ill(stration in point is now fo(n! at t#e "(scarora reser;ation near ewiston, w#ere t#e tribe #as one common cemetery, an! w#ere in!i;i!(als of t#e same gens are b(rie! in a row by t#emsel;es. >ne row is compose! of t#e gra;es of t#e !ecease! members of t#e /ea;er gens, two rows of

GD t#e members of t#e /ear gens, one row of t#e 9ray 6olf, one of t#e 9reat "(rtle, an! so on to t#e n(mber of eig#t rows. H(sban! an! wife are separate! from eac# ot#er an! b(rie! in !ifferent rows; fat#ers an! t#eir c#il!ren t#e same; b(t mot#ers an! t#eir c#il!ren an! brot#ers an! sisters are fo(n! in t#e same row. It s#ows t#e power of gentile feeling, an! t#e 5(ic2ness wit# w#ic# ancient, (sages are re;erte! to (n!er fa;o(rable, con!itions; for t#e "(scaroras are now C#ristianiBe! wit#o(t s(rren!ering t#e practice, &n >non!aga In!ian informe! t#e writer t#at t#e same mo!e of b(rial by gentes now pre;aile! at t#e >nan!aga an! >nei!a cemeteries. 6#ile t#is (sage, per#aps, cannot be !eclare! general among t#e In!ian tribes, t#ere was (n!o(bte!ly in ancient times a ten!ency to, an! preference for t#is mo!e of b(rial. &mong t#e Iro5(ois, an! w#at is tr(e of t#em is generally tr(e of ot#er In!ian tribes in t#e same stat(s of a!;ancement, all t#e members of t#e gens are mo(rners at t#e f(neral of a !ecease! gentilis. "#e a!!resses at t#e f(neral, t#e preparation of t#e gra;e, an! t#e b(rial of t#e bo!y were performe! by members of ot#er gentes. "#e Iillage In!ians of Mexico an! Central &merica practice! a slo;enly cremation, as well as scaffol!ing, an! b(rying in t#e gro(n!. "#e former was confine! to c#iefs an! prominent men.

*. A council of the gens.

"#e co(ncil was t#e great feat(re of ancient society, &siatic, '(ropean an! &merican, from t#e instit(tion of t#e gens in sa;agery to ci;iliBation. It was t#e instr(ment of go;ernment as well as t#e s(preme a(t#ority o;er t#e gens, t#e tribe, an! t#e confe!eracy. >r!inary affairs were a!:(ste! by t#e c#iefs; b(t t#ose of general interest were s(bmitte! to t#e !etermination of a co(ncil. &s t#e co(ncil sprang from t#e gentile organiBation t#e two instit(tions #a;e come !own toget#er t#ro(g# t#e ages. "#e Co(ncil of C#iefs represents t#e ancient met#o! of e;ol;ing t#e wis!om of man2in! an! applying it to #(man affairs. Its #istory, gentile, tribal, an! confe!erate, wo(l! express t#e growt# of t#e i!ea of go;ernment in its w#ole !e;elopment, (ntil political society s(per;ene! into w#ic# t#e co(ncil, c#ange! into a senate, was transmitte!. "#e simplest an! lowest form of t#e co(ncil was t#at of t#e gens. It was a !emocratic assembly beca(se e;ery a!(lt male an! female member #a! a ;oice (pon all 5(estions bro(g#t before it. It electe! an! !epose! its sac#em an! c#iefs, it electe! 7eepers of t#e *ait#, it con!one! or a;enge! t#e m(r!er of a gentile, an! it a!opte! persons into t#e gens. It was t#e germ of t#e #ig#er co(ncil of t#e tribe, an! of t#at still #ig#er of t#e confe!eracy, eac# of w#ic# was compose! excl(si;ely of c#iefs as representati;es of t#e gentes. %(c# were t#e rig#ts, pri;ileges an! obligations of t#e ? members of an Iro5(ois gens; an! s(c# were t#ose of t#e members of t#e gentes of t#e In!ian tribes generally, as far as t#e in;estigation #as been carrie!. 6#en t#e gentes of t#e 9recian an! atin tribes are consi!ere!, t#e same rig#ts, pri;ileges an! obligations will be fo(n! to exist, wit# t#e exception of t#e I, II, an! II; an! wit# respect to t#ese t#eir ancient existence is probable t#o(g# t#e proof m not per#aps attainable. &ll t#e members of an Iro5(ois gens were personally free, an! t#ey were bo(n! to

GA !efen! eac# ot#erFs free!om; t#ey were e5(al in pri;ileges an! in personal rig#ts, t#e sac#em an! c#iefs claiming no s(periority; an! t#ey were a brot#er#oo! bo(n! toget#er by t#e ties of 2in. liberty, e5(ality, an! fraternity, t#o(g# ne;er form(late!, were car!inal principles of t#e gens. "#ese facts are material, beca(se t#e gens was t#e (nit of a social an! go;ernmental system, t#e fo(n!ation (pon w#ic# In!ian society was organiBe!. & str(ct(re compose! of s(c# (nits wo(l! of necessity bear t#e impress of t#eir c#aracter, for as t#e (nit so t#e compo(n!. It ser;es to explain t#at sense of in!epen!ence an! personal !ignity (ni;ersally an attrib(te of In!ian c#aracter, "#(s s(bstantial an! important in t#e social system was t#e gens as it anciently existe! among t#e &merican aborigines, an! as it still exists in f(ll ;itality in many In!ian tribes. It was t#e basis of t#e p#ratry, of t#e tribe, an! t#e confe!eracy of tribes. Its f(nctions mig#t #a;e been presente! more elaborately in se;eral partic(lars; #(t s(fficient #as been gi;en to s#ow its permanent an! !(rable c#aracter. &t t#e epoc# of '(ropean !isco;ery t#e &merican In!ian tribes generally were organiBe! in gentes, wit# !escent in t#e female line. In some tribes, as among t#e <a2otas, t#e gentes #a! fallen o(t; in ot#ers, as among t#e >:ibwas, t#e >ma#as, an! t#e, Mayas of 1(catan, !escent #a! been c#ange! from t#e female to t#e male line. "#ro(g#o(t, aboriginal &merica t#e gens too2 its name from some animal, or inanimate ob:ect an! ne;er from a person. In t#is early con!ition of society, t#e in!i;i!(ality of persons was ost in t#e gens. It is at least pres(mable t#at t#e gentes of t#e 9recian an! atin tribes were so name! at some anterior perio!; b(t w#en t#ey first came (n!er #istorical notice, t#ey were name! after persons. In some of t#e tribes, as t#e Mo5(i Iillage In!ians of =ew Mexico, t#e members of t#e gens claime! t#eir !escent from t#e animal w#ose name t#ey bore ? t#eir remote ancestors #a;ing been transforme! by t#e 9reat %pirit from t#e animal into t#e #(man form. "#e Crane gens of t#e >:ibwas #a;e similar legen!. In. some tribes t#e members of a gens will not eat t#e animal w#ose name t#ey bear, in w#ic# t#ey are !o(btless infl(ence! by t#is consi!eration. 6it# respect to t#e n(mber of persons in a gens it ;arie! wit# t#e n(mber of t#e gentes, an! wit# t#e prosperity or !eca!ence of t#e tribe. "#ree t#o(san! %enecas !i;i!e! e5(ally among eig#t gentes wo(l! gi;e an a;erage of t#ree #(n!re! an! se;enty?fi;e persons to a gens. *ifteen t#o(san! >:ibwas !i;i!e! e5(ally among twenty t#ree gentes wo(l! gi;e six #(n!re! an! fifty persons to a, gens, "#e C#eio2ees wo(l! a;erage more t#an a t#o(san! to a gens. In t#e present con!ition of t#e principal In!ian tribes t#e n(mber of persons in eac# gens wo(l! range from one #(n!re! to a t#o(san!. >ne of t#e ol!est an! most wi!ely pre;alent instit(tions of man2in!, t#e gentes #a;e been closely i!entifie! wit# #(man progress (pon w#ic# t#ey #a;e exercise! a powerf(l infl(ence. "#ey #a;e been fo(n! in tribes in t#e %tat(s of sa;agery, in t#e ower, in t#e Mi!!le, an! in t#e $pper ?%tat(s of barbarism on !ifferent continents, an! in f(ll ;itality in t#e 9recian an! atin tribes after ci;iliBation #a! commence!. ';ery family of man2in!, except t#e 3olynesian, seems to #a;e come (n!er t#e gentile organiBation, an! to #a;e been in!ebte! to it for preser;ation, an! for t#e

Gmeans of progress. It fin!s its only parallel in lengt# of !(ration in systems of consang(inity, w#ic#, springing (p at a still earlier perio!, #a;e remaine! to t#e ? present time, alt#o(g# t#e marriage (sages in w#ic# t#ey originate! #a;e long since !isappeare!. *rom its early instit(tion, an! from its maintenance t#ro(g# s(c# immense stretc#es of time, t#e pec(liar a!option of t#e gentile organiBation to man2in!, w#ile in a sa;age an! in a barbaro(s state, m(st be regar!e! as ab(n!antly !emonstrate!,

Footnotes
1 In ) etters on t#e Iro5(ois by %2enan!oa#,8 p(blis#e! in t#e E&merican 0e;iewF in 18-7; in t#e ) eag(e of t#e Iro5(ois,8 p(blis#e! in 1841; an! in )%ystems of Consang(inity an! &ffinity of t#e H(man *amily,8 p(blis#e! in 1871. +)%mit#sonian Contrib(tions to 7nowle!ge,8 ;ol. x;ii.. I #a;e (se! EtribeF as t#e e5(i;alent of Egens,F an! it its place; b(t wit# an exact !efinition of t#e gro(p. ! "#ese loa;es or ca2es were abo(t six inc#es in !iameter an! an inc# t#ic2. " =ort# &merican 0e;iew, &pril =o., 187A, p. A7H =ote. # "#e sons of se;eral sisters are brot#ers to eac# ot#er, instea! of cousins. The latter are #ere !isting(is#e! as collateral brot#ers. %o a manFs brotherFs son is his son instea! of #is nep#ew; w#ile #is collateral sisterFs son is #is nep#ew, as well as #is own sisterFs son. "#e former is !isting(is#e! as a collateral nep#ew. $ 3rono(nce! EgenF?ti?les,F it may be remar2e! to t#ose (nfamiliar wit# atin. % )History of &merica,8 on!. e!., 17D4, %te;ensF "rans., i; 171. & b., i;, A-.

' 8History of &merica,8 iii, D,8. ( )0oyal Commentaries,8 on!. e!., 1G8G, 0yca(tFs "rans., p. IH7. 1) Herrera, i;, DA1. 11 )"#eir #earts b(rn ;iolently !ay an! nig#t wit#o(t intermission till t#ey #a;e s#e! bloo! for bloo!. "#ey transmit from fat#er to son t#e memory of t#e loss of t#eir relations, or one of t#eir own tribe, or family, t#o(g# it was an ol! woman.8 ? &!airFs )Hist. &rner. In!ians,8 on!. e!., 1774, p. 14H. 1! MommsenFs )History of 0ome,8 %cribnerFs e!., <ic2sonFs "rans., i, -,. 1" >ne of t#e twel;e gentes of t#e >ms#as is aF?ta?!a, t#e 3igeon?Haw2, w#ic# #as, among ot#ers t#e following names: /oysF =ames:

&#?#iseF?na?!a, E ong wing.F 9la?!anF?no#?c#e, EHaw2 balancing itself in t#e air.F

G4 =es?taseF?2a, E E6#ite?'ye! /ir!.F

9irlsF Iiames:

Me?taF?na, E/ir! singing at !aylig#t. a?ta?!aF?win, E>ne of t#e /ir!s.F 6a?taF?na, E/ir!Fs 'gg.F
1# 6#en partic(lar (sages are name! it will be (n!erstoo! t#ey are Iro5(ois (nless t#e contrary is state!. 1$ &fter t#e people #a! assemble! at t#e co(ncil #o(se one of t#e c#iefs ma!e an a!!ress gi;ing some acco(nt of t#e person, t#e reason for #is a!option, t#e name an! gens of t#e person a!opting, an! t#e name bestowe! (pon t#e no;itiate. "wo c#iefs ta2ing t#e person by t#e arms t#en marc#e! wit# #im t#ro(g# t#e co(ncil #o(se an! bac2, c#anting t#e song of a!option. "o t#is t#e people respon!e! in m(sical c#or(s at t#e en! of eac# ;erse. "#e marc# contin(e! (ntil t#e ;erses were en!e!, w#ic# re5(ire! t#ree ro(n!s. 6it# t#is t#e ceremony concl(!e!. &mericans are sometimes a!opte! as a compliment. It fell to my lot some years ago to be t#(s a!opte! into t#e Haw2 gens of t#e %enecas, w#en t#is ceremony was repeate!. 1% 9roteFs )History of 9reece,8 i, 1,-. 1& ) eag(e of t#e Iro5(ois,8 p. 18D. 1' "#e E7eepers of t#e *ait#F were abo(t as n(mero(s as t#e c#iefs, an! were selecte! by t#e wise?men an! matrons of eac# gens. &fter t#eir selection t#ey were raise! (p by a co(ncil of, t#e tribe wit# ceremonies a!apte! to t#e occasion. "#eir names were ta2en away an! new ones belonging to t#is class bestowe! in t#eir place. Men an! women in abo(t e5(al n(mbers were c#osen. "#ey were censors of t#e people, wit# power to report t#e e;il !ee!s of persons to t#e co(ncil. It was t#e !(ty of in!i;i!(als selecte! to accept t#e office; b(t after a reasonable ser;ice eac# mig#t relin5(is# it, w#ic# was !one by !ropping #is name as a 7eeper of t#e *ait# an! res(ming #is former name. 1( ) eag(e of t#e Iro5(ois,8 p. 18D. !) )History of t#e &merican In!ians,8 p. 18A.

Chapter III THE IROQUOIS PHRATRY

"#e p#ratry is a brot#er#oo!, as t#e term imports, an! a nat(ral growt# from t#e organiBation into gentes. It is an organic (nion or association of two or more gentes of t#e same tribe for certain common ob:ects. "#ese gentes were (s(ally s(c# as #a! been forme! by t#e segmentation of an original. gens. &mong t#e 9recian tribes, w#ere t#e p#ratric organiBation was nearly as constant as t#e gens, it became a ;ery conspic(o(s instit(tion. 'ac# of t#e fo(r tribes of t#e &t#enians was organiBe! in t#ree p#ratries, eac# compose! of t#irty gentes, ma2ing a total of

GG twel;e p#ratries an! t#ree #(n!re! an! sixty gentes. %(c# precise n(merical (niformity in t#e composition of eac# p#ratry an! tribe co(l! not #a;e res(lte! from t#e s(b?!i;ision of gentes t#ro(g# nat(ral processes. It m(st #a;e been pro!(ce!, as Mr. 9rote s(ggests, by legislati;e proc(rement in t#e interests of a symmetrical organiBation. &ll t#e gentes of a tribe, as a r(le, were of common !escent an! bore a common tribal name, conse5(ently it wo(l! not re5(ire se;ere constraint to (nite t#e specifie! n(mber in eac# p#ratry, an! to form t#e specifie! n(mber of p#ratries in eac# tribe. /(t t#e p#ratric organiBation #a! a nat(ral fo(n!ation in t#e imme!iate 2ins#ip of certain gentes as s(b!i;isions of an original gens, w#ic# (n!o(bte!ly was t#e basis on w#ic# t#e 9recian p#ratry was originally forme!. "#e incorporation of alien gentes, an! transfers by consent or constraint, wo(l! explain t#e n(merical a!:(stment of t#e gentes an! p#ratries in t#e &t#enian tribes. "#e 0oman curia was t#e analog(e of t#e 9recian p#ratry. It is constantly mentione! by <ionysi(s as a p#ratry.[1] "#ere were ten gentes in eac# curia, an! ten curia in eac# of t#e t#ree 0oman tribes, ma2ing t#irty curiae an! t#ree #(n!re! gentes of t#e 0omans. "#e f(nctions of t#e 0oman curia are m(c# better 2nown t#an t#ose of t#e 9recian p#ratry, an! were #ig#er in !egree beca(se t#e curia entere! !irectly into t#e f(nctions of go;ernment. "#e assembly of t#e gentes +comitia curiata. ;ote! by curiae$ eac# #a;ing one collecti;e ;ote. "#is assembly was t#e so;ereign power of t#e 0oman 3eople !own to t#e time of %er;i(s "(lli(s. &mong t#e f(nctions of t#e 9recian p#ratry was t#e obser;ance of special religio(s rites, t#e con!onation or re;enge of t#e m(r!er of a p#rator, an! t#e p(rification of a m(r!erer after #e #a! escape! t#e penalty of #is crime preparatory to #is restoration to society. [2] &t a later perio! among t#e &t#enians ? for t#e p#ratry at, &t#ens s(r;i;e! t#e instit(tion of political society (n!er Cleist#enes ? it loo2e! after t#e registration of citiBens, t#(s becoming t#e g(ar!ian of !escents an! of t#e e;i!ence of citiBens#ip. "#e wife (pon #er marriage was enrolle! in t#e p#ratry of #er #(sban!, an! t#e c#il!ren of t#e marriage were enrolle! in t#e gens an! p#ratry of t#eir fat#er: It was also t#e !(ty of t#is organiBation to prosec(te t#e m(r!erer of a p#rator in t#e co(rts of :(stice. "#ese are among its 2nown ob:ects an! f(nctions in t#e earlier an! later perio!s. 6ere all t#e partic(lars f(lly ascertaine!, t#e p#ratry wo(l! probably manifest itself in connection wit# t#e common tables, t#e p(blic games, t#e f(nerals of !isting(is#e! men, t#e earliest army organiBation, an! t#e procee!ings of co(ncils, as well as in t#e obser;ance of religio(s rites an! in t#e g(ar!ians#ip of social pri;ileges. "#e p#ratry existe! in a large n(mber of t#e tribes of t#e &merican aborigines, w#ere it is seen to arise by nat(ral growt#, an! to stan! as t#e secon! member of t#e organic series, as among t#e 9recian an! atin tribes. It !i! not possess original go;ernmental f(nctions, as t#e gens, tribe an! confe!eracy possesse! t#em; b(t it was en!owe! wit# certain (sef(l powers in t#e social system, from t#e necessity for some organiBation larger t#an a gens an! smaller t#an a tribe, an! especially w#en t#e tribe was large. "#e same instit(tion in essential feat(res an! in c#aracter, it presents t#e organiBation in its arc#aic form an! wit# its arc#aic f(nctions. & 2nowle!ge of t#e In!ian p#ratry is necessary to an intelligent (n!erstan!ing of t#e 9recian an! t#e 0oman.

G7 "#e eig#t gentes of t#e %eneca?Iro5(ois tribe were reintegrate! in two p#ratries as follows: irst !hratry: Gentes * %$ Bear. ,$ 9olf. .$ Beaver. 5$ Turtle. Second !hratry: Gentes * 0$ 7eer. :$ Snipe. -$ Heron. ;$ Ha(+. 'ac# p#ratry +<e?a?non?!a?yo#. is a brot#er#oo! as t#is term also imports. "#e gentes in t#e same p#ratry are brot#er gentes to eac# ot#er, an! co(sin gentes to t#ose of t#e ot#er p#ratry: "#ey are e5(al in gra!e, c#aracter an! pri;ileges. It is a common practice of t#e %enecas to all t#e gentes of t#eir own p#ratry brot#er gentes, an! t#ose of t#e ot#er p#ratry t#eir co(sin gentes, w#en t#ey mention t#em in t#eir relation to t#e p#ratries. >riginally marriage was not allowe! between t#e members of t#e same p#ratry; b(t t#e members of eit#er co(l! marry into any gens of t#e ot#er. "#is pro#ibition ten!s to s#ow t#at gentes of eac# p#ratry were s(b!i;isions of an original gens, an! t#erefore t#e pro#ibition against marrying into a personFs own gens #a! followe! to its s(b!i;isions. "#is restriction, #owe;er, was long since remo;e!, except wit# respect to t#e gens of t#e in!i;i!(al. & tra!ition of t#e %enecasF affirms t#at t#e /ear an! t#e <eer were t#e original gentes, of w#ic# t#e ot#ers were s(b!i;isions. It is t#(s seen t#at t#e p#ratry #a! a nat(ral fo(n!ation in t#e 2ins#ip of t#e gentes of w#ic# it was compose!. &fter t#eir s(b!i;ision from increase of n(mbers t#ere was a nat(ral ten!ency to t#eir re(nion in a #ig#er organiBation for ob:ects common to t#em all. "#e same gentes are not constant in a p#ratry in!efinitely, as will appear w#en t#e composition of t#e p#ratries in t#e remaining. Iro5(ois tribes is consi!ere!. "ransfers of partic(lar gentes from one p#ratry to t#e ot#er m(st #a;e occ(rre! w#en t#e e5(ilibri(m in t#eir respecti;e n(mbers was !ist(rbe!. It is important to 2now t#e simple manner in w#ic# t#is organiBation springs (p, an! t#e facility wit# w#ic# it is manage!, as a part of t#e social system of ancient society. 6it# t#e increase of n(mbers in a gens, followe! by local separation of its members, segmentation occ(rre!, an! t#e sece!ing portion a!opte! new gentile name. /(t a tra!ition of t#eir former (nity wo(l! remain, an! become t#e basis of t#eir re?organiBation in a p#ratry. In li2e manner t#e Cay(ga?Iro5(ois #a;e eig#t gentes in two p#ratries; b(t t#ese are not !i;i!e! e5(ally between t#em. "#ey are t#e following: irst !hratry. Gentes.* /$ Bear. ,$ 9olf. .$ Turtle. 5$ Snipe. 0. Eel, Second !hratry. Gentes.* :$ 7eer -$ Beaver. ;$ Ha(+. %e;en of t#ese gentes are t#e same as t#ose of t#e %enecas; b(t t#e Heron gens #as !isappeare!, an! t#e 'el ta2es its place, b(t transferre! to t#e opposite p#ratry. "#e /ea;er an! t#e "(rtle gentes also #a;e exc#ange! p#ratries. "#e Cay(gas style t#e gentes of t#e same p#ratry brot#er gentes to eac# ot#er, an! t#ose of t#e opposite p#ratry t#eir co(sin gentes.

G8 "#e >non!aga?Iro5(ois #a;e t#e same n(mber of gentes, b(t two of t#em !iffer in name from t#ose of t#e %enecas. "#ey are organiBe! in two p#ratries as follows: irst !hratry. Gentes.* l$ 9olf. ,$ Turtle. .$ Snipe. 5$ Beaver. 0$ Ball. Second !hratry, Gentes.* :$ 7eer. -$ Eel. ;$ Bear. Here again t#e composition of t#e p#ratries is !ifferent from t#at of t#e %enecas. "#ree of t#e gentes in t#e first p#ratry are t#e same in eac#; b(t t#e /ear gens #as been transferre! to t#e opposite p#ratry an! is now fo(n! wit# t#e <eer. "#e !i;ision of gents is also (ne5(al, as among t#e Cay(gas. "#e gents in t#e same p#ratry are calle!, brot#er gents to eac# ot#er, an! t#ose in t#e ot#er t#eir co(sin gents. 6#ile t#e >non!agas #a;e no Haw2, t#e %enecas #a;e no 'el gens; b(t t#e members of t#e two fraterniBe w#en t#ey meet, claiming t#at t#ere is a connection between t#em. "#e Mo#aw2s an! >nei!as #a;e b(t t#ree gents t#e /ear, t#e 6olf, an! t#e "(rtle, an! no p#ratries. 6#en t#e confe!eracy was forme!, se;en of t#e eig#t %eneca gentes existe! in t#e se;eral tribes as is s#own by t#e establis#ment of sac#ems#ips in t#em; b(t t#e Mo#aw2s an! >nei!as t#en #a! only t#e t#ree name!. It s#ows t#at t#ey #a! t#en lost an entire p#ratry, an! one gens of t#at remaining, if it is ass(me! t#at t#e original tribes were once compose! of t#e same gentes. 6#en a tribe organiBe! in gentes an! p#ratries s(b!i;i!es, it mig#t occ(r on t#e line of t#e p#ratric organiBation. &lt#o(g# t#e members of a tribe are intermingle! t#ro(g#o(t by marriage, eac# gens in a p#ratry is compose! of females wit# t#eir c#il!ren an! !escen!ants, t#ro(g# females, w#o forme! t#e bo!y of t#e p#ratry. "#ey wo(l! incline at least to remain locally toget#er, an! t#(s mig#t become !etac#e! in a bo!y. "#e male members of t#e gens marrie! to women of ot#er gentes an! remaining wit# t#eir wi;es wo(l! not affect t#e gens since t#e c#il!ren of t#e males !o not belong to its connection. If t#e min(te #istory of t#e In!ian tribes is e;er reco;ere! it m(st be so(g#t t#ro(g# t#e gentes an! p#ratries, w#ic# can be followe! from tribe to tribe. In s(c# an in;estigation it will !eser;e attention w#et#er tribes e;er !isintegrate! by p#ratries. It is at least improbable. "#e "(scarora?Iro5(ois became !etac#e! from t#e main stoc2 at some (n2nown perio! in t#e past, an! in#abite! t#e =e(se ri;er region in =ort# Carolina at t#e time of t#eir !isco;ery. &bo(t &. <. 171D t#ey were force! o(t of t#is area, w#ere(pon t#ey remo;e! to t#e co(ntry of t#e Iro5(ois an! were a!mitte! into. t#e confe!eracy as a sixt# member. "#ey #a;e eig#t gentes organiBe! in two p#ratries, as follows: irst !hratry. Gentes.* /$. Bear. ,$ Beaver. .$ Great Turtle. 5$ Eel. Second !hratry. Gentes * 0$ Gray 9olf. :$ <ello( 9olf. -$ Little Turtle. ;. Snipe.

G, "#ey #a;e six gentes in common wit# t#e Cay(gas an! >non!agas, fi;e in common wit# t#e %enecas, ari! t#ree in common wit# t#e Mo#aw2s an! >nei!as, "#e <eer gens, w#ic# t#ey once possesse!, became extinct in mo!ern times. It will be notice!, also, t#at t#e 6olf gens is now !i;i!e! into two, t#e 9ray an! t#e 1ellow, an! t#e "(rtle into two, t#e 9reat an! little. "#ree of t#e gentes in t#e first p#ratry are t#e same wit# t#ree in t#e first p#ratry of t#e %enecas an! Cay(gas, wit# t#e exception t#at t#e 6olf gens is !o(ble. &s se;eral #(n!re! years elapse! between t#e separation of t#e "(scaroras from t#eir congeners an! t#eir ret(rn, it affor!s some e;i!ence of permanence in t#e existence of a gens. "#e gentes in t#e same p#ratry are calle! brot#er gentes to eac# ot#er, an! t#ose in t#e ot#er p#ratry t#eir co(sin gentes, as among t#e ot#er tribes. *rom t#e !ifferences in t#e composition of t#e p#ratries in t#e se;eral tribes it seems probable t#at, t#e p#ratries are mo!ifie! in t#eir gentes at inter;als of time to meet c#anges of con!ition. %ome gentes prosper an! increase in n(mbers, w#ile ot#ers t#ro(g# calamities !ecline an! ot#ers become extinct; so t#at transfers of gentes from one p#ratry to anot#er were fo(n! necessary to preser;e some !egree of e5(ality in t#e n(mber of p#rators in eac#. "#e p#ratric organiBation #as existe! among t#e Iro5(ois from time immemorial. It is probably ol!er t#an t#e confe!eracy w#ic# was establis#e! more t#an fo(r cent(ries ago. "#e amo(nt of !ifference in t#eir composition, as to t#e gentes t#ey contain, represents t#e ;icissit(!es t#ro(g# w#ic# eac# tribe #as passe! in t#e inter;al. In any ;iew of t#e matter it is small, ten!ing to ill(strate t#e permanence of t#e p#ratry as well as t#e gens. "#e Iro5(ois tribes #a! a. total of t#irty?eig#t gentes, an! in fo(r of t#e tribes a total of eig#t p#ratries. In its ob:ects an! (ses t#e Iro5(ois p#ratry falls below t#e 9recian, as wo(l! be s(ppose!, alt#o(g# o(r 2nowle!ge of t#e f(nctions of t#e latter is limite!; an! below w#at is 2nown of t#e (ses of t#e p#ratry among t#e 0oman tribes. In comparing t#e latter wit# t#e former we pass bac2war! t#ro(g# two et#nical perio!s, an! into a ;ery !ifferent con!ition of society. "#e !ifference is in t#e !egree of progress, an! not in 2in!; for we #a;e t#e same instit(tion in eac# race, !eri;e! from t#e same or a similar germ, an! preser;e! by eac# t#ro(g# immense perio!s of time as a part of a social system. 9entile society remaine! of necessity among t#e 9recian an! 0oman tribes (ntil political society s(per;ene!; an! it remaine! among t#e Iro5(ois tribes beca(se t#ey were still two et#nical perio!s below ci;iliBation. ';ery fact, t#erefore, in relation to t#e f(nctions an! (ses of t#e In!ian p#ratry is important; beca(se it ten!s to ill(strate t#e arc#aic c#aracter of en instit(tion w#ic# became so infl(ential in a more !e;elope! con!ition of society. "#e p#ratry, among t#e Iro5(ois, was partly for social an! partly for religio(s ob:ects. Its f(nctions an! (ses can be best s#own by practical ill(strations. 6e begin wit# t#e lowest, wit# games, w#ic# were of common occ(rrence at tribal an! confe!erate co(ncils. In t#e ball game, for example, among t#e %enecas, t#ey play by p#ratries, one against t#e ot#er; an! t#ey bet against eac# ot#er (pon t#e res(lt of t#e game. 'ac# p#ratry p(ts forwar! its best players, (s(ally from six to ten on a si!e, an! t#e members of eac# p#ratry assemble toget#er b(t (pon opposite si!es of t#e fiel! in w#ic# t#e game is playe!. /efore it commences, articles of personal

7H property are #aBar!e! (pon t#e res(lt by members of t#e opposite p#ratries. "#ese are !eposite! wit# 2eepers to abi!e t#e e;ent. "#e game is playe! wit# spirit an! ent#(siasm, an! is an exciting spectacle. "#e members of eac# p#ratry, from t#eir opposite stations, watc# t#e game wit# eagerness, an! c#eer air respecti;e players at e;ery s(ccessf(l t(rn of t#e games.[3] In many ways t#e p#ratric organiBation manifeste! itself. &t a co(ncil of t#e tribe t#e sac#ems an! c#iefs in eac# p#ratry (s(ally seate! t#emsel;es on opposite si!es of an imaginary co(ncil?fire, an! t#e spea2ers a!!resse! t#e two opposite bo!ies as t#e representati;es of t#e p#ratries. *ormalities, s(c# as t#ese, #a;e a pec(liar c#arm for t#e 0e! Man in t#e transaction of b(siness. &gain; w#en a m(r!er #a! been committe! it was (s(al for t#e gens of t#e m(r!ere! person to meet in co(ncil; an!, after ascertaining t#e facts, to ta2e meas(res for a;enging t#e !ee!. "#e gens of t#e criminal also #el! a co(ncil, an! en!ea;o(re! to effect an a!:(stment or con!o nation of t#e crime wit# t#e gens of t#e m(r!ere! person. /(t it often #appene! t#at t#e gens of t#e criminal calle! (pon t#e ot#er gentes of t#eir p#ratry, w#en t#e slayer an! t#e slain belonge! to opposite p#ratries, to (nite wit# t#em to obtain a con!onation of t#e crime. In s(c# a case t#e p#ratry #el! a co(ncil, an! t#en a!!resse! itself to t#e ot#er p#ratry to w#ic# it sent a !elegation wit# a belt of w#ite wamp(m as2ing for a co(ncil of t#e p#ratry, an! for an a!:(stment of t#e crime. "#ey offere! reparation to t#e family an! gens of t#e m(r!ere! person in expressions of regret an! in presents of ;al(e. =egotiations were contin(e! between t#e two co(ncils (ntil an affirmati;e or a negati;e concl(sion was reac#e!."#e infl(ence of a p#ratry compose! of se;eral gentes wo(l! be greater t#an t#at of a single gens; an! by calling into action t#e opposite p#ratry t#e probability of a con!onation wo(l! be increase!, especially if t#ere were exten(ating circ(mstances. 6e may t#(s see #ow nat(rally t#e 9recian p#ratry, prior to ci;iliBation, ass(me! t#e principal t#o(g# not excl(si;e management of cases of m(r!er, an! also of t#e p(rification of t#e m(r!erer if #e escape! p(nis#ment; an!, after t#e instit(tion of political society, wit# w#at proprietary t#e p#ratry ass(me! t#e !(ty of prosec(ting t#e m(r!erer in t#e co(rts of :(stice. &t t#e f(nerals of persons of recogniBe! importance in t#e tribe, t#e p#ratric organiBation manifeste! itself in a conspic(o(s manner. "#e p#rators of t#e !ece!ent in a bo!y were t#e mo(rners, an! t#e members of t#e opposite p#ratry con!(cte! t#e ceremonies. In t#e case of a sac#em it was (s(al far t#e opposite p#ratry to sen!, imme!iately after t#e f(neral, t#e official wamp(m belt of t#e !ecease! r(ler to t#e central co(ncil fire at >non!aga, as a notification of #is !emise. "#is was retaine! (ntil t#e installation of #is s(ccessor w#en it was bestowe! (pon #im as t#e insignia of #is office. &t t#e f(neral of Han!some a2e +9a?ne?o?!iF?yo., one of t#e eig#t %eneca sac#ems +w#ic# occ(rre! some yearsago., t#ere was an assemblage of sac#ems an! c#iefs to t#e n(mber of twenty? se;en, an! a large conco(rse of members of bot# p#ratries. "#e c(stomary a!!ress to t#e !ea! bo!y, an! t#e ot#er a!!resses before t#e remo;al of t#e bo!y, were ma!e by members of t#e opposite p#ratry. &fter t#e a!!resses were concl(!e!, t#e bo!y was borne to t#e gra;e by persons selecte! from t#e last name! p#ratry,

71 followe!, first, by t#e sac#ems an! c#iefs, t#en by t#e family an! gens of t#e !ece!ent, next by #is remaining p#rators, an! last by t#e members of t#e opposite p#ratry. &fter t#e bo!y #a! been !eposite! in t#e gra;e t#e sac#ems an! c#iefs forme! in a circle aro(n! it for t#e p(rpose of filling it wit# eart#; 'ac# in t(rn, commencing wit# t#e senior in years, cast in t#ree s#o;elf(ls, a typical n(mber in t#eir religio(s system of w#ic# t#e first #a! relation to t#e 9reat %pirit, t#e secon! to t#e %(n, an! t#e t#ir! to Mot#er 'art#. 6#en t#e gra;e was fille! t#e senior sac#em, by a fig(re of speec#, !eposite! Et#e #ornsF of t#e !eparte! sac#em, emblematical of #is office, (pon t#e top of t#e gra;e o;er #is #ea!, t#ere to remain (ntil #is s(ccessor was installe!. In t#at s(bse5(ent ceremony, Et#e #ornsF were sai! to be ta2en from t#e gra;e of t#e !ecease! r(ler, an! place! (pon t#e #ea! of #is s(ccessor.[4] "#e social an! religio(s f(nctions of t#e p#ratry, an! its nat(ralness in t#e organic system of ancient society, are ren!ere! apparently t#is single (sage. "#e p#ratry was also !irectly concerne! in t#e election of sac#ems an! c#iefs of t#e se;eral gents (pon w#ic# t#ey #a! a negati;e as well as a confirmati;e ;ote; &fter t#e gens of a !ecease! sac#em #a! electe! #is s(ccessor, or #a! electe! a c#ief of t#e secon! gra!e, it was necessary, as elsew#ere state!, t#at t#eir c#oice s#o(l! be accepte! an! confirme! by eac# p#ratry. It was expecte! t#at t#e gents of t#e same p#ratry wo(l! confirm t#e c#oice almost as a matter of co(rse; b(t t#e opposite p#ratry also m(st ac5(iesce, an! from t#is so(rce opposition sometimes appeare!. & co(ncil of eac# p#ratry was #el! an! prono(nce! (pon t#e 5(estion of acceptance or re:ection. If t#e nomination ma!e was accepte! by bot# it became complete; b(t it eit#er ref(se! it was t#ereby set asi!e an! a new election was ma!e by t#e gens. 6#en t#e c#oice ma!e by t#e gens #a! been accepte! by t#e p#ratries, it was still necessary, as elsew#ere state!, t#at, t#e new sac#em, or t#e new c#ief, s#o(l! be in;este! by t#e co(ncil of t#e confe!eracy w#ic# alone #a! power to in;est wit# office. "#e %enecas #a;e now lost t#eir me!icine o!ges w#ic# fell o(t in mo!ern times; b(t t#ey formerly existe! an! forme! a prominent part of t#eir religio(s system. "o #ol! a Me!icine o!ge was to obser;e t#eir #ig#est religio(s rites, an! to practice t#eir #ig#est religio(s mysteries. "#ey #a! two s(c# organiBations, one in eac# p#ratry, w#ic# s#ows still f(rt#er t#e nat(ral connection of t#e p#ratry wit# religio(s obser;ances. Iery little is now 2nown concerning t#ese lo!ges or t#eir ceremonies. 'ac# was a brot#er#oo! into w#ic# new member were a!mitte! by a normal initiation. "#e p#ratry was wit#o(t go;ernmental f(nction in t#e strict sense of t#e p#rase, t#ese being confine! to t#e gens, tribe an! confe!eracy; b(t it entere! into t#eir social affairs w#ic# large a!ministrati;e powers, an! wo(l! #a;e concerne! itself more an! more wit# t#eir religio(s affairs as t#e con!ition of t#e people a!;ance!. $nli2e t#e 9recian p#ratry an! t#e 0oman curia it #a! no official #ea!. "#ere was no c#ief of t#e p#ratry as s(c# an! no religio(s f(nctionaries belonging to it as !isting(is#e! from t#e gens an! tribe. "#e p#ratric instit(tion among t#e Iro5(ois was in its r(!imentary arc#aic form, b(t it grew into life by nat(ral an! ine;itable !e;elopment, an! remaine! permanent beca(se it met necessary wants. ';ery

7D instit(tion of man2in! w#ic# attaine! permanence will be fo(n! lin2e! wit# a perpet(al want. 6it# t#e gens, tribe an! confe!eracy in existence t#e presence of t#e p#ratry was s(bstantially ass(re!. It re5(ire! time, #owe;er, an! f(rt#er experience to manifest all t#e (ses to w#ic# it mig#t be ma!e s(bser;ient. &mong t#e Iillage In!ians of Mexico an! Central &merica t#e p#ratry m(st #a;e existe!, reasoning (pon general principles; an! #a;e been a more f(lly !e;elope! an! infl(ential organiBation t#an among t#e Iro5(ois. $nfort(nately, mere glimpses at s(c# an instit(tion are all t#at can be fo(n! in t#e teeming narrati;es of t#e %panis# writers wit#in t#e first cent(ry after t#e %panis# con5(est; "#e fo(r ElineagesF of t#e "lascalans w#o occ(pie! t#e fo(r 5(arters of t#e p(eblo of "lascala, were, in all probability, so many p#ratries. "#ey were s(fficiently n(mero(s for fo(r tribes; b(t as t#ey occ(pie! t#e same p(eblo an! spo2e t#e same !ialect t#e p#ratric organiBation was apparently a necessity. 'ac# lineage, or p#ratry so to call it, #a! a !istinct military organiBation, a pec(liar cost(me an! banner, an! its #ea! war?c#ief +Tenctli.$ w#o was its general military comman!er. "#ey went fort# to battle by p#ratries. "#e organiBation of a military force by p#ratries an! by tribes was not (n2nown to t#e Homeric 9ree2s. "#(s; =estor a!;ises &gamemnon to separate )t#e troops by prairies an! by tribes, so t#at p#ratry may s(pport p#ratry an! tribe tribe.8 [5] $n!er gentile instit(tion of t#e most a!;ance! type t#e principle of 2in became to a consi!erable extent, t#e basis of t#e army organiBation. "#e &Btec, in li2e manner, occ(pie! t#e p(eblo of Mexico in fo(r !istinct !i;isions, t#e people of eac# of w#ic# were more nearly relate! to eac# ot#er t#an to t#e people of t#e ot#er !i;isions. "#ey were separate lineages li2e t#e "lascalan, an! it, seems #ig#ly probably were fo(r prairies separately organiBe! as s(c#. "#ey were !isting(is#e! from eac# ot#er by cost(mes an! stan!ar!s, an! went o(t to war as separate !i;isions. "#eir geograp#ical areas were calle! t#e fo(r 5(arters of Mexico. "#e s(b:ect will #e referre! to again. 6it# respect to t#e pre;alence of t#is organiBation, among t#e In!ian t#ralls in t#e lower stat(s of barbarism, t#e s(b:ect #as been b(t slig#tly in;estigate!. It is probable t#at it was general in t#e principal tribes from t#e nat(ral manner in w#ic# it springs (p as a necessary member of t#e organic series an! from t#e (ses, ot#er t#an go;ernment to w#ic# it was a!apte!. In some of t#e tribes t#e p#raties stan! o(t prominently (pon t#e face of t#eir organiBation "#(s, t#e C#octa gents are (nite! in two p#ratries w#ic# m(st be mentione! first in or!er to s#ow t#e relation of t#e gents to eac# ot#er. "#e first p#ratry is calle! E<i;i!e! 3eople,F an! also contains fo(r gentes. "#e secon! is calle! E/elo;e! peopleF an! also contains fo(r gents. "#is separation of t#e people into two !i;ision by gents create! two p#ratries. %ome 2nowle!ge of t#e f(nctions of t#ese p#ratries is of co(rse !esirable b(t wit#o(t it t#e fact of t#eir existence is establis#e! by t#e !i;isions t#emsel;es. "#e e;ol(tion of a confe!eracy from a pair of gents for less t#an two are ne;er fo(n! in any tribe, may #e !e!(ce! t#eoretically, from t#e 2nown facts of In!ian experience. "#(s t#e gens increases in t#e n(mber of its members an! !i;i!es into two; t#ese again s(b!i;i!e, an! in time re(nite in tow or more p#ratries. "#ese p#ratries form a tribe, an! its members spea2 t#e same !ialect. In co(rse of time t#is tribe falls into se;eral by t#e process

7A of segmentation, w#ic# in t(rn re(nite in a confe!eracy. %(c# a confe!eracy is a growt#, t#ro(g# t#e tribe an! p#ratry, from a pair of gentes. "#e C#ic2asas are organiBe! in two p#ratries, of w#ic# one contains fo(r, an! t#e ot#er eig#t gentes, as follows: I !anther !hratry Gentes. /$ 9ild cat. ,$ Bird. .$ ish 5$ 7eer. II Spanish !hratry Gentes. * 0$ Raccoon. :$ Spanish -$ Royal. ; Hush+oni =* S>uirrel /1$ Alligator. //$ 9old. /,$ Blac+bird. "#e partic(lars wit# regar! to C#octa an! C#ic2asa 3#ratries, I am (nable to present. %ome fo(rteen years ago t#ese organiBations were gi;en to me by 0e;. <octor Cyr(s /yington an! 0e;. C#arles C. Copelan!, b(t wit#o(t !isc(ssing t#eir (ses an! f(nctions. & ;ery complete ill(stration of t#e manner in w#ic# p#ratries are forme! by nat(ral growt#, t#ro(g# t#e s(b?!i;ision of gentes, is presente! by t#e organiBation of t#e Mo#egan tribe. It #a! t#ree original gentes, t#e 6olf, t#e "(rtle, an! t#e "(r2ey. 'ac# of t#ese s(b!i;i!e!, an! t#e s(b!i;isions became in!epen!ent gentes; b(t t#ey retaine! t#e names of t#e original gentes as t#eir respecti;e p#ratric names. In ot#er wor!s t#e s(b!i;isions of eac# gens reorganiBe! in a p#ratry. It pro;es concl(si;ely t#e nat(ral process by w#ic#, in co(rse of time, a gens brea2s (p into se;eral, an! t#ese remain (nite! in a p#ratric organiBation, w#ic# is expresse! by ass(ming a p#ratric name. "#ey are as follows: I. 9olf !hratry I 9entes. ? /$ 9olf. ,$ Bear. .$ 7og. 5$ &possum. II Turtle !hratry. 9entes. ? 0$ Little Turtle. :$ 'ud Turtle. -$ Great Turtle. ;$ <ello( Eel III. Tur+ey !hratry. 9entes.? =. Tur+ey. /1. ?rane. //. ?hic+en. It is t#(s seen t#at t#e original 6olf gens !i;i!e! into fo(r gentes, t#e "(rtle into fo(r, an! t#e "(r2ey into t#ree. 'ac# new gens too2 a new name, t#e original retaining its own, w#ic# became, by seniority, t#at of t#e p#ratry. It is rare among t#e &merican In!ian tribes to fin! s(c# plain e;i!ence of t#e segmentation of gentes in t#eir external organiBation, followe! by t#e formation into p#ratries of t#eir respecti;e s(b!i;isions. It s#ows also t#at t#e p#ratry is fo(n!e! (pon t#e 2ins#ip of t#e gentes. &s a r(le t#e name of t#e original gens o(t of w#ic# ot#ers #a! forme! is not 2nown; b(t in eac# of t#ese cases it remains as t#e name of t#e p#ratry, %ince t#e latter, li2e t#e 9recian, was a social an! religio(s rat#er t#an a go;ernmental organiBation, it is externally less conspic(o(s t#an a gens or tribe w#ic# were essential to t#e go;ernment of society. "#e name of b(t one of t#e

7twel;e &t#enian p#ratries #as come !own to (s in #istory. "#ose of t#e Iro5(ois #a! no name b(t, t#at of a brot#er#oo!. "#e <elawares an! M(nsees #a;e t#e same t#ree gentes, t#e 6olf, t#e "(rtle, an! t#e "(r2ey. &mong t#e <elawares t#ere are twel;e embryo gentes in eac# tribe, b(t t#ey seem to be lineages wit#in t#e gentes an! #a! not ta2en gentile names. It was a mo;ement, #owe;er, in t#at !irection. "#e p#ratry also appears among t#e "#lin2eets of t#e =ort#west coast, (pon t#e s(rface of t#eir organiBation into gentes. "#ey #a;e two p#ratries, as follows: I. 9olf !hratry. Gentes.* /. Bear. @. Eagle. .. 7olphin. 5. Shar+. 0. Elca. II. Raven !hratry, Gentes.* :. rog. -. Goose. ;. Sea*lion$ =. &(l. /1. Salmon. Intermarriage in t#e p#ratry is pro#ibite!, w#ic# s#ows of itself, t#at t#e gentes of eac# p#ratry were !eri;e! from an original gens.[6] "#e members of any gens in t#e 6olf p#ratry co(l! marry into any gens of t#e opposite p#ratry, an! vice versa. *rom t#e foregoing facts t#e existence of t#e p#ratry is establis#e! in se;eral ling(istic stoc2s of t#e &merican aborigines. Its presence in t#e tribes name! raises a pres(mption of its general pre;alence in t#e 9anowanian family. &mong t#e Iillage In!ians, w#ere t#e n(mbers in a gens an! tribe were greater, it wo(l! necessarily #a;e been more important an! conse5(ently more f(lly !e;elope!. &s an instit(tion it was still in its arc#aic form, b(t it possesse! t#e essential elements of t#e 9recian an! t#e 0oman. It can now be asserte! t#at t#e f(ll organic series of ancient society exists in f(ll ;itality (pon t#e &merican continent; namely, t#e gens, t#e p#ratry, t#e tribe, an! t#e confe!eracy of tribes. 6it# f(rt#er proofs yet to #e a!!(ce!, t#e (ni;ersality of t#e gentile organiBation (pon all t#e continents will be establis#e!. If f(t(re in;estigation is !irecte! specially in t#e f(nctions of t#e p#ratric organiBation among t#e tribes of t#e &merican aborigines, t#e 2nowle!ge gaine! will explain many pec(liarities of In!ian life an! manners not well (n!erstoo!, an! t#row a!!itional lig#t (pon t#eir (sages an! c(stoms, an! (pon t#eir plan of life an! go;ernment.

Footnotes
1 <ionysi(s, lib. II, cap; ;ii; an! ;i!. lib. II, c. xiii. by &esc#yl(s: )'(meni!es,8 G4G. ! "#at p(rification was performe! by t#e p#ratry is intimate!. " ) eag(e of t#e Iro5(ois,8 p. D,-. # It was a :o(rney of ten !ays from eart# to #ea;en for t#e !eparte! spirit, accor!ing to Iro5(ois belief. *or ten !ays after t#e !eat# of a person, t#e mo(rners met nig#tly to lament t#e !ecease!, at w#ic# t#ey in!(lge! in excessi;e grief. "#e !irge or wail was performe! by women. It was an ancient c(stom to ma2e a fire on t#e gra;e eac# nig#t for t#e same perio!. >n t#e ele;ent# !ay t#ey #el! a feast; t#e spirit of t#e !eparte! #a;ing reac#e! #ea;en, t#e place of rest, t#ere was no f(rt#er for mo(rning. 6it# t#e feast it terminate!.

74
$ )Ilia!,8 ii, .:,. % /ancroftFs )=ati;e 0aces of t#e 3acific %tates,8 I, 1H,.

Chapter IV THE IROQUOIS TRIBE

It is !iffic(lt to !escribe an In!ian tribe by t#e &ffirmati;e elements of its composition. =e;ert#eless it is clearly mar2e!, an! t#e (ltimate organiBation of t#e great bo!y of t#e &merican aborigines. "#e large n(mber of in!epen!ent tribes into w#ic# t#ey #a! fallen by t#e nat(ral process of segmentation, is t#e stri2ing c#aracteristic of t#eir con!ition. 'ac# tribe was in!i;i!(aliBe! by a name, by a separate !ialect, by a s(preme go;ernment, an! by t#e possession of a territory w#ic# it occ(pie! an! !efen!e! as its own. "#e tribes were as n(mero(s as t#e !ialects, for separation !i! not become complete (ntil !ialectical ;ariation #a! commence!. In!ian tribes, t#erefore, are nat(ral growt#s t#ro(g# t#e separation of t#e same people in t#e area of t#eir occ(pation, followe! by !i;ergence of speec#, segmentation, an! in!epen!ence. 6e #a;e seen t#at t#e p#ratry was not so m(c# a go;ernmental as a social organiBation, w#ile t#e gens, tribe, an! confe!eracy, were necessary an! logical stages of progress in t#e growt# of t#e i!ea of go;ernment. & confe!eracy co(l! not exist, (n!er gentile society, wit#o(t tribes as a basis; nor co(l! tribes exist wit#o(t gentes, t#o(g# t#ey mig#t wit#o(t p#ratries. In t#is c#apter I will en!ea;o(r to point o(t t#e manner in w#ic# t#ese n(mero(s tribes were forme!, an!, pres(mpti;ely o(t of one original people; t#e ca(ses w#ic# pro!(ce! t#eir perpet(al segmentation; an! t#e principal attrib(tes w#ic# !isting(is#e! an In!ian tribe as an organiBation. "#e excl(si;e possession of a !ialect an! of a territory #as le! to t#e application of t#e term nation to many In!ian tribes, notwit#stan!ing t#e fewness of t#e people in eac#. "ribe an! nation, #owe;er, are not strict e5(i;alents. & nation !oes not arise, (n!er gentile instit(tions, (ntil t#e tribes (nite! (n!er t#e same go;ernment #a;e coalesce! into one people, as t#e fo(r &t#enian tribes coalesce! in &ttica, t#ree <orian tribes at %parta, an! t#ree atin an! %abine tribes at 0ome. *e!eration re5(ires in!epen!ent tribes in separate territorial areas; b(t coalescence (nites t#em by, a #ig#er process in t#e same area, alt#o(g# t#e ten!ency to local separation by gentes an! by tribes wo(l! contin(e. "#e confe!eracy is t#e nearest analog(e of t#e nation, b(t not strictly e5(i;alent. 6#ere t#e gentile organiBation exists, t#e organic series gi;es all t#e terms w#ic# are nee!e! for a correct !escription. &n In!ian tribe is compose! of se;eral gentes, !e;elope! from two or more, all t#e members of w#ic# are intermingle! by marriage, an! all of w#om spea2 t#e same !ialect. "o a stranger t#e tribe is ;isible, an! not t#e gens. "#e instances are extremely rare, among t#e &merican aborigines, in w#ic# t#e tribe embrace! peoples spea2ing !ifferent !ialects. 6#en s(c# cases are fo(n!, it res(lte! from t#e (nion of a wea2er wit# a stronger tribe, spea2ing a closely relate! !ialect, as t#e (nion of t#e Misso(ris wit# t#e >toes after t#e o;ert#row of t#e former. "#e fact

7G t#at t#e great bo!y of t#e aborigines were fo(n! in in!epen!ent tribes ill(strates t#e slow an! !iffic(lt growt# of t#e i!ea of go;ernment (n!er gentile instit(tions. & small portion only #a! attaine! to t#e (ltimate stage 2nown among t#em, t#at of a confe!eracy of tribes spea2ing !ialects of t#e same stoc2 lang(age. & coalescence of tribes into a nation #a! not occ(rre! in any case in any part of &merica. & constant ten!ency to !isintegration, w#ic# #as pro;e! s(c# a #in!rance to progress among sa;age an! barbaro(s tribes, existe! in t#e elements of t#e gentile organiBation. It was aggra;ate! by a f(rt#er ten!ency to !i;ergence of speec#, w#ic# was inseparable from t#eir social state an! t#e large areas of t#eir occ(pation. & ;erbal lang(age, alt#o(g# remar2ably persistent in its ;ocables, an! still more persistent in its grammatical forms, is incapable of permanence. %eparation of t#e people in area was followe! in time by ;ariation in speec#; an! t#is, in? t(rn, le! to separation in interests an! (ltimate in!epen!ence. It was not t#e wor2 of a brief perio!, b(t of cent(ries of time, aggregating finally into t#o(san!s of years. "#e great n(mber of !ialects an! stoc2 lang(ages in =ort# an! %o(t# &merica, w#ic# pres(mpti;ely were !eri;e!, t#e 's2imo excepte!, from one original lang(age, re5(ire for t#eir formation t#e time meas(re! by t#ree et#nical perio!s. =ew tribes as well as new gentes were constantly forming by nat(ral growt#; an! t#e process was sensibly accelerate! by t#e great, expanse of t#e &merican continent. "#e met#o! was simple. In t#e first place t#ere wo(l! occ(r a gra!(al o(tflow of people from some o;erstoc2e! geograp#ical centre, w#ic# possesse! s(perior a!;antages in t#e means of s(bsistence. Contin(e! from year to year, a consi!erable pop(lation wo(l! t#(s be !e;elope! at a !istance from t#e original seat of t#e tribe. In co(rse of time t#e emigrants wo(l! become !istinct in interests, strangers in feeling, an! last of all, !i;ergent in speec#. %eparation an! in!epen!ence wo(l! follow, alt#o(g# t#eir territories were contig(o(s. & new tribe was t#(s create!. "#is is a concise statement of t#e manner in w#ic# t#e tribes of t#e &merican aborigines were forme!, b(t t#e statement m(st be ta2en as general. 0epeating itself from age to age in newly ac5(ire! as well as in ol! areas, it m(st be regar!e! as a nat(ral as well as ine;itable res(lt of t#e gentile organiBation, (nite! wit# t#e necessities of t#eir con!ition. 6#en increase! n(mbers presse! (pon t#e means of s(bsistence, t#e s(rpl(s remo;e! to a new seat w#ere t#ey establis#e! t#emsel;es wit# facility, beca(se t#e go;ernment was perfect in e;ery gens, an! in any n(mber of gentes (nite! in a ban!. &mong t#e Iillage In!ians t#e same repeate! itself in a slig#tly !ifferent manner. 6#en a ;illage became o;ercrow!e! wit# n(mbers; a colony went (p or !own on t#e same stream an! commence! a new ;illage. 0epeate! at inter;als of times, se;eral s(c# ;illages wo(l! appear, eac# in!epen!ent of t#e ot#er an! a self?go;erning bo!y; b(t (nite! in a leag(e or confe!eracy for m(t(al protection. <ialectical ;ariation wo(l! finally spring (p, an! t#(s complete t#eir growt# into tribes. "#e manner in w#ic# tribes are e;ol;e! from eac# ot#er can be s#own !irectly by examples. "#e fact of separation is !eri;e! in part from tra!ition, in part from t#e possession by eac# of a n(mber of t#e same gentes, an! !e!(ce! in part from t#e relations of t#eir !ialects. "ribes forme! by t#e s(b!i;isions of an original tribe wo(l! possess a n(mber of gentes in common, an! spea2 !ialects of t#e same lang(age. &fter se;eral cent(ries

77 of separation t#ey wo(l! still #a;e a n(mber of t#e same gentes. "#(s, t#e H(rons, now 6yan!otes, #a;e six gentes of t#e same name wit# six of t#e gentes of t#e %eneca?Iro5(ois, after at least fo(r #(n!re! years of separation. "#e 3otawattamies #a;e eig#t gentes of t#e same name wit# eig#t among t#e >:ibwas, w#ile t#e former #a;e six, an! t#e latter fo(rteen, w#ic# are !ifferent; s#owing t#at, new gentes #a;e been forme! in eac# tribe by segmentation since t#eir separation. & still ol!er offs#oot from t#e >:ibwas, or from t#e common parent tribe of bot#, t#e Miamis, #a;e b(t, t#ree gentes in common wit# t#e former, namely, t#e 6olf, t#e oon, an! t#e 'agle. "#e min(te social #istory of t#e tribes of t#e 9anowanian family is loc2e! (p in t#e life an! growt# of t#e gentes. If in;estigation is e;er t(rne! strongly in t#is !irection, t#e gentes t#emsel;es wo(l! become reliable g(i!es, bot# in respect to t#e or!er of separation from eac# ot#er of t#e tribes of t#e same stoc2, an! possibly of t#e great stoc2s of t#e aborigines. "#e following ill(strations are !rawn from tribes in t#e ower %tat(s of barbarism. 6#en !isco;ere!, t#e eig#t Misso(ri tribes occ(pie! t#e ban2s of t#e Misso(ri ri;er for more t#an a t#o(san! miles; toget#er wit# t#e ban2s of its trib(taries, t#e 7ansas an! t#e 3latte; an! also t#e smaller ri;ers of Iowa. "#ey also occ(pie! t#e west ban2 of t#e Mississippi !own to t#e &r2ansas. "#eir !ialects s#ow t#at t#e people were in t#ree tribes before t#e last s(b!i;isions; namely, first, t#e 3(n2as an! >ma#as, secon!, t#e Iowas, >toes an! Misso(ris, an! t#ir!, t#e 7aws, >sages an! J(appas. "#ese t#ree were (n!o(bte!ly s(b!i;isions of a single original tribe, beca(se t#eir se;eral !ialects are still m(c# nearer to eac# ot#er t#an to any ot#er !ialect of t#e <a2otian stoc2 lang(age to w#ic# t#ey belong. "#ere is, t#erefore, a linguistic necessity for t#eir !eri;ation from an original tribe. & gra!(al sprea! from a central point on t#is ri;er along its ban2s, bot# abo;e an! below, wo(l! lea! to a separation in interests wit# t#e increase of !istance between t#eir settlements, followe! by !i;ergence of speec#, an! finally by in!epen!ence. & people t#(s exten!ing t#emsel;es along a ri;er in a prairie co(ntry mig#t separate, first into t#ree tribes, an! afterwar!s into eig#t, an! t#e organiBation of eac# s(b!i;ision remain complete. <i;ision was neit#er a s#oc2, nor an appreciate! calamity; b(t a separation into parts by nat(ral expansion o;er a larger area, followe! by a complete segmentation. "#e (ppermost tribe on t#e Misso(ri were t#e 3(n2as at t#e mo(t# of t#e =iobrara ri;er, an! t#e lowermost t#e J(appas at t#e mo(t# of t#e &r2ansas on t#e Mississippi, wit# an inter;al of near fifteen #(n!re! miles between t#em. "#e interme!iate region, confine! to t#e narrow belt of forest (pon t#e Misso(ri, was #el! by t#e remaining six tribes. "#ey were strictly 0i;er "ribes. &not#er ill(stration may be fo(n! in t#e tribes of a2e %(perior. "#e >:ibwas, >tawas[1] an! 3otawattamies are s(b!i;isions of an original tribe; t#e >:ibwas representing t#e stem, beca(se t#ey remaine! at t#e original seat at t#e great fis#eries (pon t#e o(tlet of t#e la2e. Moreo;er, t#ey are style! E'l!er /rot#erF by t#e remaining two; w#ile t#e >tawas were style! E=ext >l!er /rot#er,F an! t#e 3otawattamies E1o(nger /rot#er.F "#e last tribe separate! first, an! t#e >tawas last, as is s#own by t#e relati;e amo(nt of !ialectical ;ariation, t#at of t#e former being greatest. &t t#e time of t#eir !isco;ery, &.<. 1G-1, t#e >:ibwas were seate! at t#e 0api!s on t#e o(tlet of a2e %(perior, from w#ic# point t#ey #a! sprea! along t#e so(t#ern s#ore of t#e la2e to t#e site of >ntonagon, along its nort#?eastern

78 s#ore, an! !own t#e %t. Mary 0i;er well towar! a2e H(ron. "#eir position possesse! remar2able a!;antages for a fis# an! game s(bsistence, w#ic#, as t#ey !i! not c(lti;ate maiBe an! plants, was t#eir main reliance. [2] It was secon! to none in =ort# &merica, wit# t#e single exception of t#e Ialley of t#e Col(mbia. 6it# s(c# a!;antages t#ey were certain to !e;elop a large In!ian pop(lation, an! to sen! o(t s(ccessi;e ban!s of emigrants to become in!epen!ent tribes. "#e 3otawattamies occ(pie! a region on t#e confines. of $pper Mic#igan an! 6isconsin, from w#ic# t#e <a2otas in 1G-1, were in t#e act of expelling t#em. &t t#e same time t#e >tawas, w#ose earlier resi!ence is s(ppose! to #a;e been on t#e >tawa ri;er of Cana!a, #a! !rawn westwar! an! were t#en seate! (pon t#e 9eorgian /ay, t#e Manito(line Islan!s an! at Mac2inaw, from w#ic# points t#ey were sprea!ing so(t#war! o;er ower Mic#igan. >riginally one people, an! possessing t#e same gentes, t#ey #a! s(ccee!e! in appropriating a large area. %eparation in place, an! !istance between t#eir settlements, #a! long before t#eir !isco;ery res(lte! in t#e formation of !ialects, an! in tribal in!epen!ence. "#e t#ree tribes, w#ose territories were contig(o(s, #a! forme! an alliance for m(t(al protection, 2nown among &mericans as Et#e >tawa Confe!eracy.F It was a leag(e, offensi;e an! !efensi;e, an! not, probably, a close confe!eracy li2e t#at of t#e Iro5(ois. 3rior to t#ese secessions anot#er affiliate! tribe, t#e Miamis, #a! bro2en of from t#e >:ibwa stoc2, or t#e common parent tribe, an! migrate! to central Illinois an! western In!iana. *ollowing in t#e trac2 of t#is migration were t#e Illinois, anot#er an! later offs#oot from t#e same stem, w#o afterwar!s s(b!i;i!e! into t#e 3eorias, 7as2as2ias, 6eaws, an! 3ian2es#aws. "#eir !ialects, wit# t#at of t#e Miamis, fin! t#eir nearest affinity wit# t#e >:ibwa, an! next wit# t#e Cree. [3] "#e o(tflow of all t#ese tribes from t#e central seat at t#e great fis#eries of a2e %(perior is a significant fact, beca(se it ill(strates t#e manner in w#ic# tribes are forme! in connection wit# nat(ral centres of s(bsistence. "#e =ew 'nglan!, <elaware, Marylan!, Iirginia an! Carolina &lgon2ins were, in all probability, !eri;e! from t#e same so(rce. %e;eral cent(ries wo(l! be re5(ire! for t#e formation of t#e !ialects first name!, an! for t#e pro!(ction of t#e amo(nt of ;ariation t#ey now ex#ibit. "#e foregoing examples represent t#e nat(ral process by w#ic# tribes are e;ol;e! from eac# ot#er, or from a parent tribe establis#e! in an a!;antageo(s position. 'ac# emigrating ban! was in t#e nat(re of a military colony, if it may be so strongly c#aracteriBe!, see2ing to ac5(ire an! #ol! a new area; preser;ing at first, an! as long as possible, a connection wit# t#e mot#er tribe. /y t#ese s(ccessi;e mo;ements t#ey so(g#t to expan! t#eir :oint possessions, an! afterwar! to resist t#e intr(sion of alien people wit#in t#eir limits. It is a noticeable fact t#at In!ian tribes spea2ing !ialects of t#e same stoc2 lang(age #a;e (s(ally been fo(n! in territorial contin(ity, #owe;er exten!e! t#eir common area. "#e same #as, in t#e main, been tr(e of all t#e tribes of man2in! ling(istically (nite!. It is beca(se t#e people, sprea!ing from some geograp#ical centre, an! maintaining an ar!(o(s str(ggle for s(bsistence, an! for t#e possession of t#eir new territories, #a;e pre? ser;e! t#eir connection wit# t#e mot#er lan! as a means of s(cco(r in times of !anger, an! as a place of ref(ge in calamity.

7, It re5(ire! special a!;antages in t#e means of s(bsistence to ren!er any area an initial point of migration t#ro(g# t#e gra!(al !e;elopment of a s(rpl(s pop(lation. [4] "#ese nat(ral centres were few in n(mber in =ort# &merica. "#ere are b(t t#ree. *irst among t#em is t#e Ialley of t#e Col(mbia, t#e most extraor!inary region on t#e face of t#e eart# in t#e ;ariety an! amo(nt of s(bsistence it affor!e!, prior to t#e c(lti;ation of maiBe an! plants; secon!, t#e penins(la between a2es %(perior, H(ron an! Mic#igan, t#e seat of t#e >:ibwas, an! t#e n(rsery lan! of many In!ian tribes; an! t#ir!, t#e la2e region in Minnesota, t#e n(rsery gro(n! of t#e present <a2ota tribes. "#ese are t#e only regions in =ort# &merica t#at can be calle! nat(ral centres of s(bsistence, an! nat(ral so(rces of s(rpl(s n(mbers. "#ere are reasons for belie;ing t#at Minnesota was a part of t#e &lgon2in area before it was occ(pie! by t#e <a2otas. 6#en t#e c(lti;ation of maiBe an! plants came in, it ten!e! to localiBe t#e people an! s(pport t#em in smaller areas, as well as to increase t#eir n(mbers; b(t it faile! to transfer t#e control of t#e continent to t#e most a!;ance! tribes of Iillage In!ians, w#o s(bsiste! almost entirely by c(lti;ation. Hortic(lt(re sprea! among t#e principal tribes in t#e ower %tat(s of barbarism an! greatly impro;e! t#eir con!ition. "#ey #el!, wit# t#e non? #ortic(lt(ral tribes, t#e great areas of =ort# &merica w#en it was !isco;ere!, an! from t#eir ran2s t#e continent was being replenis#e! wit# in#abitants.[5] "#e m(ltiplication of tribes an! !ialects #as been t#e fr(itf(l so(rce of t#e incessant warfare of t#e aborigines (pon eac# ot#er. &s a r(le t#e most persistent warfare #as been wage! between tribes spea2ing !ifferent stoc2 lang(ages; as, for example, between t#e Iro5(ois an! &lgon2in tribes, an! between t#e <a2ota tribes an! t#e same. >n t#e contrary t#e &lgon2in an! <a2ota tribes se;erally #a;e, in general, li;e! at peace among t#emsel;es. Ha! it been ot#erwise t#ey wo(l! not #a;e been fo(n! in t#e occ(pation of contin(o(s areas. "#e worst exception were t#e Iro5(ois, w#o p(rs(e! a war of extermination against t#eir 2in!re! tribes, t#e 'ries, t#e =e(tral =ation, t#e H(rons an! t#e %(s5(e#annoc2s. "ribes spea2ing !ialects of t#e same stoc2 lang(age are able to comm(nicate orally an! t#(s compose t#eir !ifferences. "#ey also learne!, in ;irt(e of t#eir common !escent, to !epen! (pon eac# ot#er as nat(ral allies. =(mbers wit#in a gi;en area were limite! by t#e amo(nt of s(bsistence it affor!e!. 6#en fis# an! game were t#e main reliance for foo!, it re5(ire! an immense area to maintain a small tribe. &fter farinaceo(s foo! was s(pera!!e! to fis# an! game, t#e area occ(pie! by a tribe was still a large one in proportion to t#e n(mber of t#e people. =ew 1or2, wit# its forty?se;en t#o(san! s5(are miles, ne;er containe! at any time more t#an twenty? fi;e t#o(san! In!ians, incl(!ing wit# t#e Iro5(ois t#e &lgon2ins on t#e east si!e of t#e H(!son an! (pon ong Islan!, an! t#e 'ries an! =e(tral =ation in t#e western section of t#e state. & personal go;ernment fo(n!e! (pon gentes was incapable of !e;eloping s(fficient central power to follow an! control t#e increasing n(mbers of t#e people, (nless t#ey remaine! wit#in a reasonable !istance from eac# ot#er. &mong t#e Iillage In!ians of =ew Mexico, Mexico, an! Central &merica an increase of n(mbers in a small area !i! not arrest t#e process of !isintegration. 'ac# p(eblo was (s(ally an in!epen!ent self?go;erning comm(nity. 6#ere se;eral

8H p(eblos were seate! near eac# ot#er on t#e same stream, t#e people were (s(ally of common !escent, an! eit#er (n!er a tribal or confe!erate go;ernment. "#ere are some se;en stoc2 lang(ages in =ew Mexico alone, eac# spo2en in se;eral !ialects. &t t#e time of Corona!oFs expe!ition, 14-H?14-D, t#e ;illages fo(n! were n(mero(s b(t small. "#ere were se;en eac# of Cibola, "(cayan, J(i;ira, an! HemeB, an! twel;e of "ig(ex,[6] an! ot#er gro(ps in!icating a ling(istic connection of t#eir members. 6#et#er or not eac# gro(p was confe!erate! we are not informe!. "#e se;en Mo5(i 3(eblos +t#e "(cayan Iillages of Corona!oFs expe!ition., are sai! to be confe!erate! at t#e present time, an! probably were at t#e time of t#eir !isco;ery. "#e process of s(b!i;ision, ill(strate! by t#e foregoing examples, #as been operating among t#e &merican aborigines for t#o(san!s of years, (ntil (pwar!s of forty stoc2 lang(ages, as near as is 2nown, #a;e been !e;elope! in =ort# &merica alone; eac# spo2en in a n(mber of !ialects, by an e5(al n(mber of in!epen!ent tribes. "#eir experience, probably, was b(t a repetition of t#at of t#e tribes of &sia, '(rope an! &frica, w#en t#ey were in correspon!ing con!itions. *rom t#e prece!ing obser;ations, it is apparent t#at an &merican In!ian tribe is a ;ery simple as well as #(mble organiBation. It re5(ire! b(t a few #(n!re!s, an!,at most, a few t#o(san! people to form a tribe, an! place it, in a respectable position in t#e 9onawanian family. It remains to present t#e f(nctions an! attrib(tes of an In!ian tribe, w#ic# may be !isc(sse! (n!er t#e following propositions: I. The possession of a territory and a name. II. The e"clusive possession of a dialect. III. The right to invest sachems and chiefs elected by the gentes. II. The right to depose these sachems and chiefs. I. The possession of a religious faith and (orship. II. A supreme government consisting of a council of chiefs. III. A head*chief of the tribe in some instances. It will be s(fficient to ma2e a brief reference to eac# of t#ese se;eral attrib(tes of a tribe. I. The possession of a territory and a name. "#eir territory consiste! of t#e area of t#eir act(al settlements an! so m(c# of t#e s(rro(n!ing region as t#e tribe range! o;er in #(nting an! fis#ing, an! were able to !efen! against t#e encroac#ments of ot#er tribes. 6it#o(t t#is area was a wi!e margin of ne(tral gro(n!s, separating t#em from t#eir nearest frontegers if t#ey spo2e a !ifferent lang(age, ari! claime! by neit#er; b(t less wi!e, an! less !early mar2e!, w#en t#ey spo2e !ialects of t#e same lang(age. "#e co(ntry t#(s imperfectly !efine!, w#et#er large or small, was t#e !omain of t#e tribe, recogniBe! as s(c# by ot#er tribes, an! !efen!e! as s(c# by t#emsel;es. In !(e time t#e tribe became in!i;i!(aliBe! by a name, w#ic#, from t#eir (s(al c#aracter, m(st #a;e been in many cases acci!ental rat#er t#an !eliberate. "#(s, t#e

81 %enecas style! t#emsel;es t#e E9reat, Hill 3eopleF +=(n?!aF?wa? o?no., t#e "(scaroras, E%#irt?wearing 3eopleF +<(s?gaF? o?we#?o?noF., t#e %issetons, EIillage of t#e Mars#F +%is? seF?to?wan., t#e >galallas, ECamp Mo;ersF +H?ga?lalF?la., t#e >ma#as, E$pstream 3eopleF +>?maF?#a., t#e Iowas, E<(sty =osesF +3a?#oF?c#a., t#e Minnitarees, E3eople from &farF +'?natF?Ba., t#e C#ero2ees, E9reat ?3eopleF +"sa?loF?2ee., t#e %#awnees, E%o(t#ernersF +%a?wan? wa2eeF., t#e Mo#egans, E%easi!e 3eopleF +Mo?#e?2(n? e?(2., t#e %la;e la2e In!ians, E3eopIe of t#e owlan!sF +&?c#aFo?tin?ne.. &mong t#e Iillage In!ians of Mexico, t#e %oc#imilcos style! t#emsel;es E=ation of t#e %ee!s of 3lowers,F t#e C#alcans, E3eople of Mo(t#s,F t#e "epanecans, E3eople of t#e /ri!ge,F t#e "eBc(cans or C(l#(as E& Croo2e! 3eople,F an! t#e "lascalans EMen of /rea!.F 6#en '(ropean coloniBation began in t#e nort#ern part of &merica, t#e names of In!ian tribes were obtaine!, not (s(ally from t#e tribe !irect, b(t from ot#er tribes w#o #a! bestowe! names (pon t#em !ifferent from t#eir own. &s a conse5(ence, a n(mber of tribes are now 2nown in #istory (n!er names not recogniBe! by t#emsel;es. II. The e"clusive possession of a dialect. "ribe an! !ialect are s(bstantially co?extensi;e, b(t t#ere are exceptions growing o(t of special circ(mstances. "#(s, t#e twel;e <a2ota ban!s are now properly tribes, beca(se t#ey are !istinct in interests an! in organiBation; b(t t#ey were force! into premat(re separation by t#e a!;ance of &mericans (pon t#eir original area w#ic# force! t#em (pon t#e plains. "#ey #a! remaine! in s(c# intimate connection pre;io(sly t#at b(t one new !ialect #a! commence! forming, t#e Teeton$ on t#e Misso(ri; t#e %sauntie on t#e Mississippi being t#e original speec#. & few years ago t#e C#ero2ees n(mbere! twenty?six t#o(san!, t#e largest n(mber of In!ians e;er fo(n! wit#in. t#e limits of t#e $nite! %tates spea2ing t#e same !ialect. /(t in t#e mo(ntain !istricts of 9eorgia a slig#t !i;ergence of speec# #a! occ(rre!, t#o(g# not s(fficient to be !isting(is#e! as a !ialect. "#ere are a few ot#er similar cases, b(t t#ey !o not brea2 t#e general r(le !(ring t#e aboriginal perio! w#ic# ma!e tribe an! !ialect co?extensi;e. "#e >:ibwas, w#o are still in t#e main non?#ortic(lt(ral, now n(mber abo(t fifteen t#o(san!, an! spea2 t#e same !ialect; an! t#e <a2ota tribes collecti;ely abo(t twenty?fi;e t#o(san! w#o spea2 two ;ery closely relate! !ialects, as state!. "#ese se;eral tribes are exceptionally large. "#e tribes wit#in t#e $nite! %tates an! /ritis# &merica wo(l! yiel!, on an a;erage, less t#an two t#o(san! persons to a tribe. III. The right of investing sachems and chiefs elected by the gentes. &mong t#e Iro5(ois t#e person electe! co(l! not become a c#ief (ntil #is in;estit(re by a co(ncil of c#iefs. &s t#e c#iefs of t#e gentes compose! t#e co(ncil of t#e tribe, wit# power o;er common interests, t#ere was a manifest, propriety in. reser;ing to t#e tribal co(ncil t#e f(nction of in;esting persons wit# office. /(t after t#e confe!eracy was forme!, t#e power of Eraising (pF sac#ems an! c#iefs was transferre! from t#e co(ncil of t#e tribe to t#e co(ncil of t#e confe!eracy. 6it# respect to t#e tribes generally, t#e accessible information is ins(fficient to explain t#eir (sages in relation to t#e mo!e of in;estit(re. It is one of t#e n(mero(s s(b:ects re5(iring f(rt#er in;estigation before t#e social system of t#e In!ian tribes can be f(lly explaine!. "#e office of sac#em an! c#ief was (ni;ersally electi;e among t#e

8D tribes nort# of Mexico; wit# s(fficient e;i!ence, as to ot#er parts of t#e continent, to lea;e no !o(bt of t#e (ni;ersality of t#e r(le. &mong t#e <elawares eac# gens #a! one sac#em +%a? 2eFma., w#ose office was #ere!itary in t#e gens, besi!es two common c#iefs, an! two war?c#iefs ? ma2ing fifteen in t#ree gentes ? w#o compose! t#e co(ncil of t#e tribe. &mong t#e >:ibwas, t#e members of some one gens (s(ally pre!ominate! at eac# settlement. 'ac# gens #a! a sac#em, w#ose office was #ere!itary in t#e gens, an! se;eral common c#iefs. 6#ere a large n(mber of persons of t#e same gens li;e! in one locality t#ey wo(l! be fo(n! similarly organiBe!. "#ere was no prescribe! limit, to t#e n(mber of c#iefs. & bo!y of (sages, w#ic# #a;e ne;er been collecte!, (n!o(bte!ly existe! in t#e se;eral In!ian tribes respecting t#e election an! in;estit(re of sac#ems an! c#iefs. & 2nowle!ge of t#em wo(l! be ;al(able. &n explanation of t#e Iro5(ois met#o! of Eraising (pF sac#ems an! c#iefs will be gi;en in t#e next c#apter. II. The right to depose these sachems and chiefs. "#is rig#t reste! primarily wit# t#e gens to w#ic# t#e sac#em an! c#ief belonge!. /(t t#e co(ncil of t#e tribe possesse! t#e same power, an! co(l! procee! in!epen!ently of t#e gens, an! e;en in opposition to its wis#es. In t#e %tat(s of sa;agery, an! in t#e ower an! also in t#e? Mi!!le %tat(s of barbarism, office was bestowe! for life, or !(ring goo! be#a;io(r, Man2in! #a! not learne! to limit an electi;e office for a term of years. "#e rig#t to !epose, t#erefore; became t#e more essential for t#e maintenance of t#e principle of self?go;ernment, "#is rig#t was a perpet(al assertion of t#e so;ereignty of t#e gens an! also of t#e tribe; a so;ereignty feebly (n!erstoo!, b(t ne;ert#eless a reality. I. The possession of a religious faith and (orship. &fter t#e fas#ion of barbarians t#e &merican In!ians were a religio(s people. "#e tribes generally #el! religio(s festi;als at partic(lar seasons of t#e year, w#ic# were obser;e! wit# forms of wors#ip, !ances an! games. "#e Me!icine o!ge, in many tribes, was t#e centre of t#ese obser;ances. It was c(stomary to anno(nce t#e #ol!ing of a Me!icine o!ge wee2s an! mont#s in a!;ance to awa2en a general interest in its ceremonies. "#e religio(s system of t#e aborigines is anot#er of t#e s(b:ects w#ic# #as been b(t partially in;estigate!. It is ric# in materials for t#e f(t(re st(!ent. "#e experience of t#ese tribes in !e;eloping t#eir religio(s beliefs an! mo!e of wors#ip is a part of t#e experience of man2in!; an! t#e facts will #ol! an important place in t#e science of comparati;e religion. "#eir system was more or less ;ag(e an! in!efinite, an! loa!e! wit# cr(!e s(perstitions. 'lement wors#ip can be trace! among t#e principal tribes, wit# a ten!ency to polyt#eism in t#e a!;ance! tribes. "#e Iro5(ois, for example, recogniBe! a 9reat, an! an ';il %pirit, an! a m(ltit(!e of inferior spirit(al beings, t#e immortality of t#e so(l, an! a f(t(re state. "#eir conception of t#e 9reat %pirit assigne! to #im a #(man form; w#ic# was e5(ally tr(e of t#e ';il %pirit of HeF*no$ t#e %pirit of "#(n!er, of GaF*oh$ t#e %pirit of t#e 6in!s, an! of t#e Three Sisters$ t#e %pirit of MaiBe, t#e %pirit of t#e /ean, an! t#e %pirit of t#e %5(as#. "#e latter were style!, collecti;ely, E>(r ife,F an! also E>(r %(pporters.F /esi!e t#ese were

8A t#e spirits of t#e se;eral 2in!s of trees an! plants, an! of t#e r(nning streams. "#e existence an! attrib(tes of t#ese n(mero(s spirit(al beings were b(t feebly imagine!. &mong t#e tribes in t#e ower %tat(s of barbarism i!olatry was (n2nown. "#e &Btecs #a! personal go!s, wit# i!ols to represent t#em, an! a temple wors#ip. If t#e partic(lars of t#eir religio(s system were acc(rately 2nown, its growt# o(t of t#e common beliefs of t#e In!ian tribes wo(l! probably be ma!e apparent. <ancing was a form of wors#ip among t#e &merican aborigines, an! forme! a part of t#e ceremonies at all religio(s festi;als. In no part of t#e eart#, among barbarians, #as t#e !ance recei;e! a more st(!ie! !e;elopment. ';ery tribe #as from ten to t#irty set !ances; eac# of w#ic# #as its own name, songs, m(sical instr(ments, steps, plan an! cost(me for persons. %ome of t#em, as t#e war?!ance, were common to all t#e tribes. 3artic(lar !ances are special property, belonging eit#er to a gens, or to a society organiBe! for its maintenance, into w#ic# new members were from time to time initiate!. "#e !ances of t#e <a2otas, t#e Crees, t#e >:ibwas, t#e Iro5(ois, an! of t#e 3(eblo In!ians of =ew Mexico, are t#e same in general c#aracter, in step, plan, an! m(sic; an! t#e same is tr(e of t#e !ances of t#e &Btecs so far as t#ey are acc(rately 2nown. It is one system t#ro(g#o(t t#e In!ian tribes, an! bears a !irect relation to t#eir system of fait# an! wors#ip. II. A supreme government through a council of chiefs. "#e co(ncil #a! a nat(ral fo(n!ation in t#e gentes of w#ose c#iefs it was compose!. It met a necessary want, an! was certain to remain as long as gentile society en!(re!. &s t#e gens was represente! by its c#iefs, so t#e tribe was represente! by a co(ncil compose! of t#e c#iefs of t#e gentes. It was a permanent feat(re of t#e social system, #ol!ing t#e (ltimate a(t#ority o;er t#e tribe. Calle! toget#er (n!er circ(mstances 2nown to all, #el! in t#e mi!st of t#e, people, an! open to t#eir orators, it was certain to act (n!er pop(lar infl(ence. &lt#o(g# oligarc#ical in form, t#e go;ernment was a representati;e !emocracy; t#e representati;e being electe! for life, b(t s(b:ect to !eposition. "#e brot#er#oo! of t#e members of eac# gens, an! t#e electi;e principle wit# respect to office, were t#e germ an! t#e basis of t#e !emocratic principle. Imperfectly !e;elope!, as ot#er great principles were in t#is early stage of a!;ancement, !emocracy can boast a ;ery ancient pe!igree in t#e tribes of man2in!. It !e;ol;e! (pon t#e co(ncil to g(ar! an! protect t#e common interests of t#e tribe. $pon t#e intelligence an! co(rage of t#e people, an! (pon t#e wis!om an! foresig#t of t#e co(ncil, t#e prosperity an! t#e existence of t#e tribe !epen!e!. J(estions an! exigencies were arising, t#ro(g# t#eir incessant warfare wit# ot#er tribes, w#ic# re5(ire! t#e exercise of all t#ese 5(alities to meet an! manage. It was (na;oi!able, t#erefore, t#at t#e pop(lar element s#o(l! be comman!ing in its infl(ence. &s a general r(le t#e co(ncil was open to any pri;ate in!i;i!(al w#o !esire! to a!!ress it on a p(blic 5(estion. ';en t#e women were allowe! to express t#eir wis#es an! opinions t#ro(g# an orator of t#eir own selection. /(t t#e !ecision was ma!e by t#e co(ncil. $nanimity was a f(n!amental law of its action among t#e Iro5(ois; b(t w#et#er t#is (sage was general I am (nable to state.

8Military operations were (s(ally left to t#e action of t#e ;ol(ntary principle. "#eoretically, eac# tribe was at war wit# e;ery ot#er tribe wit# w#ic# it #a! not forme! a treaty of peace. &ny person was at liberty to organiBe a war?party an! con!(ct an expe!ition w#ere;er #e please!. He anno(nce! #is pro:ect by gi;ing a war!ance an! in;iting ;ol(nteers. "#is met#o! f(rnis#e! a practical test of t#e pop(larity of t#e (n!erta2ing. If #e s(ccee!e! in forming a company, w#ic# wo(l! consist of s(c# persons as :oine! #im in t#e !ance, t#ey !eparte! imme!iately, w#ile ent#(siasm was at its #eig#t. 6#en a tribe was menace! wit# an attac2, war? parties were forme! to meet it in m(c# t#e same manner. 6#ere forces t#(s raise! were (nite! in one bo!y, eac# was (n!er its own war?captain, an! t#eir :oint mo;ements were !etermine! by a co(ncil of t#ese captains, If t#ere was among t#em a war?c#ief of establis#e! rep(tation #e wo(l! nat(rally become t#eir lea!er. "#ese statements relate to tribes in t#e ower %tat(s of barbarism. "#e &Btecs an! "lascalans went o(t by p#ratries, eac# s(b?!i;ision (n!er its own captain, an! !isting(is#e! by cost(mes an! banners. In!ian tribes, an! e;en confe!eracies, were wea2 organiBations for military operations. "#at of t#e Iro5(ois, an! t#at of t#e &Btecs, were t#e most remar2able for aggressi;e p(rposes. &mong t#e tribes in t#e ower %tat(s of barbarism, incl(!ing t#e Iro5(ois, t#e most !estr(cti;e wor2 was performe! by inconsi!erable war?parties, w#ic# were constantly forming an! ma2ing expe!itions into !istant, regions. "#eir s(pply of foo! consiste! of parc#e! corn re!(ce! to flo(r, carrie! in a po(c# attac#e! to t#e belt of eac# warrior, wit# s(c# fis# an! game as t#e ro(te s(pplie!. "#e going o(t of t#ese war?parties, an! t#eir p(blic reception on t#eir ret(rn, were among t#e prominent e;ents in In!ian life. "#e sanction of t#e co(ncil for t#ese expe!itions was not so(g#t, neit#er was it necessary. "#e co(ncil of t#e tribe #a! power to !eclare war an! ma2e peace, to sen! an! recei;e embassies, an! to ma2e alliances. It exercise! all t#e powers nee!f(l in a go;ernment, so simple an! limite! in its affairs. Interco(rse between in!epen!ent tribes was con!(cte! by !elegations of wise?men an! c#iefs. 6#en s(c# a !elegation was expecte! by any tribe, a co(ncil was con;ene! for its reception, an! for t#e transaction of its b(siness. III. A head*chief of the tribe in some instances. In some In!ian tribes one of t#e sac#ems was recogniBe! as its #ea!?c#ief; an! as s(perior in ran2 to #is associates. & nee! existe!, to some extent, for an official #ea! of t#e tribe to represent it w#en t#e co(ncil was not in session; b(t t#e !(ties an! powers of t#e office were slig#t. &lt#o(g# t#e co(ncil was s(preme in a(t#ority it was rarely in session an! 5(estions mig#t arise !eman!ing t#e pro;isional action of some one a(t#oriBe! to represent t#e tribe, s(b:ect to t#e ratification of #is acts by t#e co(ncil. "#is was t#e only basis, so far as t#e writer is aware, for t#e office of #ea!?c#ief. It existe! in a n(mber of tribes, b(t in a form of a(t#ority so feeble as to fall below t#e conception of an exec(ti;e magistrate. In t#e lang(age of some of t#e early writers t#ey #a;e been !esignate! as 2ings, w#ic# is simply a caricat(re. "#e In!ian tribes #a! not p a!;ance! far eno(g# in a 2nowle!ge of go;ernment to !e;elop t#e i!ea of a c#ief exec(ti;e magistrate. "#e Iro5(ois tribe recogniBe! no #ea!?c#ief, an! t#e confe!eracy no exec(ti;e officer.

84 "#e electi;e ten(re of t#e office of c#ief, an! t#e liability of t#e person to !eposition, settle! t#e c#aracter of t#e office. & co(ncil of In!ian c#iefs is of little importance by itself; b(t as t#e germ of t#e mo!ern parliament, congress, an! legislat(re, it #as an important bearing in t#e #istory of man2in!. "#e growt# of t#e i!ea go;ernment commence! wit# t#e organiBation into gentes in sa;agery. It re;eals t#ree great stages of progressi;e !e;elopment, between its commencement an! t#e instit(tion of political society after ci;iliBation #a! been attaine!. "#e first stage was t#e go;ernment of a tribe by a co(ncil of c#iefs electe! by t#e gentes. It may be calle! a go;ernment of one po(er2 namely, the council. It pre;aile! generally among tribes t#e ower %tat(s of barbarism. "#e secon! stage was a go;ernment co?or!inate! between a co(ncil of c#iefs, an! a general military comman!er; one representing t#e ci;il an! t#e ot#er t#e military f(nctions. "#is secon! form began to manifest itself in t#e ower %tat(s of barbarism, after confe!eracies were forme!, an! it became !efinite in t#e Mi!!le %tat(s. "#e office of general, or principal military comman!er, was t#e germ of t#at of a c#ief exec(ti;e magistrate, t#e 2ing, t#e emperor, an! t#e presi!ent. It may be calle! a go;ernment of t(o po(ers$ namely, the council of chiefs$ an! the general. "#e t#ir! stage was t#e go;ernment of a people or nation by a co(ncil of c#iefs, an assembly of t#e people, an! a general military comman!er. It appeare! among t#e tribes w#o #a! attaine! to t#e $pper %tat(s of barbarism; s(c#, for example, as t#e Homeric 9ree2s, an! t#e Italian tribes of t#e perio! of 0om(l(s. & large increase in t#e n(mber of people (nite! in a nation, t#eir establis#ment in walle! cities, an! t#e creation of wealt# in lan!s an! in floc2s an! #er!s, bro(g#t in t#e assembly of t#e people as an instr(ment of go;ernment. "#e co(ncil of c#iefs, w#ic# still remaine!, fo(n! it necessary, no !o(bt t#ro(g# pop(lar constraint, to s(bmit t#e most important p(blic meas(res to an assembly of t#e people for acceptance or re:ection; w#ence t#e pop(lar assembly. "#is assembly !i! not originate meas(res. It was its f(nction to a!opt or re:ect, an! its action was final. *rom its first appearance it became a permanent power in, t#e go;ernment. "#e co(ncil no longer passe! important p(blic meas(res, b(t became a pre?consi!ering co(ncil, wit# power to originate an! mat(re p(blic acts, to w#ic# t#e assembly alone co(l! gi;e ;ali!ity. It may be calle! a go;ernment of three po(ers2 namely, the pre*considering council$ t#e assembly of the people$ an! the general. "#is remaine! (ntil t#e instit(tion of political society, w#en, for example, among t#e &t#enians, t#e co(ncil of c#iefs became t#e senate, an! t#e assembly of t#e people t#e ecclesia or pop(lar assembly. "#e same organiBations #a;e come !own to mo!ern times in t#e two #o(ses of parliament, of congress, an! of legislat(res. In li2e manner t#e office of general military comman!er, as before state!, was t#e germ of t#e office of t#e mo!ern c#ief exec(ti;e magistrate. 0ec(rring to t#e tribe, it was limite! in t#e n(mbers of t#e people, feeble in strengt#, an! poor in reso(rces; b(t yet a completely organiBe! society. It ill(strates t#e con!ition of man2in! in t#e ower %tat(s of barbarism. In t#e Mi!!le %tat(s t#ere was a sensible increase of n(mbers in a tribe, an! an impro;e! con!ition; b(t wit# a contin(ance of gentile society wit#o(t essential c#ange. 3olitical society was

8G still impossible from want of a!;ancement. "#e gentes organiBe! into tribes remaine! as before; b(t confe!eracies m(st #a;e been more fre5(ent. In some areas, as in t#e Ialley of Mexico, larger n(mbers were !e;elope! (n!er a common go;ernment, wit# impro;ements in t#e arts of life; b(t no e;i!ence exists of t#e o;ert#row among t#em of gentile society an! t#e s(bstit(tion of political. It is impossible to fo(n! a political society or a state (pon gentes. & state m(st rest (pon territory an! not (pon persons, (pon t#e towns#ip as t#e (nit of a political system, an! not (pon t#e gens w#ic# is t#e (nit of a social system. It re5(ire! time an! a ;ast experience, beyon! t#at of t#e &merican In!ian tribes, as a preparation for s(c# a f(n!amental c#ange of systems. It also re5(ire! men of t#e mental stat(re of t#e 9ree2s an! 0omans, an! wit# t#e experience !eri;e! from a long c#ain of ancestors to !e;ise an! gra!(ally intro!(ce t#at new plan of go;ernment (n!er w#ic# ci;iliBe! nations are li;ing at t#e present time. *ollowing t#e ascen!ing organic series, we are next to consi!er t#e confe!eracy of tribes, in w#ic# t#e gentes, p#ratries an! tribes will be seen in new relations. "#e remar2able a!option of t#e gentile organiBation to t#e con!ition an! wants of man2in!, w#ile in a barbaro(s state, will t#ereby be f(rt#er ill(strate!.

Footnotes
1 >?taF?was. ! "#e >:ibwas man(fact(re! eart#en pipes, water :ars, an! ;essels in ancient times, as t#ey now assert. In!ian pottery #as been !(g (p at !ifferent times at t#e %a(lt %t. Mary, w#ic# t#ey recogniBe as t#e wor2 of t#eir forefat#ers. " "#e 3otawattamie an! t#e Cree #a;e !i;erge! abo(t e5(ally. It is probable t#at t#e >:ibwas, >tawas an! Crees were one people in !ialect after t#e 3otawattamies became !etac#e!. # &s a mixt(re of forest an! prairie it was an excellent game co(ntry. & species of brea!? root, t#e 2amas# grew in ab(n!ance m t#e prairies. In t#e s(mmer t#ere was a prof(sion of berries. /(t in t#ese respects it was not s(perior to ot#er areas. "#at w#ic# signaliBe! t#e region was t#e inex#a(stible s(pply of salmon in t#e Col(mbia, an! ot#er ri;ers of t#e coast. "#ey crow!e! t#ese streams in millions, an! were ta2en in t#e season wit# facility, an! in t#e greatest ab(n!ance. &fter being split open an! !rie! in t#e s(n, t#ey were pac2e! an! remo;e! to t#eir ;illages, an! forme! t#eir principal foo! !(ring t#e greater part of t#e year. /esi!e t#ese were t#e s#ell fis#eries of t#e coast, w#ic# s(pplie! a large amo(nt of foo! !(ring t#e winter mont#s. %(pera!!e! to t#ese concentrate!, a!;antages, t#e climate was mil! an! e5(able t#ro(g#o(t t#e year ? abo(t t#at of "ennessee an! Iirginia. It was t#e para!ise of tribes wit#o(t a 2nowle!ge of t#e cereals. $ It can be s#own wit# a great !egree of probability, t#at t#e Ialley of t#e Col(mbia was t#e see! lan! of t#e 9anowanian family, from w#ic# iss(e!, in past ages, s(ccessi;e streams of migrating ban!s, (ntil bot# !i;isions of t#e continent were occ(pie!. &n! f(rt#er, t#at bot# !i;isions contin(e! to be replenis#e! wit# in#abitants from t#is so(rce

87
!own to t#e epoc# of '(ropean !isco;ery. "#ese concl(sions may be !e!(ce! from p#ysical ca(ses, from t#e relati;e con!itions, an! from t#e ling(istic relations of t#e In!ian tribes. "#e great expanse of t#e central prairies, w#ic# sprea! contin(o(sly more t#an fifteen #(n!re! miles from nort# to so(t#, an! more t#an a t#o(san! miles from east to west, interpose! a barrier to a free comm(nication between t#e 3acific an! &tlantic si!es of t#e continent in =ort# &merica. It seems probable, t#erefore, t#at an original family commencing its sprea! from t#e Ialley of t#e Col(mbia, an! migrating (n!er t#e infl(ence of p#ysical ca(ses, wo(l! reac# 3atagonia sooner t#an t#ey wo(l! *lori!a. "#e 2nown facts point so strongly to t#is region as t#e original #ome of t#e In!ian family t#at a mo!erate amo(nt of a!!itional e;i!ence will ren!er t#e #ypot#esis concl(si;e. "#e !isco;ery an! c(lti;ation of maiBe !i! not c#ange materially t#e co(rse of e;ents, or s(spen! t#e operation of pre;io(s ca(ses; t#o(g# it became an important factor in t#e progress of impro;ement. It is not 2nown w#ere t#is &merican cereal was in!igeno(s; b(t t#e tropical region of Central &merica, w#ere ;egetation is intensely acti;e, w#ere t#is plant is pec(liarly fr(itf(l an! w#ere t#e ol!est seats of t#e Iillage In!ians were fo(n!, #as been ass(me! by common consent, as t#e probable place of its nati;ity. If, t#en, c(lti;ation commence! in Central &merica, it wo(l! #a;e propagate! itself first o;er Mexico, an! from t#ence to =ew Mexico an! t#e ;alley of t#e Mississippi, an! t#ence again eastwar! to t#e s#ores of t#e &tlantic; t#e ;ol(me of c(lti;ation !iminis#ing from t#e starting?point to t#e extremities. It wo(l! sprea!, in!epen!ently of t#e Iillage In!ians, from t#e !esire of more barbaro(s tribes to gain t#e new s(bsistence; b(t it ne;er exten!e! beyon! =ew Mexico to t#e Ialley of t#e ;alley of Col(mbia, t#o(g# c(lti;ation was practice! by t#e Minnitarees an! Man!ans of t#e $pper Misso(ri, by t#e %#yans on t#e 0e! 0i;er of t#e =ort#, by t#e H(rons of a2e %imcoe in Cana!a, an! by t#e &bena2ies of t#e 7ennc#ec, as well as generally by t#e tribes between t#e Mississippi an! t#e &tlantic. Migrating ban!s from t#e Ialley of t#e Col(mbia, following (pon t#e trac2 of t#eir pre!ecessors wo(l! press (pon t#e Iillage In!ians of =ew Mexico an! Mexico, ten!ing to force !isplace! an! fragmentary tribes towar! an! t#ro(g# t#e Ist#m(s into %o(t# &merica. %(c# expelle! ban!s wo(l! carry wit# t#em t#e first germs of progress !e;elope! by Iillage In!ian life. 0epeate! at inter;als of time it wo(l! ten! to bestow (pon %o(t# &merica a class of in#abitants far s(perior to t#e wil! ban!s pre;io(sly s(pplie!, an! at t#e expense of t#e nort#ern section t#(s impo;eris#e!. In t#e final res(lt, %o(t# &merica wo(l! attain t#e a!;ance! position in !e;elopment, e;en in an inferior co(ntry, w#ic# seems to #a;e been t#e fact. "#e 3er(;ian legen! of Manco Capac an! Mama >ello, c#il!ren of t#e s(n, brot#er an! sister, #(sban! an! wife, s#ows, if it can be sai! to s#ow anyt#ing t#at a ban! of Iillage In!ians migrating from a !istance, t#o(g# not necessarily from =ort# &merica !irect, #a! gat#ere! toget#er an! ta(g#t t#e r(!e tribes of t#e &n!es t#e #ig#er arts of life incl(!ing t#e c(lti;ation of maiBe an! plants. /y a simple an! 5(ite nat(ral process t#e legen! #as !roppe! o(t t#e ban!, an! retaine! only t#e lea!er an! #is wife. % )Coll. "erna(x?Compans,8 IL, pp. 181?18A.

88
& &costa. )"#e =at(ral an! Moral History of t#e 'ast an! 6est In!ies,8 on!. e!, 1GH-;. 9rimstoneFs "rans. pp. 4HH?4HA. ' =ear t#e close of t#e last cent(ry t#e %eneca?Iro5(ois, at one of t#eir ;illages on t#e &lleg#any ri;er, set (p an i!ol of woo!, an! performe! !ances an! ot#er religio(s ceremonies aro(n! it. My informer, t#e late 6illiam 3ar2er, saw t#is i!ol in t#e ri;er into w#ic# it #a! been cast. 6#om it personate! #e !i! not learn.

Chapter V THE IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY

& ten!ency to confe!erate for m(t(al !efence wo(l! ;ery nat(rally exist among 2in!re! an! contig(o(s tribes. 6#en t#e a!;antages of a (nion #a! been appreciate! by act(al experience t#e organiBation, at, first a leag(e, wo(l! gra!(ally cement into a fe!eral (nity. "#e state of perpet(al war? fare in w#ic# t#ey li;e! wo(l! 5(ic2en t#is nat(ral ten!ency into action among s(c# tribes as were s(fficiently a!;ance! in intelligence an! in t#e arts of life to percei;e its benefits. It wo(l! be simply a growt# from a lower into a #ig#er organiBation by an extension of t#e principle w#ic# (nite! t#e gentes in a tribe. &s mig#t #a;e been expecte!, se;eral confe!eracies existe! in !ifferent parts of =ort# &merica w#en !isco;ere!, some of w#ic# were 5(ite remar2able in plan an! str(ct(re. &mong t#e n(mber may be mentione! t#e Iro5(ois Confe!eracy of fi;e in!epen!ent tribes, t#e Cree2 Confe!eracy of six, t#e >tawa Confe!eracy of t#ree, t#e <a2ota eag(e of t#e E%e;en Co(ncil?*ires,F t#e Me5(i Confe!eracy in =ew Mexico of %e;en 3(eblos, an! t#e &Btec Confe!eracy of t#ree tribes in t#e Ialley of Mexico. It is probable t#at t#e Iillage In!ians in ot#er parts of Mexico, in Central an! in %o(t# &merica, were 5(ite generally organiBe! in confe!eracies consisting of two or more 2in!re! tribes. 3rogress necessarily too2 t#is !irection from t#e nat(re of t#eir instit(tions, an! from t#e law go;erning t#eir !e;elopment. =e;ert#eless t#e formation of a confe!eracy o(t of s(c# materials, an! wit# s(c# (nstable geograp#ical relations, was a !iffic(lt (n!erta2ing. It was easiest of ac#ie;ement by t#e Iillage In!ians from t#e nearness to eac# ot#er of t#eir p(eblos, an! from t#e smallness of t#eir areas, b(t it was accomplis#e! in occasional instances by tribes in t#e ower %tat(s of barbarism, an! notably by t#e Iro5(ois. 6#ere;er a confe!eracy was forme! it wo(l! of itself e;ince t#e s(perior intelligence of t#e people. "#e two #ig#est, examples of In!ian confe!eracies in =ort# &merica were t#ose of t#e Iro5(ois an! of t#e &Btecs. *rom t#eir ac2nowle!ge! s(periority as military powers, an! from t#eir geograp#ical positions, t#ese confe!eracies, in bot# cases, pro!(ce! remar2able res(lts. >(r 2nowle!ge of t#e str(ct(re an! principles of t#e former is !efinite an! complete, w#ile of t#e latter it is far from satisfactory. "#e &Btec confe!eracy #as been #an!le! in s(c# a manner #istorically as to lea;e it !o(btf(l w#et#er it, was simply a leag(e of t#ree 2in!re! tribes, offensi;e an! !efensi;e, or a systematic confe!eracy li2e t#at of t#e Iro5(ois. "#at w#ic# is tr(e of t#e latter was probably in a general sense tr(e of t#e former, so t#at a 2nowle!ge

8, of one will ten! to el(ci!ate t#e ot#er. "#e con!itions (n!er w#ic# confe!eracies spring into being an! t#e principles on w#ic# t#ey are forme! are remar2ably simple. "#ey grow nat(rally, wit# time, o(t of pre?existing elements. 6#ere one tribe #a! !i;i!e! into se;eral an! t#ese s(b!i;isions occ(pie! in!epen!ent b(t contig(o(s territories, t#e confe!eracy re? integrate! t#em in a #ig#er organiBation, on t#e basis of t#e common gentes t#ey possesse!, an! of t#e affiliate! !ialects t#ey spo2e. "#e sentiment of 2in embo!ie! in t#e gens, t#e common lineage of t#e gentes, an! t#eir !ialects still m(t(ally intelligible, yiel!e! t#e material elements for a confe!eration. "#e confe!eracy, t#erefore, #a! t#e gentes for its basis an! centre, an! stoc2 lang(age for its circ(mference. =o one #as been fo(n! t#at reac#e! beyon! t#e bo(n!s of t#e !ialects of a common lang(age. If t#is nat(ral barrier #a! been crosse! it wo(l! #a;e force! #eterogeneo(s elements into t#e organiBation. Cases #a;e occ(rre! w#ere t#e remains of a tribe, not cognate in speec#, as t#e =atc#eB, [1] #a;e been a!mitte! into an existing confe!eracy; b(t t#is exception wo(l! not in;ali!ate t#e general proposition. It was impossible for an In!ian power to arise (pon t#e &merican continent t#ro(g# a confe!eracy of tribes organiBe! in gentes, an! a!;ance to a general s(premacy (nless t#eir n(mbers were !e;elope! from t#eir own stoc2. "#e m(ltit(!e of stoc2 lang(ages is a stan!ing explanation of t#e fail(re. "#ere was no possible way of becoming connecte! on e5(al terms wit# a confe!eracy excepting t#ro(g# members#ip in a gens an! tribe, an! a common speec#. It may #ere be remar2e!, parent#etically, t#at it was impossible in t#e ower, in t#e Mi!!le, or in t#e $pper %tat(s of barbarism for a 2ing!om to arise by nat(ral growt# in any part of t#e eart# (n!er gentile instit(tions. I ;ent(re to ma2e t#is s(ggestion at t#is early stage of t#e !isc(ssion in or!er to call attention more closely to t#e str(ct(re an! principles of ancient society, as organiBe! in gentes, p#ratries an! tribes. Monarc#y is incompatible wit# gentilism. It belongs to t#e later perio! of ci;iliBation. <espotisms appeare! in some instances among t#e 9recian tribes in t#e $pper %tat(s of barbarism; b(t t#ey were fo(n!e! (pon (s(rpation, were consi!ere! illegitimate by t#e people, an! were, in fact, alien to t#e i!eas of gentile society. "#e 9recian tyrannies were !espotisms fo(n!e! (pon (s(rpation, an! were t#e germ o(t of w#ic# t#e later 2ing!oms arose; w#ile t#e so? calle! 2ing!oms of t#e #eroic age were military !emocracies, an! not#ing more. "#e Iro5(ois #a;e f(rnis#e! an excellent ill(stration of t#e manner in w#ic# a confe!eracy is forme! by nat(ral growt# assiste! by s2ilf(l legislation. >riginally emigrants from beyon! t#e Mississippi, an! probably a branc# of t#e <a2ota stoc2, t#ey first ma!e t#eir way to t#e ;alley of t#e %t; awrence an! settle! t#emsel;es near MontreaI. *orce! to lea;e t#is region by t#e #ostility of s(rro(n!ing tribes, t#ey so(g#t t#e central region of =ew 1or2. Coasting t#e eastern s#ore of a2e >ntario in canoes, for t#eir n(mbers were small, t#ey ma!e t#eir first settlement at t#e mo(t# of t#e >swego ri;er, w#ere accor!ing to t#eir tra!itions, t#ey remaine! for a long perio! of time. "#ey were t#en in at least t#ree !istinct tribes, t#e Mo#aw2s, t#e >non!agas, an! t#e %enecas. >ne tribe s(bse5(ently establis#e! t#emsel;es at t#e #ea! of t#e Canan!aig(a "a2e an! became t#e %enecas. &not#er

,H tribe occ(pie! t#e >non!aga Ialley an! became t#e >non!agas. "#e t#ir! passe! eastwar! an! settle! first at >nei!a near t#e site of $tica, from w#ic# place t#e main portion remo;e! to t#e Mo#aw2 Ialley an! became t#e Mo#aw2s. "#ose w#o remaine! became t#e >nei!as. & portion of t#e >non!agas or %enecas settle! along t#e eastern s#ore of t#e Cay(ga a2e an! became t#e Cay(gas. =ew 1or2, before its occ(pation by t#e Iro5(ois, seems to #a;e been a part of t#e area of t#e &lgon2in tribes. &ccor!ing to Iro5(ois tra!itions t#ey !isplace! its anterior in#abitants as t#ey gra!(ally exten!e! t#eir settlements eastwar! to t#e H(!son, an! westwar! to t#e 9enesee. "#eir tra!itions f(rt#er !eclare t#at a long perio! of time elapse! after t#eir settlement in =ew 1or2 before t#e confe!eracy was forme!, !(ring w#ic# t#ey ma!e common ca(se against t#eir enemies an! t#(s experience! t#e a!;antages of t#e fe!eral principle bot# for aggression an! !efence. "#ey resi!e! in ;illages, w#ic# were (s(ally s(rro(n!e! wit# stoc2a!es an! s(bsiste! (pon fis# an! game an! t#e pro!(cts of a limite! #ortic(lt(re. In n(mber t#ey !i! not at any time excee! DH, HHH so(ls, if t#ey e;er reac#e! t#at n(mber; 3recario(s s(bsistence an! incessant warfare represse! n(mbers in all t#e aboriginal tribes, incl(!ing t#e Iillage In!ians as well. "#e Iro5(ois were ens#ro(!e! in t#e great forests, w#ic# t#en o;ersprea! =ew 1or2, against w#ic# t#ey #a! no power to conten!. "#ey were first !isco;ere! &. <. 1GH8. &bo(t 1G74, t#ey attaine! t#eir c(lminating point w#en t#eir !ominion reac#e! o;er an area remar2ably large, co;ering t#e greater parts of =ew 1or2, 3ennsyl;ania an! >#io, an! portions of Cana!a nort# of a2e >ntario. &t t#e time of t#eir !isco;ery, t#ey were t#e #ig#est representati;es of t#e 0e! 0ace nort# of =ew Mexico in intelligence an! a!;ancement t#o(g# per#aps inferior to some of t#e 9(lf tribes in t#e arts of life. In t#e extent an! 5(ality of t#eir mental en!owments t#ey m(st be ran2e! among t#e #ig#est In!ians in &merica. &lt#o(g# t#ey #a;e !ecline! in n(mbers t#ere are still fo(r t#o(san! Iro5(ois in =ew 1or2, abo(t a t#o(san! in Cana!a, an! near t#at n(mber in t#e 6est; t#(s ill(strating t#e efficiency as well as persistency of t#e arts of barbaro(s life in s(staining existence. It is now sai! t#at t#ey are slowly increasing. 6#en t#e confe!eracy was forme!, abo(t &. <. 1-HH? 1-4H, [2] t#e con!itions pre;io(sly name! were present. "#e Iro5(ois were in fi;e in!epen!ent tribes, occ(pie! territories contig(o(s to eac# ot#er, an! spo2e !ialects of t#e same lang(age w#ic# were m(t(ally intelligible. /esi!e t#ese facts, certain gentes were common in t#e se;eral tribes as #as been s#own. In t#eir relations to eac# ot#er, as separate! parts of t#e same gens, t#ese common gentes affor!e! a nat(ral an! en!(ring basis for a confe!eracy. 6it# t#ese elements existing, t#e formation of a confe!eracy became a 5(estion of intelligence an! s2ill. >t#er tribes in large n(mbers were stan!ing in precisely t#e same relations in !ifferent parts of t#e continent wit#o(t confe!erating. "#e fact t#at t#e Iro5(ois tribes accomplis#e! t#e wor2 affor!s e;i!ence of t#eir s(perior capacity. Moreo;er, as t#e confe!eracy was t#e (ltimate stage of organiBation among t#e &merican aborigines its existence wo(l! be expecte! in t#e most intelligent tribes only. It is affirme! by t#e Iro5(ois t#at t#e confe!eracy was forme! by a co(ncil of wise? men an! c#iefs of t#e fi;e tribes w#ic# met for t#at p(rpose on t#e nort# s#ore of >non!aga la2e, near t#e site of %yrac(se; an! t#at before its session was concl(!e!

,1 t#e organiBation was perfecte!, an! set in imme!iate operation. &t t#eir perio!ical co(ncils for raising (p sac#ems t#ey still explain its origin as t#e res(lt of one protracte! effort of legislation. It was probably a conse5(ence of a pre;io(s alliance for m(t(al !efence, t#e a!;antages of w#ic# t#ey #a! percei;e! an! w#ic# t#ey so(g#t to ren!er permanent. "#e origin of t#e plan is ascribe! to a myt#ical, or, at least, tra!itionary person, Ha* yo*(ent*ha$ t#e Hiawat#a of ongfellowFs celebrate! poem, w#o was present at t#is co(ncil an! t#e central person in its management. In #is comm(nications wit# t#e co(ncil #e (se! a wise?man of t#e >non!agas, 7a*ga*n$o*(e*da$ as an interpreter an! spea2er to expo(n! t#e str(ct(re an! principles of t#e propose! confe!eracy. "#e same tra!ition f(rt#er !eclares t#at w#en t#e wor2 was accomplis#e! Ha*yo*#vent*ha mirac(lo(sly !isappeare! in a w#ite canoe, w#ic# arose wit# #im in t#e air an! bore #im o(t of t#eir sig#t. >t#er pro!igies, accor!ing to t#is tra!ition, atten!e! an! signaliBe! t#e formation of t#e confe!eracy, w#ic# is still celebrate! among t#em as a masterpiece of In!ia wis!om. %(c# in tr(t# it was; an! it will remain in #istory as a mon(ment of t#eir geni(s in !e;eloping gentile instit(tions. It will also be remembere! as an ill(stration of w#at tribes of man2in! #a;e been able to accomplis# in t#e art of go;ernment w#ile in t#e ower %tat(s of barbarism, an! (n!er t#e !isa!;antages t#is con!ition implies. 6#ic# of t#e two persons was t#e fo(n!er of t#e confe!eracy it is !iffic(lt to !etermine. "#e silent Ha*yo* #vent*ha was, not (nli2ely, a real person of Iro5(ois lineage;[4] b(t tra!ition #as en;elope! #is c#aracter so completely in t#e s(pernat(ral t#at #e loses #is place among t#em as one of t#eir n(mber. If Hiawat#a were a real person, 7a*ga* no*me*da m(st #ol! a s(bor!inate place; b(t, if a myt#ical person in;o2e! for t#e occasion, t#en to t#e latter belongs t#e cre!it of planning t#e confe!eracy. "#e Iro5(ois affirm t#at t#e confe!eracy as forme! by t#is co(ncil, wit# its powers, f(nctions an! mo!e of a!ministration #as come !own to t#em t#ro(g# many generations to t#e present time wit# scarcely a c#ange in its internal organiBation. 6#en t#e "(scaroras were s(bse5(ently a!mitte!, t#eir sac#ems were allowe! by co(rtesy to sit as e5(als in t#e general co(ncil, b(t t#e original n(mber of sac#ems was not increase!, an! in strictness t#ose of t#e "(scaroras forme! no part of t#e r(ling bo!y. "#e general feat(res of t#e Iro5(ois Confe!eracy may be s(mmariBe! in t#e following propositions: I? "#e confe!eracy was a (nion of *i;e "ribes, compose! of common gentes, (n!er one go;ernment on t#e basis of e5(ality; eac# "ribe remaining in!epen!ent in all manners pertaining to local self?go;ernment. II? It create! a 9eneral Co(ncil of %ac#ems, w#o were limite! in n(mber, e5(al in ran2 an! a(t#ority, an! in;este! wit# s(preme powers o;er all matters pertaining to t#e Confe!eracy. III? *ifty %ac#ems#ips were create! an! name! in perpet(ity in

,D certain gentes of t#e se;eral "ribes; wit# power in t#ese gentes to fill ;acancies, as often as t#ey occ(rre!, by election from among t#eir respecti;e members, an! wit# t#e f(rt#er power to !epose from office for ca(se; b(t t#e rig#t to in;est t#ese %ac#ems wit# office was reser;e! to t#e 9eneral Co(ncil. II? "#e %ac#ems of t#e Confe!eracy were also %ac#ems in t#eir respecti;e "ribes, an! wit# t#e C#iefs of t#ese tribes forme! t#e Co(ncil of eac#, w#ic# was s(preme o;er all matters pertaining to t#e "ribe excl(si;ely. I? $nanimity in t#e Co(ncil of t#e Confe!eracy was ma!e essential to e;ery p(blic act. II. In t#e 9eneral Co(ncil t#e %ac#ems ;ote! by "ribes, w#ic# ga;e to eac# "ribe a negati;e (pon t#e ot#ers. III. "#e Co(ncil of eac# "ribe #a! power to con;ene t#e 9eneral Co(ncil; b(t t#e latter #a! no power to con;ene itself. IIII. "#e 9eneral Co(ncil was open to t#e orators of t#e people for t#e !isc(ssion of p(blic 5(estions; b(t t#e Co(ncil alone !eci!e!. IL. "#e Confe!eracy #a! no c#ief 'xec(ti;e Magistrate, or official #ea!. L. 'xperiencing t#e necessity for a 9eneral Military Comman!er t#ey create! t#e office in a !(al form, t#at one mig#t ne(traliBe t#e ot#er. "#e two principal 6ar? c#iefs create! were ma!e e5(al in powers. "#ese se;eral propositions will be consi!ere! an! ill(strate!, b(t wit#o(t following t#e precise form or or!er in w#ic# t#ey are state!. &t t#e instit(tion of t#e confe!eracy fifty permanent sac#ems#ips were create! an! name!, an! ma!e perpet(al in t#e gentes to w#ic# t#ey were assigne!. 6it# t#e exception of two, w#ic# were fille! b(t once, t#ey #a;e been #el! by as many !ifferent persons in s(ccession as generations #a;e passe! away between t#at time an! t#e present. "#e name of eac# sac#ems#ip is also t#e personal name of eac# sac#em w#ile #e #ol!s t#e office, eac# one in s(ccession ta2ing t#e name of #is pre!ecessor. "#ese sac#ems, w#en in session, forme! t#e co(ncil of t#e confe!eracy in w#ic# t#e legislati;e, exec(ti;e, an! :(!icial powers were ;este!, alt#o(g# s(c# a !iscrimination of f(nctions #a! not come to be ma!e. "o sec(re or!er in s(ccession, t#e se;eral gentes in w#ic# t#ese offices were ma!e #ere!itary were empowere! to elect s(ccessors from among t#eir respecti;e members w#en ;acancies occ(rre!, as elsew#ere explaine!. &s a f(rt#er meas(re of protection to t#eir own bo!y eac# sac#em, after #is election an! its confirmation, was in;este! wit# #is office by a co(ncil of t#e confe!eracy. 6#en t#(s installe! #is name was Eta2en awayF an! t#at of t#e sac#ems#ip was bestowe! (pon #im. /y t#is name #e was afterwar!s 2nown among t#em. "#ey were all (pon e5(ality in ran2, a(t#ority, an! pri;ileges.

,A "#ese sac#ems#ips were !istrib(te! (ne5(ally among t#e fi;e tribes; b(t wit#o(t gi;ing to eit#er a prepon!erance of power; an! (ne5(ally among t#e gentes of t#e last t#ree tribes. "#e Mo#aw2s #a! nine sac#ems, t#e >nei!as nine, t#e >non!agas fo(rteen, t#e Cay(gas ten, an! t#e %enecas eig#t. "#is was t#e n(mber at first, an! it #as remaine! t#e n(mber to t#e present time. & table of t#ese sac#ems#ips is s(b:oine!, wit# t#eir names in t#e %eneca !ialect, an! t#eir arrangement in classes to facilitate t#e attainment of (nanimity in co(ncil. In foot?notes will be fo(n! t#e signification of t#ese names, an! t#e gentes to w#ic# t#ey belonge!. "able of sac#ems#ips of t#e Iro5(ois, fo(n!e! at t#e instit(tion of t#e Confe!eracy; wit# t#e names w#ic# #a;e been borne by t#eir sac#ems in s(ccession, from its formation to t#e present time: 'oha(+s. I. 1. <a?ga?eF?o?ga.[1] D. Ha?yo?wentF?#a.[2] <a?ga?no? weF?!a.[3] II. -. %o?a?e?waFa#.[4] 0. <a?yoF?#o?go.[5] G. H?a?aF?go? wa,[6] III. 7. <a?an?no?gaF?e?ne#.[7] 8. %B?!aF?ga?e?wa?!e#.[8] ,. Has?!a?we#F?se?ont?#a.[9] &neidas. I. Ho?!asF?#a?te#.[10] D. 9a?no?gwe#F?yo?!o.[11] A. <a?yo? #a?gwen?!a.[12] II. -. %o?no?saseF.[13] 0. "o?no?a?gaF?o.[14] G. Ha?!e?a? !(n?nentF?#a.[15] III. 7. <a?wa?!aF?o?!a?yo.[16] 8. 9a?ne?a?!(sF?#a?ye#.[17] ,. Ho?w(sF?#a?!a?o.[18] &nondagas. I. 1. "o?!o?!aF?#o.[19] D. "o?nesF?sa?a#. A. <a?at?ga?!ose.[20] II. -. 9a?nea?!aF?:e?wa2e.[21] 0. &#?waF?ga?yat.[22]? G. <a? a?yatF?gwa?e. III. 7. Ho?no?we?naF?to.[23] II. 8. Ca?wa?naF?san?!o.[1] ,. Ha?eF?#o.[2] 1H. Ho?yo?ne?aF?ne.[3] 11. %a?!aF?2wa? se#.[4] 1D. %a?go?ga?#a.[5] 1A. Ho?sa?#aF?#o.[6] 1-. %2a?noF? w(n?!e.[7] ?ayugas. I. 1. <a?gaF?a?yo.[8] D. <a?:e?noF!a?we#?o.[9] A. 9a?!aF?gwa?sa.[10] -. %o?yo?wase. [11] 4. Ha?!e?asF?yo? no.[12] II. G. <a?yo?o?yoF?go.[13] 7. Cote?#o?we#F?2o.[14] 8. <e?a? wateF?#o.[15] III. ,. "o?!a?e?#o.[16] 1H. <es?gaF?#e#.[17] Senecas. I. 1. 9a?ne?o?!i?yo.[18] D. %a?!a?gaF?o?yase.[19] II. A. 9a?no?giF?e.[20] -. %a?ge#F?:o?wa.[21] III. 4. %a?!e?a?noF?w(s.[22] G. =is?#a?ne?aF?nent.[23] II. 7. 9a?no?go?e?!aF?we.[24] 8. <o?ne?#o?gaF?we#.[25]

,"wo of t#ese sac#ems#ips #a;e been fille! b(t once since t#eir creation. Ha*yo* (entF*ha an! 7a*ga*no*(eF*da consente! to ta2e t#e office among t#e Mo#aw2 sac#ems, an! to lea;e t#eir names in t#e list (pon con!ition t#at after t#eir !emise t#e two s#o(l! remain t#ereafter ;acant. "#ey were installe! (pon t#ese terms, an! t#e stip(lation #as been obser;e! to t#e present !ay. &t all co(ncils for t#e in;estit(re of sac#ems t#eir names are still calle! wit# t#e ot#ers as a trib(te of respect to t#eir memory. "#e general co(ncil, t#erefore, consiste! of b(t forty eig#t members. 'ac# sac#em #a! an assistant sac#em, w#o was electe! by t#e gens of #is principal from among its members, an! w#o was installe! wit# t#e same forms an! ceremonies. He was style! an Eai!.F It was #is !(ty to stan! be#in! #is s(perior on all occasions of ceremony, to act as #is messenger, an! in general to be s(b:ect to #is !irections. It ga;e to t#e ai! t#e office of c#ief, an! ren!ere! probable #is election as t#e s(ccessor of #is principal after t#e !ecease of t#e latter. In t#eir fig(rati;e lang(age t#ese ai!s of t#e sac#ems were style! E/races in t#e ong Ho(se,F w#ic# symboliBe! t#e confe!eracy. "#e names bestowe! (pon t#e original sac#ems became t#e names of t#eir respecti;e s(ccessors in perpet(ity. *or example, (pon t#e !emise of Ga*e*o*diF* yo$ one of t#e eig#t %eneca? sac#ems, #is s(ccessor wo(l! be electe! by t#e "(rtle gens in w#ic# t#is sac#ems#ip was #ere!itary, an! w#en raise! (p by t#e general co(ncil #e wo(l! recei;e t#is name, in place of #is own, as a part of t#e ceremony. >n se;eral !ifferent occasions I #a;e atten!e! t#eir co(ncils for raising op sac#ems bot# at t#e >non!aga an! %eneca reser;ations, an! witnesse! t#e ceremonies #erein referre! to. &lt#o(g# b(t a s#a!ow of t#e ol! confe!eracy now remains, it, is f(lly organiBe! wit# its complement of sac#ems an! ai!s, wit# t#e exception of t#e Mo#aw2 tribe w#ic# remo;e! to Cana!a abo(t 1774. 6#ene;er ;acancies occ(r t#eir places are fille!, an! a general co(ncil is con;ene! to install t#e new sac#ems an! t#eir ai!s. "#e present Iro5(ois are also perfectly familiar wit# t#e str(ct(re an! principles of t#e ancient confe!eracy. *or all p(rposes of tribal go;ernment t#e fi;e tribes were in!epen!ent of eac# ot#er. "#eir territories were separate! by fixe! bo(n!ary lines, an! t#eir tribal interests were !istinct. "#e eig#t %eneca sac#ems, in con:(nction wit# t#e ot#er %eneca c#iefs, forme! t#e co(ncil of t#e tribe by w#ic# its affairs were a!ministere!, lea;ing to eac# of t#e ot#er tribes t#e same control o;er t#eir separate interests. &s an organiBation t#e tribe was neit#er wea2ene! nor impaire! by t#e confe!erate compact. 'ac# was in ;igoro(s life wit#in its appropriate sp#ere, presenting some analogy to o(r own states wit#in an embracing rep(blic. It is wort#y of remembrance t#at t#e Iro5(ois commen!e! to o(r forefat#ers a (nion of t#e colonies similar to t#eir own as early as 1744. "#ey saw in t#e common interests an! common speec# of t#e se;eral colonies t#e elements for a confe!eration, w#ic# was as far as t#eir ;ision was able to penetrate. "#e tribes occ(pie! positions of entire e5(ality in t#e confe!eracy, in rig#ts, pri;ileges an! obligations. %(c# special imm(nities as were grante! to one or anot#er in!icate no intention to establis# an (ne5(al compact, or to conce!e (ne5(al pri;ileges. "#ere were organic pro;isions apparently in;esting partic(lar

,4 tribes wit# s(perior power; as, for example, t#e >non!agas were allowe! fo(rteen sac#ems an! t#e %enecas b(t eig#t; an! a larger bo!y of sac#ems wo(l! nat(rally exercise a stronger infl(ence in co(ncil t#an a smaller. /(t in t#is case it ga;e no a!!itional power, beca(se t#e sac#ems of eac# tribe #a! an e5(al ;oice in forming a !ecision, an! a negati;e (pon t#e ot#ers. 6#en in co(ncil t#ey agree! by tribes, an! (nanimity in opinion was essential to e;ery p(blic act. "#e >non!agas were ma!e E7eepers of t#e 6amp(m,F an! E7eepers of t#e Co(ncil /ran!,F t#e Mo#aw2s, E0ecei;ers of "rib(teF from s(b:(gate! tribes, an! t#e %enecas E7eepers of t#e <oorF of t#e ong Ho(se. "#ese an! some ot#er similar pro;isions were ma!e for t#e common a!;antage. "#e co#esi;e principle of t#e confe!eracy !i! not spring excl(si;ely from t#e benefits of an alliance for m(t(al protection, b(t #a! a !eeper fo(n!ation in t#e bon! of 2in. "#e confe!eracy reste! (pon t#e tribes ostensibly, b(t primarily (pon common gentes. &ll t#e members of t#e same gens, w#et#er Mo#aw2s, >nei!as, >non!agas, Cay(gas, or %enecas, were brot#ers an! sisters to eac# ot#er in ;irt(e of t#eir !escent from t#e same common ancestor; an! t#ey recogniBe! eac# ot#er as s(c# wit# t#e f(llest cor!iality. 6#en t#ey met t#e first in5(iry was t#e name of eac# ot#erFs gens, an! next t#e imme!iate pe!igree of t#eir respecti;e sac#ems; after w#ic# t#ey were (s(ally able to fin!, (n!er t#eir pec(liar system of consang(inity,[6] t#e relations#ip in w#ic# t#ey stoo! to eac# ot#er. "#ree of t#e gentes, namely, t#e 6olf, /ear an! "(rtle, were common to t#e fi;e tribes; t#ese an! t#ree ot#ers were common to t#ree tribes. In effect t#e 6olf gens, t#ro(g# t#e !i;ision of an original tribe into fi;e, was now in fi;e !i;isions, one of w#ic# was in eac# tribe. It was t#e same wit# t#e /ear an! t#e "(rtle gentes. "#e <eer, %nipe an! Haw2 gentes were common to t#e %enecas, Cay(gas an! >non!agas. /etween t#e separate! parts of eac# gens, alt#o(g# its members spo2e !ifferent !ialects of t#e same lang(age, t#ere existe! a fraternal connection w#ic# lin2e! t#e nations toget#er wit# in!issol(ble bon!s. 6#en t#e Mo#aw2 of t#e 6olf gens recogniBe! an >nei!a, >non!aga, Cay(ga or %eneca of t#e same gens as a brot#er, an! w#en t#e members of t#e ot#er !i;i!e! gentes !i! t#e same, t#e relations#ip was not i!eal, b(t a fact fo(n!e! (pon consang(inity, an! (pon fait# in an ass(re! lineage ol!er t#an t#eir !ialects an! coe;al wit# t#eir (nity as one people. In t#e estimation of an Iro5(ois e;ery member of #is gens in w#ate;er tribe was as certainly a 2insman as #is own brot#er. "#is cross?relations#ip between persons of t#e same gens in t#e !ifferent tribes is still preser;e! an! recogniBe! among t#em in all its original force. It explains t#e tenacity wit# w#ic# t#e fragments of t#e ol! confe!eracy still cling toget#er. If eit#er of t#e fi;e tribes #a! sece!e! from t#e confe!eracy it wo(l! #a;e se;ere! t#e bon! of 2in, alt#o(g# t#is s#o(l! #a;e been felt b(t slig#tly. /(t #a! t#ey fallen into collision it wo(l! #a;e t(rne! t#e gens of t#e 6olf against t#eir gentile 2in!re!. /ear against /ear, in a wor! brot#er against brot#er. "#e #istory of t#e Iro5(ois !emonstrates t#e reality as well as persistency of t#e bon! of 2in, an! t#e fi!elity wit# w#ic# it was respecte!. <(ring t#e long perio! t#ro(g# w#ic# t#e confe!eracy en!(re!, t#ey ne;er fell into anarc#y, nor r(pt(re! t#e organiBation. "#e E ong Ho(seF +Ho*deF*no*sote. was ma!e t#e symbol of t#e confe!eracy; an! t#ey style! t#emsel;es t#e E3eople of t#e ong Ho(seF +Ho*deF*no*sau*nee.. "#is

,G was t#e name, an! t#e only name, wit# w#ic# t#ey !isting(is#e! t#emsel;es. "#e confe!eracy pro!(ce! a gentile society more complex t#an t#at of a single tribe, b(t it was still !istincti;ely a gentile society. It was, #owe;er, a stage of progress in t#e !irection of a nation, for nationality is reac#e! (n!er gentile instit(tions. Coalescence is t#e last stage in t#is process. "#e fo(r &t#enian tribes coalesce! in &ttica into a nation by t#e intermingling of t#e tribes in t#e same area, an! by t#e gra!(al !isappearance of geograp#ical lines between t#em. "#e tribal names an! organiBations remaine! in f(ll ;itality as before, b(t wit#o(t t#e basis of an in!epen!ent territory. 6#en political society was instit(te! on t#e basis of t#e !eme or towns#ip, an! all t#e resi!ents of t#e !eme became a bo!y politic, irrespecti;e of t#eir gens or tribe, t#e coalescence became complete. "#e coalescence of t#e atin an! %abine gentes into t#e 0oman people an! nation was a res(lt of? t#e same processes. In all ali2e t#e gens, p#ratry an! tribe were t#e first t#ree stages of organiBation. "#e confe!eracy followe! as t#e fo(rt#. /(t it !oes not appear, eit#er among t#e 9recian or atin tribes in t#e ater 3erio! of barbarism, t#at it became more t#an a loose leag(e for offensi;e an! !efensi;e p(rposes. >f t#e nat(re an! !etails of organiBation of t#e 9recian an! atin confe!eracies o(r 2nowle!ge is limite! an! imperfect, beca(se t#e facts are b(rie! in t#e obsc(rity of t#e tra!itionary perio!. "#e process of coalescence arises later t#an t#e confe!eracy in gentile society; b(t it was a necessary as well as ;ital stage of progress by means of w#ic# t#e nation, t#e state, an! political society were at last, attaine!. &mong t#e Iro5(ois tribes it #a! not manifeste! itself. "#e ;alley of >non!aga, as t#e seat of t#e central tribe, an! t#e place w#ere t#e Co(ncil /ran! was s(ppose! to be perpet(ally b(rning, was t#e (s(al t#o(g# not t#e excl(si;e place for #ol!ing t#e co(ncils of t#e confe!eracy. In ancient times it was s(mmone! to con;ene in t#e a(t(mn of eac# year; b(t p(blic exigencies often ren!ere! its meetings more fre5(ent. 'ac# tribe #a! power to s(mmon t#e co(ncil, an! to appoint t#e time an! place of meeting at t#e co(ncil?#o(se of eit#er tribe, w#en circ(mstances ren!ere! a c#ange from t#e (s(al place at >non!aga !esirable. /(t t#e co(ncil #a! no power to con;ene itself. >riginally t#e principal ob:ect of t#e co(ncil was to raise (p sac#ems to fill ;acancies in t#e ran2s of t#e r(ling bo!y occasione! by !eat# or !eposition; b(t it transacte! all ot#er b(siness w#ic# concerne! t#e common welfare. In co(rse of time, as t#ey m(ltiplie! in n(mbers an! t#eir interco(rse wit# foreign tribes became more exten!e!, t#e co(ncil fell into t#ree !istinct 2in!s, w#ic# may be !isting(is#e! as Ci;il, Mo(rning an! 0eligio(s. "#ey first !eclare! war an! ma!e peace, sent an! recei;e! embassies, entere! into treaties wit# foreign tribes, reg(late! t#e affairs of s(b:(gate! tribes, an! too2 all nee!f(l meas(res to promote t#e general welfare. "#e secon! raise! (p sac#ems an! in;este! t#em wit# office. It recei;e! t#e name of Mo(rning Co(ncil beca(se t#e first of its ceremonies was t#e lament for t#e !ecease! r(ler w#ose ;acant place was to be fille!. "#e t#ir! was #el! for t#e obser;ance of a general religio(s festi;al. It was ma!e an occasion for t#e confe!erate! tribes to (nite (n!er t#e a(spices of a general co(ncil in t#e obser;ance of common religio(s rites. /(t as t#e Mo(rning Co(ncil was atten!e! wit# many of t#e same ceremonies it came, in time, to answer for bot#. It is now

,7 t#e only co(ncil t#ey #ol!, as t#e ci;il powers of t#e confe!eracy terminate! wit# t#e s(premacy o;er t#em of t#e state. In;o2ing t#e patience of t#e rea!er, it is necessary to enter into some !etails wit# respect to t#e mo!e of transacting b(siness at t#e Ci;il an! Mo(rning Co(ncils. In no ot#er way can t#e arc#aic con!ition of society (n!er gentile instit(tions be so rea!ily ill(strate!. If an o;ert(re was ma!e to t#e confe!eracy by a foreign tribe, it mig#t be !one t#ro(g# eit#er of t#e fi;e tribes. It was t#e prerogati;e of t#e co(ncil of t#e tribe a!!resse! to !etermine w#et#er t#e affair was of s(fficient importance to re5(ire a co(ncil of t#e confe!eracy. &fter reac#ing an affirmati;e concl(sion, a #eral! was sent to t#e nearest tribes in position, on t#e east an! on t#e west, wit# a belt of wamp(m, w#ic# containe! a message to t#e effect t#at a ci;il co(ncil +Ho*de*osF* seh. wo(l! meet at s(c# a place an! time, an! for s(c# an ob:ect, eac# of w#ic# was specifie!. It was t#e !(ty of t#e tribe recei;ing t#e message to forwar! it to t#e tribe next in position, (ntil t#e notification was ma!e complete. [7] =o co(ncil e;er assemble! (nless it was s(mmone! (n!er t#e prescribe! forms. 6#en t#e sac#ems met in co(ncil, at t#e time an! place appointe!, an! t#e (s(al reception ceremony #a! been performe!, t#ey arrange! t#emsel;es in two !i;isions an! seate! t#emsel;es (pon opposite si!es of t#e co(ncil?fire. $pon one si!e were t#e Mo#aw2, >non!aga an! %eneca sac#ems. "#e tribes t#ey represente! were, w#en in co(ncil, brot#er tribes to eac# ot#er an! fat#er tribes to t#e ot#er two. In li2e manner t#eir sac#ems were brot#ers to eac# ot#er an! fat#ers to t#ose opposite. "#ey constit(te! a p#ratry of tribes an! of sac#ems, by an extension of t#e principle w#ic# (nite! gentes in a p#ratry. >n t#e opposite si!e of t#e fire were t#e >nei!a an! Cay(ga, an!, at a later !ay, t#e "(scarora sac#ems. "#e tribes t#ey represente! were brot#er tribes to eac# ot#er, an! son tribes to t#e opposite t#ree. "#eir sac#ems also were brot#ers to eac# ot#er, an! sons of t#ose in t#e opposite !i;ision. "#ey forme! a secon! tribal p#ratry. &s t#e >nei!as were a s(b!i;ision of t#e Mo#aw2s, an! t#e Cay(gas a s(b!i;ision of t#e >non!agas or %enecas, t#ey were in reality :(nior tribes; w#ence t#eir relation of seniors an! :(niors, an! t#e application of t#e p#ratric principle. 6#en t#e tribes are name! in co(ncil t#e Mo#aw2s by prece!ence are mentione! first. "#eir tribal epit#et was E"#e %#iel!F +7a*gaF*e*oFda.. "#e >non!agas came next (n!er t#e epit#et of E=ame?/earerF +Ho*de*sa*noF*ge*ta.$ beca(se t#ey #a! been appointe! to select an! name t#e fifty original sac#ems.[8] =ext in t#e or!er of prece!ence were t#e %enecas, (n!er t#e epit#et of E<oor?7eeperF +Ho*nan*ne*hoF*onte.. "#ey were ma!e perpet(al 2eepers of t#e western !oor of t#e ong Ho(se. "#e >nei!as, (n!er t#e epit#et of E9reat "reeF +Ae*arF*de*on*darF*go*(ar.$ an! t#e Cay(gas, (n!er t#at of E9reat 3ipeF +SonusF*ho*g(ar*to*(ar.$ were name! fo(rt# an! fift#. "#e "(scaroras, w#o came late into t#e confe!eracy, were name! last, an! #a! no !isting(is#ing epit#et. *orms, s(c# as t#ese, were more important in ancient society t#an we wo(l! be apt to s(ppose. It was c(stomary for t#e foreign tribe to be represente! at t#e co(ncil by a !elegation of wise?men an! c#iefs, w#o bore t#eir proposition an! presente! it in person. &fter t#e co(ncil was formally opene! an! t#e !elegation intro!(ce!, one

,8 of t#e sac#ems ma!e a s#ort a!!ress, in. t#e co(rse of w#ic# #e t#an2e! t#e 9reat %pirit for sparing t#eir li;es an! permitting t#em to meet toget#er; after w#ic# #e informe! t#e !elegation t#at t#e co(ncil was prepare! to #ear t#em (pon t#e affair for w#ic# it #a! con;ene!. >ne of t#e !elegates t#en s(bmitte! t#eir proposition in form an! s(staine! it by s(c# arg(ments as #e was able to ma2e. Caref(l attention was gi;en by t#e members of t#e co(ncil t#at t#ey mig#t clearly compre#en! t#e matter in #an!. &fter t#e a!!ress was concl(!e!, t#e !elegation wit#!rew from t#e co(ncil to await at a !istance t#e res(lt of its !eliberations. It t#en became t#e !(ty of t#e sac#ems to agree (pon an answer, w#ic# was reac#e! t#ro(g# t#e or!inary ro(tine of !ebate an! cons(ltation. 6#en, a !ecision #a! been ma!e, a spea2er was appointe! to comm(nicate t#e answer of t#e co(ncil, to recei;e w#ic# t#e !elegation were recalle!. "#e spea2er was (s(ally c#osen from t#e tribe at w#ose instance t#e co(ncil #a! been con;ene!. It was c(stomary for #im to re;iew t#e w#ole s(b:ect m a formal speec#, in t#e co(rse, of w#ic# t#e acceptance, in w#ole or in part, or t#e re:ection of t#e proposition were anno(nce! wit# t#e reasons t#erefore. 6#ere an agreement was entere! (pon, belts of wamp(m were exc#ange! as e;i!ence of its terms. 6it# t#ese procee!ings t#e co(ncil terminate!. E"#is belt preser;es my wor!sF was a common remar2 of an Iro5(ois c#ief in co(ncil. He t#en !eli;ere! t#e belt as t#e e;i!ence of w#at #e #a! sai!. %e;eral s(c# belts wo(l! be gi;en in t#e co(rse of a negotiation to t#e opposite party. In t#e reply of t#e latter a belt wo(l! be ret(rne! for eac# proposition accepte!. "#e Iro5(ois experience! t#e necessity for an exact recor! of some 2in! of a proposition in;ol;ing t#eir fait# an! #ono(r in its exec(tion, an! t#ey !e;ise! t#is met#o! to place it beyon! !isp(te. $nanimity among t#e sac#ems was re5(ire! (pon all p(blic 5(estions, an! essential to t#e ;ali!ity of e;ery p(blic act. It was a f(n!amental law of t#e confe!eracy.[9] "#ey a!opte! a met#o! for ascertaining t#e opinions of t#e members of t#e co(ncil w#ic# !ispense! wit# t#e necessity of casting ;otes. Moreo;er, t#ey were entirely (nac5(ainte! wit# t#e principle of ma:orities an! minorities in t#e action of co(ncils, "#ey ;ote! in co(ncil by tribes, an! t#e sac#ems of eac# tribe were re5(ire! to be of one min! to form a !ecision, 0ecogniBing (nanimity as a necessary principle, t#e fo(n!ers of t#e confe!eracy !i;i!e! t#e sac#ems of eac# tribe into classes as a means for its attainment. "#is will be seen by cons(lting t#e table. +supra p. 1AD. =o sac#em was allowe! to express an opinion in co(ncil in t#e nat(re of a ;ote (ntil #e #a! first agree! wit# t#e sac#em or sac#ems of #is class (pon t#e opinion to be expresse!, an! #a! been appointe! to act as spea2er for t#e class. "#(s t#e eig#t %eneca sac#ems being in fo(r classes co(l! #a;e b(t fo(r opinions, an! t#e ten Cay(ga sac#ems, being in t#e same n(mber of classes, co(l! #a;e b(t fo(r. In t#is manner t#e sac#ems in eac# class were first bro(g#t to (nanimity among t#emsel;es. & cross?cons(ltation was t#en #el! between t#e fo(r sac#ems appointe! to spea2 for t#e fo(r classes; an! w#en t#ey #a! agree!, t#ey !esignate! one of t#eir n(mbers to express t#eir res(lting opinion, w#ic# was t#e answer of t#eir tribe. 6#en t#e sac#ems of t#e se;eral tribes #a!, by t#is ingenio(s met#o!, become of one min! separately, it remaine! to compare t#eir se;eral opinions, an! if t#ey agree! t#e !ecision of t#e co(ncil was ma!e. If t#ey faile! of agreement t#e meas(re was !efeate!, an! t#e

,, co(ncil was at an en!. "#e fi;e persons appointe! to express t#e !ecision of t#e fi;e tribes may possibly explain t#e appointment an! t#e f(nctions of t#e six electors, so calle!, in t#e &Btec confe!eracy, w#ic# will be notice! elsew#ere. /y t#is met#o! of gaining assent t#e e5(ality an! in!epen!ence of t#e se;eral tribes were recogniBe! an! preser;e!. If any sac#em was ob!(rate or (nreasonable, infl(ences were bro(g#t to bear (pon #im, t#ro(g# t#e prepon!erating sentiment, w#ic# #e co(l! not well resist; so t#at it sel!om #appene! t#at incon;enience or !etriment res(lte! from t#eir a!#erence to t#e r(le. 6#ene;er all efforts to proc(re (nanimity #a! faile!, t#e w#ole matter was lai! asi!e beca(se f(rt#er action #a! become impossible. "#e in!(ction of new sac#ems into office was an e;ent of great interest to t#e people, an! not less to t#e sac#ems w#o retaine! t#ereby some control o;er t#e intro!(ction of new members into t#eir bo!y. "o perform t#e ceremony of raising (p sac#ems t#e general co(ncil was primarily instit(te!. It was name! at t#e time, or came afterwar!s to be calle!, t#e Mo(rning Co(ncil +Hen*nue*do*nuhF*seh.$ beca(se it embrace! t#e twofol! ob:ect of lamenting t#e !eat# of t#e !eparte! sac#em an! of installing #is s(ccessor. $pon t#e !eat# of a sac#em, t#e tribe in w#ic# t#e loss #a! occ(rre! #a! power to s(mmon a general co(ncil, an! to name t#e time an! place of its meeting. & #eral! was sent o(t wit# a belt of wamp(m, (s(ally t#e official belt of t#e !ecease! sac#em gi;en to #im at #is installation, w#ic# con;eye! t#is laconic message;? Et#e nameF +mentioning t#at of t#e late r(ler. Ecalls for a co(ncil.F It also anno(nce! t#e !ay an! place of con;ocation. In some cases t#e official belt of t#e sac#em was sent to t#e central co(ncil? fire at >non!aga imme!iately after #is b(rial, as a notification of #is !emise, an! t#e time for #ol!ing t#e co(ncil was !etermine! afterwar!s. "#e Mo(rning Co(ncil, wit# t#e festi;ities w#ic# followe! t#e in;estit(re of sac#ems possesse! remar2able attractions for t#e Iro5(ois. "#ey floc2e! to its atten!ance from t#e most !istant localities wit# Beal an! ent#(siasm. It was opene! an! con!(cte! wit# many forms an! ceremonies, an! (s(ally laste! fi;e !ays, "#e first was !e;ote! to t#e prescribe! ceremony of lamentations for t#e !ecease! sac#em, w#ic#, as a religio(s act, commence! at t#e rising of t#e s(n. &t t#is time t#e sac#ems of t#e tribe, wit# w#om t#e co(ncil was #el!, marc#e! o(t followe! by t#eir tribesmen, to recei;e formally t#e sac#ems an! people of t#e ot#er tribes, w#o #a! arri;e! before an! remaine! encampe! at some !istance waiting for t#e appointe! !ay. &fter exc#anging greetings, a procession was forme! an! t#e lament was c#ante! in ;erse, wit# responses, by t#e (nite! tribes, as t#ey marc#e! from t#e place of reception to t#e place of co(ncil. "#e lament, wit# t#e responses in c#or(s, was a trib(te of respect of t#e memory of t#e !eparte! sac#em, in w#ic# not only #is gens, b(t #is tribe, an! t#e confe!eracy itself participate!. It was certainly a more !elicate testimonial of respect an! affection t#an wo(l! #a;e been expecte! from a barbaro(s people. "#is ceremonial, wit# t#e opening of t#e co(ncil, concl(!e! t#e first !ayFs procee!ings. >n t#e secon! !ay, t#e installation ceremony commence!, an! it (s(alNy laste! into t#e fo(rt#. "#e sac#ems of t#e se;eral tribes seate! t#emsel;es in two !i;isions, as at t#e ci;il co(ncil. 6#en t#e sac#em to be raise! (p belonge! to eit#er of t#e t#ree senior tribes t#e ceremony was performe! by t#e sac#ems of t#e :(nior tribes, an! t#e new sac#em was installe! as a fat#er. In li2e

1HH manner, if #e belonge! to eit#er of t#e t#ree :(nior tribes t#e ceremony was performe! by t#e sac#ems of t#e senior tribes, an! t#e new sac#em was installe! as a son. "#ese special circ(mstances are mentione! to s#ow t#e pec(liar c#aracter of t#eir social an! go;ernmental life. "o t#e Iro5(ois t#ose forms an! fig(res of speec# were f(ll of significance. &mong ot#er t#ings, t#e ancient wamp(m belts, into w#ic# t#e str(ct(re an! principles of t#e confe!eracy E#a! been tal2e!,F to (se t#eir expression, were pro!(ce! an! rea! or interprete! for t#e instr(ction of t#e newly in!(cte! sac#em. & wise?man, not necessarily one of t#e sac#ems, too2 t#ese belts one after t#e ot#er an! wal2ing to an! fro between t#e two !i;isions of sac#ems, rea! from t#em t#e facts w#ic# t#ey recor!e!. &ccor!ing to t#e In!ian conception, t#ese belts can tell, by means of an interpreter, t#e exact r(le, pro;ision or transaction ? tal2e! into t#em at t#e time, an! of w#ic# t#ey were t#e excl(si;e recor!. & stran! of wamp(m consisting of strings of p(rple an! w#ite s#ell bea!s, or a belt wo;en wit# fig(res forme! by bea!s of !ifferent colo(rs, operate! on t#e principle of associating a partic(lar fact wit# a partic(lar? string or fig(re; t#(s gi;ing a serial arrangement to t#e facts as well as fi!elity to t#e memory. "#ese stran!s an! belts of wamp(m were t#e only ;isible recor!s of t#e Iro5(ois; b(t t#ey re5(ire! t#ose traine! interpreters w#o co(l! !raw from t#eir strings an! fig(res t#e recor!s loc2e! (p in t#eir remembrance. >ne of t#e >non!aga sac#ems +Ho?no?we?naF?to. was ma!e E7eeper of t#e 6amp(m,F ? an! two ai!s were raise! (p wit# #im w#o were re5(ire! to be ;erse! in its interpretation as well as t#e sac#em. "#e interpretation of t#ese se;eral belts an! strings bro(g#t o(t, in t#e a!!ress of t#e wise?man, a connecte! acco(nt of t#e occ(rrences at t#e formation of t#e confe!eracy. "#e tra!ition was repeate! in f(ll, an! fortifie! in its essential parts by reference to t#e recor! containe! in t#ese belts. "#(s t#e co(ncil, to raise (p sac#ems, became a teac#ing co(ncil, w#ic# maintaine! in perpet(al fres#ness in t#e min!s of t#e Iro5(ois t#e str(ct(re an! principles of t#e confe!eracy, as well as t#e #istory of its formation. "#ese procee!ings occ(pie! t#e co(ncil (ntil noon eac# !ay; t#e afternoon being !e;ote! to games an! am(sements. &t twilig#t eac# !ay a !inner in common was ser;e! to t#e entire bo!y in atten!ance. It consiste! of so(p an! boile! meat coo2e! near t#e co(ncil?#o(se, an! ser;e! !irectly from t#e 2ettle in woo!en bowls, trays an! la!les. 9race was sai! before t#e feast commence!. It was a prolonge! exclamation by a single person on a #ig# s#rill note, falling !own in ca!ences into stillness, followe! by a response in c#or(s by t#e people. "#e e;enings were !e;ote! to t#e !ance. 6it# t#ese ceremonies contin(e! for se;eral !ays, an! wit# t#e festi;ities t#at followe!, t#eir sac#ems were in!(cte! into office. /y in;esting t#eir sac#ems wit# office t#ro(g# a general co(ncil, t#e framers of t#e confe!eracy #a! in ;iew t#e t#reefol! ob:ect of a perpet(al s(ccession in t#e gens, t#e benefits of a free election among its members, an! a final s(per;ision of t#e c#oice t#ro(g# t#e ceremony of in;estit(re. "o ren!er t#e latter effecti;e it s#o(l! carry wit# it t#e power to re:ect t#e nominee. 6#et#er t#e rig#t to in;est was p(rely f(nctional, or carrie! wit# it t#e rig#t to excl(!e, I am (nable to state. =o case of re:ection is mentione!. "#e sc#eme a!opte! by t#e Iro5(ois to maintain a r(ling bo!y of sac#ems may claim, in se;eral respects, t#e merit of originality, as well as of a!aptation to t#eir con!ition. In form an oligarc#y, ta2ing t#is term in its best

1H1 sense, it was yet a representati;e !emocracy of t#e arc#aic type. & powerf(l pop(lar element per;a!e! t#e w#ole organism an! infl(ence! its action. It is seen in t#e rig#t of t#e gentes to elect an! !epose t#eir sac#ems an! c#iefs, in t#e rig#t of t#e people to be #ear! in co(ncil t#ro(g# orators of t#eir own selection, an! in t#e ;ol(ntary system in t#e military ser;ice. In t#is an! t#e next s(ccee!ing et#nical perio! !emocratic principles were t#e ;ital element of gentile society. "#e Iro5(ois name for a sac#em +Ho*yar*na*goF*(ar.$ w#ic# signifies Ea co(nsellor of t#e people,F was sing(larly appropriate to a r(ler in a species of free !emocracy. It mot only !efines t#e office well, b(t it also s(ggests t#e analogo(s !esignation of t#e members of t#e 9recian co(ncil of c#iefs. "#e 9recian c#iefs were style! Eco(ncillors of t#e peopleF.[10] 3rom t#e nat(re an! ten(re of t#e office among t#e Iro5(ois t#e sac#ems were not masters r(ling by in!epen!ent rig#t, b(t representati;es #ol!ing from t#e gentes by free election. It is wort#y of notice t#at an office w#ic# originate! in sa;agery, an! contin(e! t#ro(g# t#e t#ree s(b?perio!s of barbarism, s#o(l! re;eal so m(c# of its arc#aic c#aracter among t#e 9ree2s after t#e gentile organiBation #a! carrie! t#is portion of t#e #(man family to t#e confines of ci;iliBation, It s#ows f(rt#er #ow !eeply inwro(g#t in t#e #(man min! t#e principle of !emocracy #a! become (n!er gentilism. "#e !esignation for a c#ief of t#e secon! gra!e, Ha*sa* no*(a*na$ Ean ele;ate! name,F in!icates an appreciation by barbarians of t#e or!inary moti;es for personal ambition. It also re;eals t#e sameness of t#e nat(re of man, w#et#er #ig# (p or low !own (pon t#e ro(n!s of t#e la!!er of progress. "#e celebrate! orators, wise?men, an! war?c#iefs of t#e Iro5(ois were c#iefs of t#e secon! gra!e almost wit#o(t exception. >ne reason for t#is may be fo(n! in t#e organic pro;ision w#ic# confine! t#e !(ties of t#e sac#em to t#e affairs of peace. &not#er may #a;e been to excl(!e from t#e r(ling bo!y t#eir ablest men, lest t#eir ambitio(s aims s#o(l! !ist(rb its action. &s t#e office of c#ief was bestowe! in rewar! of merit, it fell necessarily (pon t#eir ablest men. 0e!?Cac2et, /ran!t, 9arang(la, Cornplanter, *armerFs /rot#er, *rost, Co#nson, an! ot#er well 2nown Iro5(ois, were c#iefs as !isting(is#e! from sac#ems. =one of t#e long lines of sac#ems #a;e become !isting(is#e! in &merican annals, wit# t#e exception of ogan, [11] Han!some a2e, [12] an! at a recent !ay, 'ly %. 3ar2er. [13] "#e remain!er #a;e left no remembrance be#in! t#em exten!ing beyon! t#e Iro5(ois. &t t#e time t#e confe!eracy was forme! To*do*daF*ho was t#e most prominent an! infl(ential of t#e >non!aga c#iefs. His accession to t#e plan of a confe!eracy, in w#ic# #e wo(l! experience a !imin(tion of power, was regar!e! as #ig#ly meritorio(s. He was raise! (p as one of t#e >non!aga sac#ems an! #is name place! first in t#e list. "wo assistant, sac#ems were raise! (p wit# #im to act as #is ai!s an! to stan! be#in! #im on p(blic occasions. "#(s !ignifie!, t#is sac#ems#ip #as since been regar!e! by t#e Iro5(ois as t#e most ill(strio(s of t#e forty?eig#t, from t#e ser;ices ren!ere! by t#e first To*do*daF*ho. "#e circ(mstance was early seiBe! (pon by t#e in5(isiti;e colonists to a!;ance t#e person w#o #el! t#is office to t#e position of 2ing of t#e Iro5(ois; b(t t#e misconception was ref(te!, an! t#e instit(tions of t#e Iro5(ois were relie;e! of t#e b(r!en of an impossible feat(re. In t#e general co(ncil #e sat among #is e5(als. "#e confe!eracy #a! no c#ief

1HD exec(ti;e magistrate. $n!er a confe!eracy of tribes t#e office of general, +Hos* ga*a*gehF*da*go*(a. E9reat 6ar %ol!ier,F ma2es its first appearance. Cases wo(l! now arise w#en t#e se;eral tribes in t#eir confe!erate capacity wo(l! #e engage! in war; an! t#e necessity for a general comman!er to !irect t#e mo;ements of t#e (nite! ban!s wo(l! #e felt. "#e intro!(ction of t#is office as a permanent feat(re in t#e go;ernment was a great e;ent in t#e #istory of #(man progress. It was t#e beginning of a !ifferentiation of t#e military from t#e ci;il power, w#ic#, w#en complete!, c#ange! essentially t#e external manifestation of t#e go;ernment. /(t e;en in later stages of progress, w#en t#e military spirit pre!ominate!, t#e essential c#aracter of t#e go;ernment was not c#ange!. 9entilis arreste! (s(rpation. 6it# t#e rise of t#e office of general, t#e go;ernment was gra!(ally c#ange! from a go;ernment of one power, into a go;ernment of two powers. "#e f(nctions of go;ernment became, in co(rse of time, co?or!inate! between t#e two. "#is new office was t#e germ of t#at of a c#ief exec(ti;e magistrate; for o(t of t#e general came t#e 2ing, t#e emperor, an! t#e presi!ent, as elsew#ere s(ggeste!. "#e office sprang from t#e military necessities of society, an! #a! a logical !e;elopment. *or t#is reason its first appearance an! s(bse5(ent growt# #a;e an important place in t#is !isc(ssion. In t#e co(rse of t#is ;ol(me I s#all attempt to trace t#e progressi;e !e;elopment, of t#is office, from t#e Great 9ar Soldier of t#e Iro5(ois t#ro(g# t#e Teuctli of t#e &Btecs, to t#e Basileus of t#e 9recian, an! t#e Re" of t#e 0oman tribes; among all of w#om, t#ro(g# t#ree s(ccessi;e et#nical perio!s, t#e office was t#e same, namely, t#at of a general in a military !emocracy. &mong t#e Iro5(ois, t#e &Btecs, an! t#e 0omans t#e office was electi;e, or confirmati;e, by a constit(ency. 3res(mpti;ely, it was t#e same among t#e 9ree2s of t#e tra!itionary perio!. It is claime! t#at t#e office of basileus among t#e 9recian tribes in t#e Homeric perio! was #ere!itary from fat#er to son. "#is is at least !o(btf(l. It is s(c# a wi!e an! total !epart(re from t#e original ten(re of t#e office as to re5(ire positi;e e;i!ence to establis# t#e fact. &n election, or confirmation by a constit(ency, wo(l! still be necessary (n!er gentile instit(tions. If in n(mero(s instances it were 2nown t#at t#e office #a! passe! from fat#er to son t#is mig#t #a;e s(ggeste! t#e inference of #ere!itary s(ccession, now a!opte! as #istorically tr(e, w#ile s(ccession in t#is form !i! not exist. $nfort(nately, an intimate 2nowle!ge of t#e organiBation an! (sages of society in t#e tra!itionary perio! is altoget#er wanting. 9reat principles of #(man action f(rnis# t#e safest g(i!e w#en t#eir operation m(st #a;e been necessary. It is far more probable t#at #ere!itary s(ccession, w#en it first came in, was establis#e! by force, t#an by t#e free consent of t#e people; an! t#at it !i! not exist among t#e 9recian tribes in t#e Homeric perio!. 6#en t#e Iro5(ois confe!eracy was forme!, or soon after t#at e;ent, two permanent war?c#iefs#ips were create! an! name!, bot# were assigne! to t#e %eneca tribe. >ne of t#em +Ta*(anF*ne*ars$ signifying nee!le?brea2er. was ma!e #ere!itary in t#e 6olf, an! t#e ot#er +So*noF*so* (a$ signifying great oyster s#ell. in t#e "(rtle gens. "#e reason assigne! for gi;ing t#em bot# to t#e %enecas was t#e greater !anger of attac2 at t#e west en! of t#eir territories. "#ey were electe! in t#e same manner as t#e sac#ems, were raise! (p by a general co(ncil, an! were e5(al

1HA in ran2 an! power. &not#er acco(nt states t#at t#ey were create! later. "#ey !isco;ere! imme!iately after t#e confe!eracy was forme! t#at t#e str(ct(re of t#e ong Ho(se was incomplete beca(se t#ere were no officers to exec(te t#e military comman!s of t#e confe!eracy. & co(ncil was con;ene! to reme!y t#e omission, w#ic# establis#e! t#e two perpet(al war?c#iefs name!. &s general comman!ers t#ey #a! c#arge of t#e military affairs of t#e confe!eracy, an! t#e comman! of its :oint forces w#en (nite! in a general expe!ition. 9o;ernor /lac2sna2e, recently !ecease!, #el! t#e office first name!, t#(s s#owing t#at t#e s(ccession #as been reg(larly maintaine!. "#e creation of two principal war?c#iefs instea! of one, an! wit# e5(al powers, arg(es a s(btle an! calc(lating policy to pre;ent t#e !omination of a single man e;en in t#eir military affairs. "#ey !i! wit#o(t experience precisely as t#e 0omans !i! in creating two cons(ls instea! of one, after t#ey #a! abolis#e! t#e office of re". "wo cons(ls wo(l! balance t#e military power between t#em, an! pre;ent eit#er from becoming s(preme. &mong t#e Iro5(ois t#is office ne;er became infl(ential. In In!ian 't#nograp#y t#e s(b:ects of primary importance are t#e gens, p#ratry, tribe an! confe!eracy. "#ey ex#ibit t#e organiBation of society. =ext to t#ese are t#e ten(re an! f(nctions of t#e office of sac#em an! c#ief, t#e f(nctions of t#e co(ncil of c#iefs, an! t#e ten(re an! f(nctions of t#e office of principal war?c#ief. 6#en t#ese are ascertaine!, t#e str(ct(re an! principles of t#eir go;ernmental system will be 2nown. & 2nowle!ge of t#eir (sages an! c(stoms, of t#eir arts an! in;entions, an! of t#eir plan of life will t#en fill o(t t#e pict(re. In t#e wor2 of &merican in;estigators too little attention #as been gi;en to t#e former. "#ey still affor! a ric# fiel! in w#ic#? m(c# information may be gat#ere!. >(r 2nowle!ge, w#ic# is now general, s#o(l! be ma!e min(te an! comparati;e. "#e In!ian tribes in t#e ower, an! in t#e Mi!!le %tat(s of barbarism, represent two of t#e great stages of progress from sa;agery to ci;iliBation. >(r own remote forefat#ers passe! t#ro(g# t#e same con!itions, one after t#e ot#er, an! possesse!, t#ere can scarcely be a !o(bt, t#e same or ;ery similar instit(tions, wit# many of t#e same (sages an! c(stoms. Howe;er little we may be intereste! in t#e &merican In!ians personally, t#eir experience to(c#es (s more nearly, as an exemplification of t#e experience of o(r own ancestors. >(r primary instit(tion root t#emsel;es in a prior gentile society in w#ic# t#e gens, p#ratry an! tribe were t#e organic series, an! in O w#ic# t#e co(ncil of c#iefs was t#e instr(ment of go;ernment. "#e p#enomena of t#eir ancient society m(st #a;e presente! many points in common wit# t#at of t#e Iro5(ois an! ot#er In!ian tribes. "#is ;iew of t#e matter len!s an a!!itional interest to t#e comparati;e instit(tions of ?man2in!. "#e Iro5(ois confe!eracy is an excellent exemplification of a gentile society (n!er t#is form of organiBation. It seems to realiBe all t#e capabilities of gentile instit(tions in t#e ower %tat(s of barbarism; lea;ing an opport(nity for f(rt#er !e;elopment, b(t no s(bse5(ent plan of go;ernment (ntil t#e instit(tions of political society, fo(n!e! (pon territory an! (pon property, wit# t#e establis#ment of w#ic# t#e gentile organiBation wo(l! be o;ert#rown. "#e interme!iate stages were transitional, remaining military !emocracies to t#e en!, except w#ere tyrannies fo(n!e! (pon (s(rpation were temporarily establis#e! in t#eir places. "#e confe!eracy of t#e Iro5(ois was essentially !emocratical; beca(se it, was compose!

1Hof gentes eac# of w#ic# was organiBe! (pon t#e common principles of !emocracy, not of t#e #ig#est b(t of t#e primiti;e type, an! beca(se t#e tribes reser;e! t#e rig#t of local self? go;ernment. "#ey con5(ere! ot#er tribes an! #el! t#em in s(b:ection, as for example t#e <elawares; b(t t#e latter remaine! (n!er t#e go;ernment of t#eir own c#iefs, an! a!!e! not#ing to t#e strengt# of t#e confe!eracy. It was impossible in t#is state of society to (nite tribes (n!er one go;ernment w#o spo2e !ifferent lang(ages, or to #ol! con5(ere! tribes (n!er trib(te wit# any benefit b(t t#e trib(te. "#is exposition of t#e Iro5(ois confe!eracy is far from ex#a(sti;e of t#e facts, b(t it #as been carrie! far eno(g# to answer by present ob:ect. "#e Iro5(ois were a ;igoro(s an! intelligent people, wit# a brain approac#ing in ;ol(me t#e &ryan a;erage. 'lo5(ent in oratory, ;in!icti;e in war, an! in!omitable in perse;erance, t#ey #a;e gaine! a place in #istory. If t#eir military ac#ie;ements are !reary wit# t#e atrocities of sa;age warfare, t#ey #a;e ill(strate! some of t#e #ig#est ;irt(es of man2in! in t#eir relations wit# eac# ot#er. "#e confe!eracy w#ic# t#ey organiBe! m(st be regar!e! as a remar2able pro!(ction of wis!om an! sagacity. >ne of its a;owe! ob:ects was peace; to remo;e t#e ca(se of strife by (niting t#eir tribes (n!er one go;ernment, an! t#en exten!ing it by incorporating ot#er tribes of t#e same name an! lineage. "#ey (rge! t#e 'ries an! t#e =e(tral =ation to become members of t#e confe!eracy, an! for t#eir ref(sal expelle! t#em from t#eir bor!ers. %(c# an insig#t into t#e #ig#est ob:ects of go;ernment is cre!itable to t#eir intelligence. "#eir n(mbers were small, #(t t#ey co(nte! in t#eir ran2s a large n(mber of able men. "#is pro;es t#e #ig# gra!e of t#e stoc2. *rom t#eir position an! military strengt# t#ey exercise! a mar2e! infl(ence (pon t#e co(rse of e;ents between t#e 'nglis# an! t#e *renc# in t#eir competition for s(premacy in =ort# &merica. &s t#e two were nearly e5(al in power an! reso(rces !(ring t#e first cent(ry of coloniBation, t#e *renc# may ascribe to t#e Iro5(ois, in no small !egree t#e o;ert#row of t#eir plans of empire in t#e =ew 6orl!. 6it# a 2nowle!ge of t#e gens in its arc#aic form an! of its capabilities as t#e (nit of a social system, we s#all be better able to (n!erstan! t#e gentes of t#e 9ree2s an! 0omans yet to be consi!ere!. "#e same sc#eme of go;ernment compose! of gentes, p#ratries an! tribes in a gentile society will be fo(n! among t#em as t#ey stoo! at t#e t#res#ol! of ci;iliBation, wit# t#e s(pera!!e! experience of two entire et#nical perio!s. <escent among t#em was in t#e male line, property was in#erite! by t#e c#il!ren of t#e owner instea! of t#e agnatic 2in!re!, an! t#e family was now ass(ming t#e monogamian form. "#e growt# of property, now becoming a comman!ing element, an! t#e increase of n(mbers gat#ere! in walle! cities were slowly !emonstrating t#e necessity for t#e secon! great plan of go;ernment ? t#e political. "#e ol! gentile system was becoming incapable of meeting t#e re5(irements of society as it approac#e! ci;iliBation. 9limpses of a state, fo(n!e! (pon territory an! property, were brea2ing (pon t#e 9recian an! 0oman min!s before w#ic# gentes an! tribes were to !isappear. "o enter (pon t#e secon! plan of go;ernment, it was necessary to s(perse!e t#e gentes by towns#ips an! city war!s ? t#e gentile by a territorial system. "#e going !own of t#e gentes an! t#e (prising of organiBe! towns#ips mar2 t#e !i;i!ing line, pretty nearly, between t#e barbarian an! t#e ci;iliBe! worl!s ? between ancient an! mo!ern society.

1H4

Footnotes
1 "#ey were a!mitte! into t#e Cree2 Confe!eracy after t#eir o;ert#row by t#e *renc#. ! &bo(t 1G41?4, t#ey expelle! t#eir 2in!re! tribes, t#e 'ries, from t#e region between t#e 9enesee ri;er an! a2e 'rie, an! s#ortly afterwar!s t#e =e(tral =ations from t#e =iagara ri;er, an! t#(s came into possession of t#e remain!er of =ew 1or2, wit# t#e exception of t#e lower H(!son an! ong Islan!. " "#e Iro5(ois claime! t#at it #a! existe! from one #(n!re! an! fifty to two #(n!re! years w#en t#ey first saw '(ropeans. "#e generations of sac#ems in t#e #istory by <a;i! C(si2 +a "(scarora. wo(l! ma2e it more ancient. # My frien!, Horatio Hale, t#e eminent p#ilologist, came as #e informe! me, to t#is concl(sion. $ "#ese names signify as follows: 1. E=e(tral.F or Et#e %#iel!.F D. EMan w#o Combs.F A. EInex#a(stible.F -. E%mall %peec#.F 4. E&t t#e *or2s.F G. E&t t#e 9reat 0i;er.F 6. E<ragging #is Horns.F 8. E';en? "empere!.F ,. EHanging (p 0attles.F "#e sac#ems in class one belonge! to t#e "(rtle?gens, in class two to t#e 6olf gens, an! in class t#ree to t#e /ear gens. 1H. E& Man bearing a /(r!en.F 11. E&?Man co;ere! wit#, Cat?tail <own.F 1D. E>pening t#ro(g# t#e 6oo!s.F 1A. E&. ong %tring.F 1-. E& Man wit# a Hea!ac#e.F 14. E%wallowing Himself.F 1G. E3lace of t#e 'c#o.F 17. E6ar?cl(b on t#e 9ro(n!.F 18. E& Man %teaming Himself.F "#e sac#ems in t#e first class belong to t#e 6olf gens, in t#e secon! to t#e "(rtle gens, an! in t#e t#ir! to t#e /ear gens. 1,. E"angle!,F /ear gens. DH. E>n t#e 6atc#,F /ear gens. "#is sac#em an! t#e one before #im, were #ere!itary co(ncillors of t#e To*do*da*ho, w#o #el! t#e most ill(strio(s sac#em? s#ip, D1. E/itter /o!y,F %nipe gens. DD. "(rtle gens. DA. "#is sac#em was #ere!itary 2eeper of t#e wamp(m; 6olf gens. <eer gens. D. <eer gens. A. "(rtle gens. -. /ear gens. 4. EHa;ing a 9limpse,F <eer gens. G. E arge Mo(t#,F "(rtle gens. 7. E>;er t#e Cree2,F "(rtle gens. 8. EMan *rig#tene!.F <eer gens. ,. Heron gens. 1H. /ear gens. 11. /ear gens. 1D. "(rtle gens. 1A. =ot ascertaine!. 1-. EIery Col!,F "(rtle gens. 14. Heron gens. 1G. %nipe gens. 17. %nipe gens. 18. EHan!some a2e,F "(rtle gens. 1,. E e;el Hea;ens.F %nipe gens. DH. "(rtle gens. D1. E9reat *ore#ea!,F Haw2 gens. DD. E&ssistant,F /ear gens. DA. E*alling <ay,F %nipe gens. D-. EHair /(rne! >ff,F %nipe? gens. D4. E>pen <oorF 6olf gens. % "#e c#il!ren of brot#ers are t#emsel;es brot#ers an! sisters to eac# ot#er, t#e c#il!ren of t#e latter were also brot#ers an! sisters, an! so !ownwar!s in!efinitely; t#e c#il!ren an! !escen!ants of sisters are t#e same. "#e c#il!ren of a brot#er an! sister are co(sins, t#e c#il!ren of t#e latter are co(sins, an! so !ownwar!s in!efinitely. & 2nowle!ge of t#e relations#ips to eac# ot#er of t#e members of t#e same gens is ne;er lost. & & ci;il co(ncil, w#ic# mig#t be calle! by eit#er nation, was (s(ally s(mmone! an! opene! in t#e following manner: If, for example, t#e >non!agas ma!e t#e call, t#ey wo(l! sen! #eral!s to t#e >nei!as on t#e east, an! t#e Cay(gas on t#e west of t#em, wit# belts

1HG
containing an in;itation to meet at t#e >non!aga co(ncil?gro;e on s(c# a !ay of s(c# a moon, for p(rposes w#ic# were also name!, It wo(l! t#en become t#e !(ty of t#e Cay(gas to sen! t#e same notification to t#e %enecas, an! of t#e >nei!as to notify t#e Mo#aw2s. If t#e co(ncil was to meet for peacef(l p(rposes, t#en eac# sac#em was to bring wit# #im a b(n!le of fagots of w#ite ce!ar, typical of peace: if for warli2e ob:ects t#en t#e fagots were to be of re! ce!ar, emblematical of war, &t t#e !ay appointe! t#e sac#ems of t#e. se;eral nations, wit# t#eir followers, w#o (s(ally arri;e! a !ay or two before an! remaine! encampe! at a !istance, were recei;e! in a formal manner by t#e >non!aga sac#ems at t#e rising of t#e s(n. "#ey marc#e! in separate processions from t#eir camps to t#e co(ncil? gro;e, eac# bearing #is s2in robe an! b(n!le of fagots, w#ere t#e >non!aga sac#ems awaite! t#em wit# a conco(rse of people. "#e sac#ems t#en forme! t#emsel;es into a circle, an >non!aga sac#em, w#o by appointment acte! as master of t#e ceremonies, occ(pying t#e si!e towar! t#e rising s(n. &t a signal t#ey marc#e! ro(n! t#e circle mo;ing by t#e nort#. It may be #ere obser;e! t#at t#e rim of t#e circle towar! t#e nort# is calle! t#e Ecol! si!eF +o?to?wa?ga.; t#at on t#e west Et#e si!e towar! t#e setting s(n,F +#a?ga? 2was? gwa.; t#at on t#e so(t# Et#e si!e of t#e #ig# s(nF +en?!e?i#? 2wa.; an! t#at on t#e east Et#e si!e of t#e rising s(n,F +t?2a? gwit?2as?gwa.. &fter marc#ing t#ree times aro(n! on t#e circle single fire, t#e #ea! an! foot of t#e col(mn being :oine!, t#e lea!er stoppe! on t#e rising s(n si!e, an! !eposite! before #im #is b(n!le of fagots. In t#is #e was followe! by t#e ot#ers, one at a time, following by t#e nort#, t#(s forming an inner circle of fagots. &fter t#is eac# sac#em sprea! #is s2in robe in t#e same or!er, an! sat !own (pon it, cross? legge!, be#in! #is b(n!le of fagots, wit# #is assistant sac#em stan!ing be#in! #im. "#e master of t#e ceremonies, after a momentFs pa(se, arose, !rew from #is po(c# two pieces of !ry woo! an! a piece of p(n2 wit# w#ic# #e procee!e! to stri2e fire by friction. 6#en fire was t#(s obtaine!, #e steppe! wit# in t#e circle an! set fire to #is own b(n!le, an! t#en to eac# of t#e ot#ers in t#e or!er in w#ic# t#ey were lai!. 6#en t#ey were well ignite! an! at a signal from t#e master of t#e ceremonies, t#e sac#ems arose an! marc#e! t#ree times aro(n! t#e /(rning Circle, going as before by t#e nort#. 'ac# t(rne! from time to time as #e wal2e!, so as to expose all si!es of #is person to t#e 6arming infl(ence of t#e fires. "#is typifie! t#at t#ey warme! t#eir affections for eac# ot#er in or!er t#at t#ey mig#t transact t#e b(siness of t#e co(ncil in frien!s#ip an! (nity. "#ey t#en re?seate! t#emsel;es eac# (pon #is own robe. &fter t#is t#e master of t#e ceremonies again rising to #is feet, fille! an! lig#te! t#e pipe of peace from #is own fire. <rawing t#ree w#iffs, one after t#e ot#er, #e blew t#e first towar! t#e Benit#, t#e secon! towar! t#e gro(n!, an! t#e t#ir! towar! t#e s(n. /y t#e first act #e ret(rne! t#an2s to t#e 9reat %pirit for t#e preser;ation of #is life !(ring t#e past year, an! for being permitte! to be present at t#is co(ncil. /y t#e secon!, #e ret(rne! t#an2s to #is Mot#er, t#e 'art#, for #er ;ario(s pro!(ctions w#ic# #a! ministere! to #is s(stenance. &n! by t#e t#ir!, #e ret(rne! t#an2s to t#e %(n for #is ne;er? failing lig#t, e;er s#ining (pon all. "#ese wor!s were not repeate!, b(t s(c# is t#e p(rport of t#e acts t#emsel;es. He t#en passe! t#e pipe to t#e first (pon #is rig#t towar! t#e nort#, w#o repeate! t#e same ceremonies, an! t#en passe! it to t#e next, an! so on aro(n! t#e

1H7
b(rning circle. "#e ceremony of smo2ing t#e cal(met also signifie! t#at t#ey ple!ge! to eac# ot#er t#eir fait#, t#eir frien!s#ip, an! t#eir #ono(r. "#ese ceremonies complete! t#e opening of t#e co(ncil, w#ic# was t#en !eclare! to be rea!y for t#e b(siness (pon w#ic# it #a! been con;ene!. ' "ra!ition !eclares t#at t#e >non!agas !ep(te! a wise?man to ;isit t#e territories of t#e tribes an! select an! name t#e new sac#ems as circ(mstances s#o(l! prompt; w#ic# explains t#e (ne5(al !istrib(tion of t#e office among t#e se;eral gentes. ( &t t#e beginning of t#e &merican 0e;ol(tion t#e Iro5(ois were (nable to agree (pon a !eclaration of war against o(r confe!eracy for want of (nanimity in co(ncil. & n(mber of t#e >nei!a sac#ems resiste! t#e proposition an! finally ref(se!P t#eir consent. &s ne(trality was impossible wit# t#e Mo#aw2s, an! t#e %enecas were !etermine! to fig#t, it was resol;e! t#at eac# tribe mig#t engage in t#e war (pon its own responsibility, or remain ne(tral. "#e war against t#e 'ries, against t#e =e(tral =ation an! %(s5(e#annoc2s, an! t#e se;eral wars against t#e *renc# were resol;e! (pon in general co(ncil. >(r colonial recor!s are largely fille! wit# negotiations wit# t#e Iro5(ois Confe!eracy. 1) &esc#yl(s )"#e %e;en against "#ebes,8 1HH4. 11 >ne of t#e Cay(ga sac#ems. 1! >ne of t#e %eneca sac#ems, an! t#e fo(n!er of t#e =ew 0eligion of t#e Iro5(ois. 1" >ne of t#e %eneca sac#ems.

Chapter VI GENTES IN OTHER TRIBES OF THE GANOWANIAN FAMILY

6#en &merica was first !isco;ere! in its se;eral regions, t#e &borigines were fo(n! in two !issimilar con!itions. *irst were t#e Iillage In!ians, w#o !epen!e! almost excl(si;ely (pon #ortic(lt(re for s(bsistence; s(c# were t#e tribes in t#is stat(s in =ew Mexico, Mexico an! Central &merica, an! (pon t#e platea( of t#e &n!es. %econ!, were t#e =on?#ortic(lt(ral In!ians, w#o !epen!e! (pon fis#, brea!?roots an! game; s(c# were t#e In!ians of t#e Ialley of t#e Col(mbia, of t#e H(!sonFs /ay "erritory, of parts of Cana!a, an! of some ot#er sections of &merica. /etween t#ese tribes, an! connecting t#e extremes by insensible gra!ations, were t#e partially Iillage, an! partially Hortic(lt(ral In!ians; s(c# were t#e Iro5(ois, t#e =ew 'nglan! an! Iirginia In!ians, t#e Cree2s, C#octas, C#ero2ees, Minnitarees, <a2otas an! %#awnees. "#e weapons, arts, (sages, in;entions, !ances, #o(se arc#itect(re, form of go;ernment, an! plan of life of all ali2e bear t#e impress of a common min!, an! re;eal, t#ro(g# t#eir wi!e range, t#e s(ccessi;e stages of !e;elopment of t#e same original conceptions. >(r first mista2e consiste! in o;errating t#e comparati;e a!;ancement of t#e Iillage In!ians; an! o(r secon! in

1H8 (n!errating t#at of t#e =on?#ortic(lt(ral, an! of t#e partially Iillage In!ians: w#ence res(lte! a t#ir!, t#at of separating one from t#e ot#er an! regar!ing t#em as !ifferent races. "#ere was a mar2e! !ifference in t#e con!itions in w#ic# t#ey were se;erally fo(n!; for a n(mber of t#e =on?#ortic(lt(ral tribes were in t#e $pper %tat(s of sa;agery; t#e interme!iate tribes were in t#e ower %tat(s of barbarism, an! t#e Iillage In!ians were in t#e Mi!!le %tat(s. "#e e;i!ence of t#eir (nity of origin #as now acc(m(late! to s(c# a !egree as to lea;e no reasonable !o(bt (pon t#e 5(estion, alt#o(g# t#is concl(sion is not (ni;ersally accepte!. "#e 's2imos belong to a !ifferent family. In a pre;io(s wor2 I presente! t#e system of consang(inity an! affinity of some se;enty &merican In!ian tribes; an! (pon t#e fact of t#eir :oint possession of t#e same system, wit# e;i!ence of its !eri;ation from a common so(rce, ;ent(re! to claim for t#em t#e !istincti;e ran2 of a family of man2in!, (n!er t#e name of t#e 9anowanian, t#e E*amily of t#e /ow an! &rrow.F[1] Ha;ing consi!ere! t#e attrib(tes of t#e gens in its arc#aic form, it remains to in!icate t#e extent of its pre;alence in t#e tribes of t#e 9anowanian family. In t#is c#apter t#e organiBation will #e trace! among t#em, confining t#e statements to t#e names of t#e gentes in eac# tribe, wit# t#eir r(les of !escent an! in#eritance as to property an! office. *(rt#er explanations will be a!!e! w#en necessary. "#e main point to be establis#e! is t#e existence or non?existence of t#e gentile organiBation among t#em. 6#ere;er t#e instit(tion #as been fo(n! in t#ese se;eral tribes it is t#e same in all essential respects as t#e gens of t#e Iro5(ois, an! t#erefore nee!s no f(rt#er exposition in t#is connection. $nless t#e contrary is state!, it may be (n!erstoo! t#at t#e existence of t#e organiBation was ascertaine! by t#e a(t#or from t#e In!ian tribe or some of its members. "#e classification of tribes follows t#at a!opte! in E%ystems of Consang(inity.F

I. Hodenosaunian %ribes.
l. Iro5(ois. "#e gentes of t#e Iro5(ois #a;e been consi!ere!.[2] D. 6yan!otes. "#is tribe, t#e remains of t#e ancient H(rons, is compose! of eig#t gentes, as follows: 1. 6olf. D. /ear. .. /ea;er. -. "(rtle. 0. <eer. G. %na2e. 7. 3orc(pine. 8. Haw2.[3] <escent is in t#e female line wit# marriage in t#e gens pro#ibite!. "#e office of sac#em, or ci;il c#ief is #ere!itary in t#e gens, b(t electi;e among its members. "#ey #a;e se;en sac#ems an! e;en war?c#iefs, t#e Haw2 gens being now extinct. "#e office of sac#em passes from brot#er to brot#er, or from (ncle to nep#ew; b(t t#at of war c#ief was bestowe! in rewar! of merit, an! was not #ere!itary. 3roperty was #ere!itary in t#e gens; conse5(ently c#il!ren too2 not#ing from t#eir fat#er; b(t t#ey in#erite! t#eir mot#erFs effects. 6#ere t#e r(le is state! #ereafter it will be (n!erstoo! t#at (nmarrie! as well as marrie! persons are incl(!e!. 'ac# gens #as power to !epose as well as elect its c#iefs. "#e 6yan!otes #a;e been separate! from t#e Iro5(ois at least fo(r #(n!re! years; b(t t#ey still #a;e &;e gentes in common, alt#o(g# t#eir names #a;e eit#er c#ange! beyon! i!entification, or new

1H, names #a;e been s(bstit(te! by one or t#e ot#er. "#e 'ries, =e(tral =ation, =ottoways, "(telos [4] an! %(s5(e#annoc2s[5] now extinct or absorbe! in ot#er tribes, belong to t#e same lineage. 3res(mably t#ey were organiBe! in gentes, b(t t#e e;i!ence of t#e fact is lost.

II. -a1otian %ribes.

& large n(mber of tribes are incl(!e! in t#is great stoc2 of t#e &merican aborigines. &t t#e time of t#eir !isco;ery t#ey #a! fallen into a n(mber of gro(ps, an! t#eir lang(age into a n(mber of !ialects; b(t t#ey in#abite!, in t#e main, contin(o(s areas. "#ey occ(pie! t#e #ea! waters of t#e Mississippi, an! bot# ban2s of t#e Misso(ri for more t#an a t#o(san! miles in extent. In all probability t#e Iro5(ois, an! t#eir cognate tribes, were an offs#oot from t#is stem. 1. <a2otas or %io(x. "#e <a2otas, consisting at t#e present time of some twel;e in!epen!ent tribes, #a;e alQowe! t#e gentile organiBation to fall into !eca!ence. It seems s(bstantially certain t#at t#ey once possesse! it beca(se t#eir nearest congeners, t#e Misso(ri tribes, are now t#(s organiBe!. "#ey #a;e societies name! after animals analogo(s to gentes, b(t t#e latter are now wanting. Car;er, w#o was among t#em in 17G7, remar2s t#at )e;ery separate bo!y of In!ians is !i;i!e! into ban!s or tribes; w#ic# ban! or tribe forms a little comm(nity wit#in t#e nation to w#ic# it belongs. &s t#e nation #as some partic(lar symbol by w#ic# it, is !isting(is#e! from ot#ers, so eac# tribe #as a ba!ge from w#ic# it is !enominate!; as t#at of t#e eagle, t#e pant#er, t#e tiger, t#e b(ffalo, etc. >ne ban! of t#e =a(!owissies. +%io(x. is represente! by a %na2e, anot#er a "ortoise, a t#ir! a %5(irrel, a fo(rt# a 6olf, an! a fift# a /(ffalo. "#ro(g#o(t e;ery nation t#ey partic(lariBe t#emsel;es in t#e same manner, an! t#e meanest person among t#em will remember #is lineal !escent,, an! !isting(is# #imself by #is respecti;e family.8[6] He ;isite! t#e eastern <a2otas on t#e Mississippi. *rom t#is specific statement I see no reason to !o(bt t#at t#e gentile organiBation was t#en in f(ll ;itality among t#em. 6#en I ;isite! t#e eastern <a2otas in 18G1; an! t#e western in 18GD, I co(l! fin! no satisfactory traces of gentes among t#em. & c#ange in t#e mo!e of life among t#e <a2otas occ(rre! between t#ese !ates w#en t#ey were force! (pon t#e plains, an! fell into noma!ic ban!s, w#ic# may, per#aps, explain t#e !eca!ence of gentilism among t#em. Car;er also notice! t#e two gra!es of c#iefs among t#e western In!ians, w#ic# #a;e been explaine! as t#ey exist among t#e Iro5(ois. )';ery ban!,8 #e obser;es, )#as a c#ief w#o is terme! t#e 9reat C#ief, or t#e C#ief 6arrior, an! w#o is c#osen in consi!eration of #is experience in war, an! of #is appro;e! ;alo(r, to !irect t#eir military operations, an! to reg(late all concerns belonging to t#at, !epartment. /(t t#is c#ief is not consi!ere! t#e #ea! of t#e state; besi!es t#e great warrior w#o is electe! for #is warli2e 5(alifications, t#ere is anot#er w#o en:oys a pre?eminence as #is #ere!itary rig#t an! #as t#e more imme!iate management of t#eir ci;il affairs. "#is c#ief mig#t wit# greater propriety be !enominate! t#e sac#em; w#ose assent is necessary to all con;eyances an! treaties, to w#ic# #e affixes t#e mar2 of t#e tribe or nation.8[7] D. Misso(ri tribes. 1. 3(n2as. "#is tribe is compose! of eig#t gentes, as follows: 1. 9riBBly /ear. D. Many 3eople. .. 'l2. -. %2(n2. 0. /(ffalo. G.

11H %na2e. 7. Me!icine. 8. Ice.[8] In t#is tribe, contrary to t#e general r(le, !escent is in t#e male line, t#e c#il!ren belonging to t#e gens of t#eir fat#er. Intermarriage in t#e gens is pro#ibite!. "#e office of sac#em is #ere!itary in t#e gens, t#e c#oice being !etermine! by election; b(t t#e sons of a !ecease! sac#em are eligible. It is probable t#at t#e c#ange from t#e arc#aic form was recent, from t#e fact t#at among t#e >toes an! Misso(ris, two of t#e eig#t Misso(ri tribes, an! also among t#e Man!ans, !escent is still in t#e female line. 3roperty is #ere!itary in t#e gens. D. >ma#as. "#is tribe is compose! of t#e following twel;e gentes: 1. <eer. D. /lac2. .. /ir!. -. "(rtle. 0. /(ffalo, G. /ear. 7. Me!icine. 8. 7aw. ,. Hea!. IH. 0e!, 11. "#(n!er. 1D. Many %easons.[9] <escent, in#eritance, an! t#e law of marriage are t#e same as among t#e 3(n2as. A. Iowas. In li2e manner. t#e Iowas #a;e eig#t gentes, as? follows: 1. 6olf. D. /ear. A. Cow, /(ffalo. -. 'l2. 0. 'agle, G. 3igeon. 7. %na2e. 8. >wl.[10] & gens of t#e /ea;er !a*+uh*tha once existe! among t#e Iowas an! >toes, b(t it is now extinct. <escent, in#eritance, an! t#e pro#ibition of intermarriage in t#e gents are t#e same as among t#e 3(n2as. -. >toes an! Misso(ris. "#ese tribes #a;e coalesce! into one, an! #a;e t#e eig#t following gentes: 1. 6olf. D. /ear. .. Cow /(ffalo. -. 'l2. 0. 'agle, G. 3igeon. 7. %na2e. 8. >wl.[11] <escent among t#e >toes an! Misso(ris is in t#e female line, t#e c#il!ren belonging to t#e gens of t#eir mot#er. "#e office of sac#em, an! property are #ere!itary in t#e gens, in w#ic# intermarriage is pro#ibite!. 4. 7aws. "#e 7aws +7aw?Ba. #a;e t#e following fo(rteen gentes: 1. <eer. D. /ear. .. /(ffalo. -. 'agle +w#ite.. 0. 'agle +blac2.. G. <(c2. 7. 'l2. 8. 0accoon. ,. 3rairie 6olf. 1H. "(rtle. 11. 'art#. 1D. <eer. "ail. 1A. "ent. 1-. "#(n!er.[12] "#e 7aws are among t#e wil!est of t#e &merican aborigines, b(t are an intelligent an! interesting people. <escent, in#eritance an! marriage reg(lations among t#em are t#e same as among t#e 3(n2as. It will be obser;e! ser;e! t#at t#ere are two 'agle gentes, an! two of t#e /eer, w#ic# affor! a goo! ill(stration of t#e segmentation of a gens; t#e 'agle gens #a;ing probably !i;i!e! into two an! !isting(is#e! t#emsel;es by t#e names of w#ite an! blac2. "#e "(rtle will be fo(n! #ereafter as a f(rt#er ill(stration of t#e same fact. 6#en I ;isite! t#e Misso(ri tribes in 184, an! 18GH, I was (nable to reac# t#e >sages an! J(appas. "#e eig#t tribes t#(s name! spea2 closely affiliate! !ialects of t#e <a2otian stoc2 lang(age, an! t#e pres(mption t#at t#e >sages an! J(appas are organiBe! in gentes is s(bstantially concl(si;e. In 18G,, t#e 7aws, t#en m(c# re!(ce!, n(mbere! se;en #(n!re!,

111 w#ic# wo(l! gi;e an a;erage of b(t fifty persons to a gens. "#e #ome co(ntry of t#ese se;eral tribes was along t#e Misso(ri an! its trib(taries from t#e mo(t# of t#e /ig %io(x 0i;er to t#e Mississippi, an! !own t#e west ban2 of t#e latter ri;er to t#e &r2ansas. A. 6innebagoes. 6#en !isco;ere! t#is tribe resi!e! near t#e la2e of t#eir name in 6isconsin. &n offs#oot from t#e <a2otian stem, t#ey were apparently following t#e trac2 of t#e Iro5(ois eastwar! to t#e ;alley of t#e %t. awrence, w#en t#eir f(rt#er progress in t#at !irection was arreste! by t#e &lgon2in tribes between a2es H(ron an! %(perior. "#eir nearest affiliation is wit# t#e Misso(ri tribes. "#ey #a;e eig#t gentes as follows: 1. 6olf. ? D. /ear. .. /(ffalo. -. 'agle. 0. 'l2, ?G. <eer. 7. %na2e. 8. "#(n!er.[13] <escent, in#eritance an! t#e law of marriage are t#e same among t#em as among t#e 3(n2as. It is s(rprising t#at so many tribes of t#is stoc2 s#o(l! #a;e c#ange! !escent from t#e female line to t#e male, beca(se w#en first 2nown t#e i!ea of property was s(bstantially (n!e;elope!, or b(t slig#tly beyon! t#e germinating stage, an! co(l! #ar!ly, as among t#e 9ree2s an! 0omans, #a;e been t#e operati;e ca(se. It is probable t#at it occ(rre! at a recent perio! (n!er &merican an! missionary infl(ences. Car;er fo(n! traces of !escent in t#e female line in 1787 among t#e 6innebagoes. )%ome nations,8 #e remar2s, )w#en t#e !ignity is #ere!itary, limit t#e s(ccession to t#e female line. >n t#e !eat# of a c#ief #is sistersF son s(ccee!s #im in preference to #is own son; an! if #e #appens to #a;e no sister t#e nearest female relation ass(mes t#e !ignity. "#is acco(nts for a woman being at t#e #ea! of t#e 6innebago nation, w#ic# before I was ac5(ainte! wit# t#eir laws, appeare! strange to me.8 In 18G,, t#e 6innebagoes n(mbere! fo(rteen #(n!re!, w#ic# wo(l! gi;e an a;erage of one #(n!re! an! fifty persons to t#e gens.

7. 0pper Missouri %ribes+

1. 'andans. In intelligence an! in t#e arts of life, t#e Man!ans were in a!;ance of all t#eir 2in!re! tribes, for w#ic# t#ey were probably in!ebte! to t#e Minnitarees. "#ey are !i;i!e! into se;en gentes as follows: 1. 6olf. D. /ear. A. 3rairie C#ic2en. -. 9oo! 7nife. 0. 'agle. G. *lat#ea!. 7. Hig# Iillage.[14] <escent is in t#e female line, wit# office an! property #ere!itary in t#e gens. Intermarriage in t#e gens is not permitte!. <escent in t#e female line among t#e Man!ans wo(l! be sing(lar w#ere so many tribes of t#e same stoc2 #a;e it in t#e male, were it not in t#e arc#aic form from w#ic# t#e ot#er tribes #a! b(t recently !eparte!. It affor!s a strong pres(mption t#at it was originally in t#e female line in all t#e <a2otian tribes. "#is information wit# respect to t#e Man!ans was obtaine! at t#e ol! Man!an Iillage in t#e $pper Misso(ri, in 18GD, from Cosep# 7ip, w#ose mot#er was a Man!an woman. He confirme! t#e fact of !escent by naming #is mot#erFs gens, w#ic# was also #is own. D. 'innitarees. "#is tribe an! t#e $psaro2as +$p? sarF?o?2as. or Crows, are s(b!i;isions of an original people. "#ey are !o(btf(l members of t#is branc# of t#e

11D 9anowanian family: alt#o(g# from t#e n(mber of wor!s in t#eir !ialects an! in t#ose of t#e Misso(ri an! <a2ata tribes w#ic# are common, t#ey #a;e been place! wit# t#em ling(istically. "#ey #a;e #a! an antece!ent experience of w#ic# b(t little is 2nown. Minnitarees carrie! #ortic(lt(re, t#e timber?frame! #o(se, an! a pec(liar religio(s system into t#is area w#ic# t#ey ta(g#t to t#e Man!ans. "#ere is a possibility t#at t#ey are !escen!ants of t#e Mo(n!?/(il!ers. "#ey #a;e t#e se;en following gentes: 1. 7nife. D. 6ater. .. o!ge. -. 3rairie C#ic2en. 0. Hill 3eople. G. $n2nown &nimal. 7. /onnet.[16] <escent is in t#e female line, intermarriage in t#e gens is forbi!!en, an! t#e office of sac#em as well as property is #ere!itary in t#e gens. "#e Minnitarees an! Man!ans now li;e toget#er in t#e same ;illage. In personal appearance t#ey are among t#e finest specimens of t#e 0e! Man now li;ing in any part of =ort# &merica. A. $psaro2as or Crows. "#is tribe #as t#e following gentes: 1. 3rairie <og. D. /a! eggins. .. %2(n2. -. "reac#ero(s o!ges. 0. ost o!ges. G. /a! Hono(rs. 7. /(tc#ers. 8. Mo;ing o!ges. ,. /earFs 3aw Mo(ntain. 1H. /lac2foot o!ges. 11. *is# Catc#ers. 1D. &ntelope. 1A. 0a;en.[17] <escent, in#eritance an! t#e pro#ibition of intermarriage in t#e gens, are t#e same as among t#e Minnitarees. %e;eral of t#e names of t#e Crow gentes are (n(s(al, an! more s(ggesti;e of ban!s t#an of gentes. *or a time I was incline! to !iscre!it t#em. /(t t#e existence of t#e organiBation into gentes was clearly establis#e! by t#eir r(les of !escent, an! marital (sages, an! by t#eir laws of in#eritance wit# respect to property. My interpreter w#en among t#e Crows was 0obert Mel!r(m, t#en one of t#e factors of t#e &merican *(r Company, w#o #a! li;e! wit# t#e Crows forty years, an! was one of t#eir c#iefs. He #a! mastere! t#e lang(age so completely t#at #e t#o(g#t m it. "#e following special (sages wit# respect to in#eritance were mentione! by #im. If a person to w#om any article of property #a! been presente! !ie! wit# it in #is possession, an! t#e !onor was !ea!, it re;erte! to t#e gens of t#e latter. 3roperty ma!e or ac5(ire! by a wife !escen!e! after #er !eat# to #er c#il!ren; w#ile t#at, of #er #(sban! after #is !ecease belonge! to #is gentile 2in!re!. If a person ma!e a present to a frien! an! !ie!, t#e latter m(st perform some recogniBe! act of mo(rning, s(c# as c(tting off t#e :oint of a finger at t#e f(neral, or s(rren!er t#e property to t#e gens of #is !ecease! frien!.[18] "#e Crows #a;e a c(stom wit# respect to marriage, w#ic# I #a;e fo(n! in at least forty ot#er In!ian tribes, w#ic# may be mentione! #ere, beca(se some (se will be ma!e of it in a s(bse5(ent c#apter. If a man marries t#e el!est !a(g#ter in a family #e is entitle! to all #er sisters as a!!itional wi;es w#en t#ey attain mat(rity. He may wai;e t#e rig#t, b(t if #e insists, #is s(perior claim wo(l! be recogniBe! by #er gens. 3olygamy is allowe! by (sage among t#e &merican aborigines generally; b(t it was ne;er pre;alent to any consi!erable extent from t#e inability of persons to s(pport more t#an one family. <irect proof of t#e existence of t#e c(stom first mentione! was affor!e! by Mel!r(mFs wife, t#en at t#e age of twenty?fi;e. %#e

11A was capt(re! w#en a c#il! in a foray (pon t#e /lac2feet an! became Mel!r(mFs capti;e. He in!(ce! #is mot#er?in?law to a!opt t#e c#il! into #er gens an! family, w#ic# ma!e t#e capti;e t#e yo(nger sister of #is t#en wife, an! ga;e #im t#e rig#t to ta2e #er as anot#er wife w#en s#e reac#e! mat(rity. He a;aile! #imself of t#is (sage of t#e tribe to ma2e #is claim paramo(nt. "#is (sage #as a great anti5(ity in t#e #(man family. It is a s(r;i;al of t#e ol! c(stom of punalua.

III. 'ulf %ribes.

1. 'usco+ees or ?ree+s. "#e Cree2 Confe!eracy consiste! of six "ribes; namely, t#e Cree2s, Hitc#etes, 1ooc#ees, &labamas, Coosatees, an! =atc#es, all of w#om spo2e !ialects of t#e same lang(age, wit# t#e exception of t#e =atc#es, w#o were a!mitte! into t#e confe!eracy after t#eir o;ert#row by t#e *renc#. "#e Cree2s are compose! of twenty?two gentes as follows: 1. 6olf. D. /ear. A. %2(n2. -. &lligator. 0. <eer. G. /ir!. 7. "iger. 8. 6in!. ,. "oa!. 1H. Mole. 11. *ox. ID. 0accoon. 1A. *is#. 1-. Corn. 14. 3otato. 1G. Hic2ory =(t. 17. %alt. 18. 6il! Cat. 1,. +%igFn ost[19].. DH. +%igFn ost.. D1. +%igFn ost,.. DD. +%igFn ost[20].. "#e remaining tribes of t#is confe!eracy are sai! to #a;e #a! t#e organiBation into gentes, as t#e a(t#or was informe! by t#e 0e;. %. M. o(g#ri!ge, w#o was for many years a missionary among t#e Cree2s, an! w#o f(rnis#e! t#e names of t#e gentes abo;e gi;en. He f(rt#er state! t#at !escent among t#e Cree2s was in t#e female line; t#at t#e office of sac#em an! t#e property of !ecease! persons were #ere!itary in t#e gens, an! t#at intermarriage in t#e gens was pro#ibite!. &t t#e present time t#e Cree2s are partially ci;iliBe! wit# a c#ange! plan of life. "#ey #a;e s(bstit(te! a political in place of t#e ol! social system, so t#at in a few years all traces of t#eir ol! gentile instit(tions will #a;e !isappeare!. In 18G, t#ey n(mbere! abo(t fifteen t#o(san!, w#ic# wo(l! gi;e an a;erage of fi;e #(n!re! an! fifty persons to t#e gens. D. ?hoctas. &mong t#e C#octas t#e p#ratric organiBation appears in a conspic(o(s manner, beca(se eac# p#ratry is name!, an! stan!s o(t plainly as a p#ratry. It !o(btless existe! in a ma:ority of t#e tribes pre;io(sly name!, b(t t#e s(b:ect #as not been specially in;estigate!. "#e tribe of t#e Cree2s consists of eig#t gentes arrange! in two p#ratries, compose! of fo(r gentes eac#, as among t#e Iro5(ois. I. 7ivided !eople. +3irst 3#ratry. 1. 0ee!. D. aw >2la. A. (la2. -. ino2l(s#a. II. Beloved !eople. +%econ! 3#ratry.. 1. /elo;e! 3eople. D. %mall 3eople. A. *is#. arge 3eople. -. Cray

"#e gentes of t#e same p#ratry co(l! not intermarry; b(t t#e members of eit#er of t#e first gentes co(l! marry into eit#er gens of t#e secon!, an! vice versa. It s#ows t#at t#e C#octas, li2e t#e Iro5(ois, commence! wit# two gentes, eac# of w#ic#

11afterwar!s s(b!i;i!e! into fo(r, an! t#at t#e original pro#ibition of intermarriage in t#e gens #a! followe! t#e s(b!i;isions. <escent among t#e C#octas was in t#e female line. 3roperty an! t#e office of sac#em were #ere!itary in t#e gens. In 18G, t#ey n(mbere! some twel;e t#o(san!, w#ic# wo(l! gi;e an a;erage of fifteen #(n!re! persons to a gens. "#e foregoing information was comm(nicate! to t#e a(t#or by t#e late <r. Cyr(s /yington, w#o entere! t#e missionary ser;ice in t#is tribe in 18DH w#ile t#ey still resi!e! in t#eir ancient territory east of t#e Mississippi, w#o remo;e! wit# t#em to t#e In!ian "erritory, an! !ie! in t#e missionary ser;ice abo(t t#e year 18G8, after forty?fi;e years of missionary labo(rs. & man of sing(lar excellence an! p(rity of c#aracter, #e #as left be#in! #im a name an! a memory of w#ic# #(manity may be pro(!. & C#octa once expresse! to <r. /yington a wis# t#at #e mig#t be ma!e a citiBen of t#e $nite! %tates, for t#e reason t#at #is c#il!ren wo(l! t#en in#erit #is property instea! of #is gentile 2in!re! (n!er t#e ol! law of t#e gens. C#octa (sages wo(l! !istrib(te #is property after #is !eat# among #is brot#ers an! sisters an! t#e c#il!ren of #is sisters. He co(l!, #owe;er, gi;e #is property to #is c#il!ren in #is life? time, in w#ic# case t#ey co(l! #ol! it against t#e members of #is gens. Many In!ian tribes now #a;e consi!erable property in !omestic animals an! in #o(ses an! lan!s owne! by in!i;i!(als, among w#om t#e practice of gi;ing it to t#eir c#il!ren in t#eir life?time #as become common to a;oi! gentile in#eritance. &s property increase! in 5(antity t#e !isin#eritance of c#il!ren began to aro(se opposition to gentile in#eritance; an! in some of t#e tribes, t#at of t#e C#octas among t#e n(mber, t#e ol! (sage was abolis#e! a few years since, an! t#e rig#t to in#erit was ;este! excl(si;ely in t#e c#il!ren of t#e !ecease! owner. It came, #owe;er, t#ro(g# t#e s(bstit(tion of a political system in t#e place of t#e gentile system, an electi;e co(ncil an! magistracy being s(bstit(te! in place of t#e ol! go;ernment of c#iefs. $n!er t#e pre;io(s (sages t#e wife in#erite! not#ing from #er #(sban!, nor #e from #er; b(t t#e wifeFs effects were !i;i!e! among #er c#il!ren, an! in !efa(lt of t#em, among #er sisters. A. ?hic+asas. In li2e manner t#e C#ic2asas were organiBe! in two p#ratries, of w#ic# t#e first contains fo(r, an! t#e secon! eig#t gentes, as follows: I. 3ant#er 3#ratry. 1. 6il! Cat. D. /ir!. .. *is#. -. <eer. II. %panis# 3#ratry. 1. 0accoon. D. %panis#. A. 0oyal. -. H(s#?2o?ni. 0. %5(irrel. G. &lligator. 7. 6olf. 8. /lac2bir!.[22] <escent was in t#e female line, intermarriage in t#e gens was pro#ibite!, an! property as well as t#e office of sac#em were #ere!itary in t#e gens. "#e abo;e partic(lars were obtaine! from t#e 0e;. C#arles C. Copelan!, an &merican missionary resi!ing wit# t#is tribe. In 18G, t#ey n(mbere! some fi;e t#o(san!, w#ic# wo(l! gi;e an a;erage of abo(t fo(r #(n!re! persons to t#e gens. & new gens seems to #a;e been forme! after t#eir interco(rse wit# t#e %paniar!s commence!, or t#is name, for reasons, may #a;e been s(bstit(te! in t#e place of an

114 original name. >ne of t#e p#ratries is also calle! t#e %panis#. -. ?hero+ees. "#is tribe was anciently compose! of ten gentes, of w#ic# two, t#e &corn, Ah*ne*dsuF*la$ an! t#e /ir!, Ah*ne*dseF*s+(a$ are now extinct. "#ey are t#e following: 1. 6olf. D. 0e! 3aint. *.. ong 3rairie. -. <eaf. +& bir!.. 0. Holly. G. <eer. 7. /l(e. 8. ong Hair.[23] <escent is in t#e female line, an! intermarriage in t#e gens? pro#ibite!. In 18G, t#e C#ero2ees n(mbere! fo(rteen t#o(san! w#ic# wo(l! gi;e an a;erage of se;enteen #(n!re! an! fifty persons to eac# gens. "#is is t#e largest n(mber, so far as t#e fact is 2nown, e;er fo(n! in a single gens among t#e &merican aborigines. "#e C#ero2ees an! >:ibwas at t#e present time excee! all t#e remaining In!ian tribes wit#in t#e $nite! %tates in t#e n(mber of persons spea2ing t#e same !ialect. It may be remar2e! f(rt#er, t#at it is not probable t#at t#ere e;er was at any time in any part of =ort# &merica a #(n!re! t#o(san! In!ians w#o spo2e t#e same !ialect. "#e &Btecs, "eBc(cans an! "lascalans were t#e only tribes of w#om so large a n(mber co(l!, wit# any propriety, be claime!; an! wit# respect to t#em it is. !iffic(lt to percei;e #ow t#e existence of so large a n(mber in eit#er tribe co(l! be establis#e!, at t#e epoc# of t#e %panis# Con5(est, (pon tr(stwort#y e;i!ence. "#e (n(s(al n(mbers of t#e Cree2s an! C#ero2ees is !(e to t#e possession of !omestic animals an! a well?!e;elope! fiel! agric(lt(re. "#ey are now partially ci;iliBe!, #a;ing s(bstit(te! an electi;e constit(tional go;ernment in t#e place of t#e ancient gentes, (n!er t#e infl(ence of w#ic# t#e latter are rapi!ly falling into !eca!ence. 4. Seminoles. "#is tribe is of Cree2 !escent. "#ey are sai! to be organiBe! into gentes, b(t t#e partic(lars #a;e not been obtaine!. II. 3awnee "ribes. 6#et#er or not t#e 3awnees are organiBe! in gentes #as not been ascertaine!. 0e;. %am(el &llis, w#o #a! formerly been a missionary among t#em, expresse! to t#e a(t#or #is belief t#at t#ey were, alt#o(g# #e #a! not in;estigate! t#e matter specially. He name! t#e following gentes of w#ic# #e belie;e! t#ey were compose!: 1. /ear. D. /ea;er. .. 'agle. -. /(ffalo. 0. <eer. G. >wl. I once met a ban! of 3awnees on t#e Misso(ri, b(t was (nable to obtain an interpreter. "#e &ric2arees, w#ose ;illage is near t#at of t#e Minnitarees, are t#e nearest congeners of t#e 3awnees, an! t#e same !iffic(lty occ(rre! wit# t#em. "#ese tribes, wit# t#e H(ecos an! some two or t#ree ot#er small tribes resi!ing on t#e Cana!ian ri;er, #a;e always li;e! west of t#e Misso(ri, an! spea2 an in!epen!ent stoc2 lang(age. If t#e 3awnees are organiBe! in gentes, pres(mpti;ely t#e ot#er tribes are t#e same. I. &lgon2in "ribes. &t t#e epoc# of t#eir !isco;ery t#is great stoc2 of t#e &merican aborigines occ(pie! t#e area from t#e 0oc2y Mo(ntains to H(!sonFs /ay, so(t# of t#e %is2atc#ew(n, an! t#ence eastwar! to t#e &tlantic, incl(!ing bot# s#ores of a2e

11G %(perior, except at its #ea!, an! bot# ban2s of t#e %t. awrence below a2e C#amplain. "#eir area exten!e! so(t#war! along t#e &tlantic coast to =ort# Carolina, an! !own t#e east ban2 of t#e Mississippi in 6isconsin an! Illinois to 7ent(c2y. 6it#in t#e eastern section of t#is immense region t#e Iro5(ois an! t#eir affiliate! tribes were an intr(si;e people, t#eir only competitor for s(premacy wit#in its bo(n!aries. 9itc#igamian "ribes[24]. 1. &3ib(as. "#e >:ibwas spea2 t#e same !ialect, an! are organiBe! in gentes, of w#ic# t#e names of twenty?t#ree #a;e been obtaine! wit#o(t being certain t#at t#ey incl(!e t#e w#ole n(mber. In t#e >:ibwa !ialect t#e wor! totem$ 5(ite as often prono(nce! dodaim$ signifies t#e symbol or !e;ice of a gens; t#(s t#e fig(re of a wolf was t#e totem of t#e 6olf gens. *rom t#is Mr. %c#oolcraft (se! t#e wor!s Etotemic system,F to express t#e gentile organiBation, w#ic# wo(l! be perfectly acceptable were it not t#at we #a;e bot# in t#e atin an! t#e Cree2 a terminology for e;ery 5(ality an! c#aracter of t#e system w#ic# is alrea!y #istorical. It may be (se!, #owe;er, wit# a!;antage. "#e >:ibwas #a;e t#e following gentes: 1. 6olf. D. /ear. A. /ea;er. -. "(rtle +M(!.. 0. "(rtle +%napping.. G. "(rtle + ittle.. 7. 0ein!eer. 8. %nipe. ,; Crane. 1H. 3igeon Haw2. 11. /al! 'agle. 1D. oon. 1A. <(c2. 1-. <(c2. 14. %na2e. 1G. M(s2rat. 17. Marten. 18. Heron 1,, /(ll?#ea!. DH. Carp. D1. Cat *is#. DD. %t(rgeon. ,.. 3i2e.[25] <escent is in t#e male line, t#e c#il!ren belonging to t#eir fat#erFs gens. "#ere are se;eral reasons for t#e inference t#at it was originally in t#e female line, an! t#at t#e c#ange was comparati;ely recent. In t#e first place, t#e <elawares, w#o are recogniBe! by all &lgon2in tribes as one of t#e ol!est of t#eir lineage, an! w#o are style! E9ran!fat#ersF by all ali2e, still #a;e !escent in t#e female line. %e;eral ot#er &lgon2in tribes #a;e t#e same. %econ!ly, e;i!ence still remains t#at wit#in two or t#ree generations bac2 of t#e present, !escent was in t#e female line, wit# respect to t#e office of c#ief.[26] "#ir!ly, &merican an! missionary infl(ences #a;e generally oppose! it. & sc#eme of !escent w#ic# !isin#erite! t#e sons seeme! to t#e early missionaries, traine! (n!er ;ery !ifferent conceptions, wit#o(t :(stice or reason; an! it is not improbable t#at in a n(mber of tribes, t#e >:ibwas incl(!e!, c#ange was ma!e (n!er t#eir teac#ings. &n! lastly, since se;eral &lgon2in tribes now #a;e !escent in t#e female line, it lea!s to t#e concl(sion t#at it was anciently (ni;ersal in t#e 9anowanian family, it being also t#e arc#aic form of t#e instit(tion. Intermarriage in t#e gens is pro#ibite!, an! bot# property an! office are #ere!itary in t#e gens. "#e c#il!ren, #owe;er, at t#e present, time, ta2e t#e most of it to t#e excl(sion of t#eir gentile 2in!re!. "#e property an! effects of mot#er pass to #er c#il!ren, an! in !efa(lt of t#em, to #er sisters, own an! collateral. In li2e manner t#e son may s(ccee! #is fat#er in t#e office of sac#em; b(t w#ere t#ere are se;eral sons t#e c#oice is !etermine! by t#e electi;e principle. "#e gentiles not only elect, b(t t#ey also retain t#e power to !epose. &t t#e present time t#e >:ibwas number some sixteen t#o(san!, w#ic# wo(l! gi;e an a;erage of abo(t se;en #(n!re! to eac# gens.

117 D. !ota(attamies. "#is tribe #as fifteen gentes, as follows: 1. 6olf. D. /ear. A. /ea;er. -. 'l2. 0. oon. G. 'agle. 7. %t(rgeon. 8. Carp. ,. /al! 'agle. 1H. "#(n!er. 11. 0abbit. 1D. Crow. 1A. *ox. 1-. "(r2ey. 14. /lac2. Haw2.[27] <escent, in#eritance, an! t#e law of marriage are t#e same as among t#e >:ibwas. A. &ta(as.[28] "#e >:ibwas, >tawas an! 3otawattamies were s(b!i;isions of an original tribe. 6#en first 2nown t#ey were confe!erate!. "#e >tawas were (n!o(bte!ly organiBe! in gentes, b(t t#eir names #a;e not been obtaine!. -. ?rees. "#is tribe, w#en !isco;ere!, #el! t#e nort#? west s#ore of a2e %(perior, an! sprea! from t#ence to H(!sonFs /ay, an! westwar! to t#e 0e! 0i;er of t#e =ort#. &t a later !ay t#ey occ(pie! region of t#e %is2atc#ew(n, an! so(t# of it. i2e t#e <a2otas t#ey #a;e lost t#e gentile organiBation w#ic# pres(mpti;ely once existe! among t#em. ing(istically t#eir nearest affiliation is wit# t#e >:ibwas, w#om t#ey closely resemble in manners an! c(stoms, an! in personal appearance. 'ississippi Tribes. "#e western &lgon2ins, gro(pe! (n!er t#is name, occ(pie! t#e eastern ban2s of t#e Mississippi m 6isconsin an! Illinois, an! exten!e! so(t#war! into 7ent(c2y, an! eastwar! into In!iana. 1. 'iamis. "#e imme!iate congeners of t#e Miamis, namely, t#e 6eas, 3ian2es#aws, 3eorias, an! 7as2as2ias, 2nown at an early !ay, collecti;ely, as t#e Illinois, are now few in n(mbers, an! #a;e aban!one! t#eir ancient (sages for a settle! agric(lt(ral life. 6#et#er or not t#ey were formerly organiBe! in gentes #as not been ascertaine!, b(t it is probable t#at t#ey were. "#e Miamis #a;e t#e following ten gentes: 1. 6olf. D. oon. .. 'agle. -. /(BBar!. 0. 3ant#er. G. "(r2ey. 7. 0accoon. 8. %now. ,. %(n. 1H. 6ater.[29] $n!er t#eir c#ange! con!ition an! !eclining n(mbers t#e gentile organiBation is rapi!ly !isappearing. 6#en its !ecline commence! !escent was in t#e male line, inter? marriage in t#e gens was forbi!!en, an! t#e office of sac#em toget#er wit# property were #ere!itary in t#e gens. D. Sha(nees. "#is remar2able an! #ig#ly a!;ance! tribe, one of t#e #ig#est representati;es of t#e &lgon2in stoc2, still retain t#eir gentes, alt#o(g# t#ey #a;e s(bstit(te! in place of t#e ol! gentile system a ci;il organiBation wit# a first an! secon! #ea!?c#ief an! a co(ncil, eac# electe! ann(ally by pop(lar s(ffrage. "#ey #a;e t#irteen gentes, w#ic# t#ey still maintain for social an! genealogical p(rposes, as follows: 1. 6olf. D. oon. A. /ear. -. /(BBar!. 0. 3ant#er. G. >wl. 7. "(r2ey. 8. <eer. ,. 0accoon. 1H. "(rtle. 11. %na2e. 1D. Horse. 1A. 0abbit.[30] <escent, in#eritance, an! t#e r(le wit# respect to marrying o(t of t#e gens are same as among t#e Miamis. In 18G, t#e %#awnees n(mbere! b(t se;en #(n!re!, w#ic# wo(l! gi;e an a;erage of abo(t fifty persons to t#e gens. "#ey once n(mbere! t#ree or fo(r t#o(san! persons, w#ic# was abo;e t#e a;erage among &merican In!ian

118 tribes. "#e %#awnees #a! a practice, common also to t#e Miamis an! %a(2s an! *oxes, of naming c#il!ren into t#e gens of t#e fat#er or of t#e mot#er or any ot#er gens, (n!er certain restrictions, w#ic# !eser;es a momentFs notice. It #as been s#own t#at among t#e Iro5(ois eac# gens #a! its own special names for persons w#ic# no ot#er gens #a! a rig#t to (se. [31] "#is (sage was probably general. &mong %#awnees t#ese names carrie! wit# t#em t#e rig#ts of t#e gens to w#ic#, t#ey belonge!, so t#at t#e name !etermine! t#e gens of t#e person. &s t#e sac#em m(st, in all cases, belong to gens o;er w#ic# #e is in;este! wit# a(t#ority, it is (nli2ely t#at t#e c#ange of !escent from t#e female line to t#e male commence! in t#is practice; in t#e first place to enable a son to s(ccee! #is fat#er, an! in t#e secon! to enable c#il!ren to in#erit property from t#eir fat#er. If a son w#en c#ristene! recei;e! a name belonging to t#e gens of #is fat#er it wo(l! place #im in #is fat#erFs gens an! in t#e line of s(ccession, b(t s(b:ect to t#e electi;e principle. "#e fat#er, #owe;er, #a! no control o;er t#e 5(estion. It was left by t#e gens to certain persons, most of t#em matrons, w#o were to be cons(lte! w#en c#il!ren were to be name!, wit# power to !etermine t#e name to be gi;en. /y some arrangement between t#e %#awnee gentes t#ese persons #a! t#is power, an! t#e name w#en conferre! in the prescribe! manner, carrie! t#e person into t#e gens to w#ic# t#e name belonge!. "#ere are traces of t#e arc#aic r(le of !escent among t#e %#awnees, of w#ic# t#e following ill(stration may be gi;en as it was mentione! to t#e a(t#or. La*hoF*( eh$ a sac#em of t#e 6olf gens, w#en abo(t to !ie, expresse! a !esire t#at a son of one of #is sisters mig#t s(ccee! #im in t#e place of #is own son. /(t #is nep#ew +4os* +(aF* the. was of t#e *is# an! #is son of t#e 0abbit gens, so t#at neit#er co(l! s(ccee! #im wit#o(t first being transferre!, by a c#ange of name, to t#e 6olf gens, in w#ic# t#e office was #ere!itary. His wis# was respecte!. &fter #is !eat# t#e name of #is nep#ew was c#ange! to Tep*a*ta* go theF$ one of t#e 6olf names, an! #e was electe! to t#e office. %(c# laxity in!icates a !eca!ence of t#e gentile organiBation; b(t it ten!s to s#ow t#at at no remote perio! !escent among t#e %#awnees was in t#e female line. A. Sau+s an! o"es. "#ese tribes are consoli!ate! into one, an! #a;e t#e following gentes: 1. 6olf. D. /ear. .. <eer. -. 'l2. 0. Haw2. G. 'agle. 7. *is#. 8. /(f*alo. ,. "#(n!er. 1H. /one. 11. *ox. 1D. %ea. 1A. %t(rgeon. 1-. /ig "ree.[32] <escent, in#eritance, an! t#e r(le re5(iring marriage o(t of t#e gens, are t#e same as among t#e Miamis. In 18G, t#ey n(mbere! b(t se;en #(n!re!, w#ic# wo(l! gi;e an a;erage of fifty persons to t#e gens. "#e n(mber of gentes still preser;e! affor!s some e;i!ence t#at t#ey were se;eral times more n(mero(s wit#in t#e pre;io(s two cent(ries. -. 'enominees an! 4i+apoos. "#ese tribes, w#ic# are in!epen!ent of eac# ot#er, are organiBe! in gentes, b(t t#eir names #a;e not been proc(re!. 6it# respect to t#e Menominees it may be inferre! t#at (ntil a recent perio!, !escent was in t#e female

11, line, from t#e following statement ma!e to t#e a(t#or, in 184,, by &ntoine 9oo2ie, a member of t#is tribe. In answer to a 5(estion concerning t#e r(le of in#eritance, #e replie!: )If I s#o(l! !ie, my brot#ers an! maternal (ncles wo(l! rob my wife an! c#il!ren of my property. 6e now expect t#at o(r c#il!ren will in#erit o(r effects, b(t t#ere is no certainty of it. "#e ol! law gi;es my property to my nearest 2in!re! w#o are not my c#il!ren, b(t my brot#ers an! sisters, an! maternal (ncles.8 It s#ows t#at, property was #ere!itary in t#e gens, b(t, restricte! to t#e agnatic 2in!re! in t#e female line. Roc+y 'ountain Tribes. 1. Blood Blac+feet. "#is tribe is compose! of t#e fi;e following gentes: 1. /loo!. D. *is# 'aters. A. %2(n2. -. 'xtinct &nimal, ?4. 'l2.[33] <escent is in t#e male line, b(t intermarriage in t#e gens is not allowe!. D. !iegan Blac+feet. "#is tribe #as t#e eig#t following gentes: 1. /loo!. D. %2(n2. A. 6eb *at. -. Insi!e *at. 4, Con:(rers. G. =e;er a(g#. 7. %tar;ing. 8. Half <ea! Meat.[34] <escent is in t#e male line, an! intermarriage in t#e gens is pro#ibite!. %e;eral of t#e names abo;e gi;en are more appropriate to ban!s t#an to gentes; b(t, as t#e information was obtaine! from t#e /lac2?feet !irect, t#ro(g# competent interpreters, +Mr. an! Mrs. &lexan!er C(lbertson, t#e latter a /lac2foot woman. I belie;e it reliable. It is possible t#at nic2names for gentes in some cases may #a;e s(perse!e! t#e original names. Atlantic Tribes. 1. 7ela(ares. &s elsew#ere state! t#e <elawares are, in !(ration of t#eir separate existence, one of t#e ol!est of t#e &lgon2in tribes. "#eir #ome co(ntry, w#en !isco;ere!, was t#e region aro(n! an! nort# of <elaware /ay. "#ey are comprise! in t#ree gentes, as follows: 1. 6olf. "oo2F?seat. 0o(n! 3aw. D. "(rtle. 3o2e?2oo?(nF?go. Crawling. A. "(r2ey. 3(l?laF?coo2. =on?c#ewing. "#ese s(b!i;isions are in t#e nat(re of p#ratries, beca(se eac# is compose! of twel;e s(b?gentes, eac# #a;ing some of t#e attrib(tes of a gens. [35] "#e names are personal, an! mostly, if not in e;ery case, t#ose of females. &s t#is feat(re was (n(s(al I wor2e! it o(t as min(tely as possible at t#e <elaware reser;ation in 7ansas, in 18GH, wit# t#e ? ai! of 6illiam &!ams an e!(cate! <elaware. It pro;e! impossible to fin! t#e origin of t#ese s(b!i;isions, b(t t#ey seeme! to be t#e se;eral eponymo(s ancestors from w#om t#e members of gentes respecti;ely !eri;e! t#eir !escent. It s#ows also t#e nat(ral growt# of t#e p#ratries from t#e gentes. <escent among t#e <elawares is in t#e female line, w#ic# ren!ers probable its ancient (ni;ersality in t#is form in t#e &lgon2in tribes. "#e office of sac#em was

1DH #ere!itary in t#e gens, #(t electi;e among its members, w#o #a! t#e power bot# to elect an! !epose. 3roperty also was #ere!itary in t#e gens. >riginally t#e members of t#e t#ree original gentes co(l! not, intermarry in t#eir own gens; b(t in recent years t#e pro#ibition #as been confine! to t#e s(b? gentes. "#ose of t#e same name in t#e 6olf gens, now partially become a p#ratry, for example, cannot intermarry, b(t t#ose of !ifferent names marry. "#e practice of naming c#il!ren into t#e gens of t#eir fat#er also pre;ails among t#e <elawares, an! #as intro!(ce! t#e same conf(sion of !escents fo(n! among t#e %#awnees an! Miamis. &merican ci;iliBation an! interco(rse necessarily a!ministere! a s#oc2 to In!ian instit(tions (n!er w#ic# t#e et#nic life of t#e people is gra!(ally brea2ing !own. 'xamples of s(ccession in office affor! t#e most satisfactory ill(strations of t#e aboriginal law of !escent. & <elaware woman, after stating to t#e a(t#or t#at s#e, wit# #er c#il!ren, belonge! to t#e 6olf gens, an! #er #(sban! to t#e "(rtle, remar2e! t#at w#en Captain 7etc#(m +"a? w#eF?la?na., late #ea! c#ief or sac#em of t#e "(rtle gens, !ie!, #e was s(ccee!e! by #is nep#ew, Co#n Conner +"a?ta? neF? s#a., a son of one of t#e sisters of t#e !ecease! sac#em, w#o was also of t#e "(rtle gens. "#e !ece!ent left a son, b(t #e was of anot#er gens an! conse5(ently incapable of s(ccee!ing. 6it# t#e <elawares, as wit# t#e Iro5(ois, t#e office passe! from brot#er to brot#er, or from (ncle to nep#ew, beca(se !escent was in t#e female line. D. 'unsees. "#e M(nsees are an offs#oot from t#e <elawares, an! #a;e t#e same gentes, t#e 6olf, t#e "(rtle an! t#e "(r2ey. <escent is in t#e female line, inter? marriage in t#e gens is not permitte!, an! t#e office of sac#em, as well as property, is #ere!itary in t#e gens. D. 'ohegans. &ll of t#e =ew 'nglan! In!ians, so(t# of t#e ri;er 7ennebec2, of w#om t#e Mo#egans forme! a, part, were closely affiliate! in lang(age, an! co(l! (n!er? stan! eac# ot#erFs !ialects. %ince t#e Mo#egans are organiBe! in gentes, t#ere is a pres(mption t#at t#e 3e5(ots, =arragansetts, an! ot#er minor ban!s were not only similarly organiBe!, b(t #a! t#e same gentes. "#e Mo#egans #a;e t#e same t#ree wit# t#e <elawares, t#e 6olf, t#e "(rtle an! t#e "(r2ey, eac# of w#ic# is compose! of a n(mber of gentes. It pro;es t#eir imme!iate connection wit# t#e <elawares an! M(nsees by !escent, an! also re;eals, as elsew#ere state!, t#e process of s(b!i;ision by w#ic# an original gens brea2s (p into se;eral, w#ic# remain (nite! in a p#ratry. In t#is case also it may be seen #ow t#e p#ratry arises nat(rally (n!er gentile instit(tions. It is rare among t#e &merican aborigines to fin! preser;e! t#e e;i!ence of t#e segmentation of original gentes as clearly as in t#e present case. "#e Mo#egan p#ratries stan! o(t more conspic(o(sly C#an t#ose of any ot#er tribe of t#e &merican aborigines, beca(se t#ey co;er t#e gentes of eac#, an! t#e p#ratries m(st be state! to explain t#e classification of t#e gentes; b(t we 2now less abo(t t#em t#an of t#ose of t#e Iro5(ois. "#ey are t#e following: I. 9olf !hratry. Too+*se*tu+. 1. 6olf. D. /ear. A. <og. -. >poss(m.

1D1 II. Turtle !hratry. Tone*baF*o. 1. ittle "(rtle. D. M(! "(rtle. A. 9reat "(rtle. -. 1ellow 'el. III. Tur+ey !hratry. 1. "(r2ey. D. Crane. A. C#ic2en.[36] <escent is in t#e female line, intermarriage in t#e gens is forbi!!en, an! t#e office of sac#em is #ere!itary in t#e gens, t#e office passing eit#er from brot#er to brot#er, or from (ncle to nep#ew. &mong t#e 3e5(ots an! =arragansetts !escent was in t#e female line, as I learne! from a =arragansett woman w#om I met in 7ansas. -. Abena+is. "#e name of t#is tribe, 6a?be?na?2ee, signifies E0ising %(n 3eople.F[37] t#ey affiliate more closely wit# t#e Micmacs t#an wit# t#e =ew 'nglan! In!ians so(t# of t#e 7ennebec2. "#ey #a;e fo(rteen gentes, as follows: 1. 6olf. D. 6il! Cat +/lac2. A. /ear. -. %na2e. 0. %potte! &nimal. G. /ea;er. 7. Cariboo. 8. %t(rgeon. ,. M(s2rat. 1H. 3igeon Haw2. 11. %5(irrel. 1D. %potte! *rog. 1A. Crane. 1-. 3orc(pine.[38] <escent is now in t#e male line, intermarriage in t#e gens was anciently pro#ibite!, b(t t#e pro#ibition #as now lost most of its force. "#e office of sac#em was #ere!itary in t#e gens. It will be notice! t#at se;eral of t#e abo;e gentes are t#e same as among t#e >:ibwas. II. Athapasco*Apache Tribes. 6#et#er or not t#e &t#apascans of H(!sonFs /ay "erritory an! t#e &pac#es of =ew Mexico, w#o are s(b!i;isions of an original stoc2, are organiBe! in gentes #as not been !efinitely ascertaine!. 6#en in t#e former territory, in 18G1, I ma!e an effort to !etermine t#e 5(estion among t#e Hare an! 0e! 7nife &t#apascans, b(t was (ns(ccessf(l for want of competent interpreters; an! yet, it seems probable t#at if t#e system existe!, traces of it wo(l! #a;e been !isco;ere! e;en wit# imperfect means of in5(iry. "#e late 0obert 7ennicott ma!e a similar attempt for a(t#or among t#e &?c#a?o?ten?ne, or %la;e a2e &t#apascans, wit# no better s(ccess. He fo(n! special reg(lations wit# respect to marriage an! t#e !escent of t#e office of sac#em, w#ic# seeme! to in!icate t#e presence of gentes, b(t #e co(l! not obtain satisfactory information. "#e 7(tc#in + o(c#o(x. of t#e 1(2on 0i;er region are &t#apascans. In a letter to t#e a(t#or by t#e ate 9eorge 9ibbs, #e remar2s: )In a letter w#ic# I #a;e from a gentleman at *ort %impson, Mac2enBie ri;er, it is mentione! t#at among t#e o(c#o(x or 7(tc#in t#ere are t#ree gra!es or classes of society ? (n!o(bte!ly a mista2e for totem, t#o(g# t#e totems probably !iffer in ran2, as #e goes on to say ? t#at a man !oes not marry into #is own class, b(t ta2es a wife from some ot#er; an! t#at a c#ief from t#e #ig#est may marry wit# a woman of t#e lowest wit#o(t loss of caste. "#e c#il!ren belong to t#e gra!e of t#e mot#er; an! t#e members of t#e same gra!e in t#e !ifferent tribes !o not war wit# eac# et#er.8 &mong t#e 7ol(s#es of t#e =ort#west Coast, w#o affiliate ling(istically t#o(g# not

1DD closely wit# t#e &t#apascans, organiBation into gentes exists. Mr. 9allatin remar2s t#at t#ey are li2e o(r own In!ians, !i;i!e! into tribes or clans; a !istinction of w#ic#, accor!ing to Mr. Hale, t#ere is no trace among t#e In!ians of >regon. "#e names of t#e tribe MgentesN are t#ose of animals, namely: /ear, 'agle, Crow, 3orpoise an! 6olf...... "#e rig#t of s(ccession is in female line, from (ncle to nep#ew, t#e principal c#ief excepte!, w#o is generally t#e most powerf(l of t#e family. [39] III. %ndian Tribes of the Aorth(est ?oast. In some of t#ese tribes, besi!e t#e 7ol(s#es, t#e gentile organiBation pre;ails. )/efore lea;ing 3(getFs %o(n!,8 obser;es Mr. 9ibbs, in a letter to t#e a(t#or, )I was fort(nate eno(g# to meet representati;es of t#ree principal families of w#at we call t#e =ort#ern In!ians, t#e in#abitants of =ort#west Coast, exten!ing from t#e $pper en! of Ianco(;erFs Islan! into t#e 0(ssian 3ossessions, an! t#e confines of 's5(ima(x. *rom t#em I ascertaine! positi;ely t#at t#e totemic system exists at least among t#ese t#ree. "#e families I spea2 of are, beginning at t#e nort#west, "lin2itt, commonly calle! t#e %ti2eens, after one of t#eir ban!s; t#e "lai!as; an! C#imsyans, calle! by 9allatin, 6eas. "#ere are fo(r totems common to t#ese; t#e 6#ale, t#e 6olf, t#e 'agle, an! t#e Crow. =eit#er of t#ese can marry into t#e same totem, alt#o(g# in a !ifferent nation or family. 6#at is remar2able is t#at t#ese nations constit(te entirely !ifferent families. I mean by t#is t#at t#eir lang(ages are essentially !ifferent, #a;ing no perceptible analogy.8 Mr. <all, in #is wor2 on &las2a, written still later, remar2s t#at )t#e "#lin2eets are !i;i!e! into fo(r totems: t#e 0a;en +1e#l., t#e 6olf +7an(F2#., t#e 6#ale, an! 'agle +C#et#l......... >pposite totems only can marry, an! t#e c#il! (s(ally ta2es t#e mot#erFs totem.8
[40]

Mr. H(bert H. /ancroft presents t#eir organiBation still more f(lly, s#owing two #ratries, an! t#e gentes belonging to eac#. He remar2s of t#e "#lin2eets t#at t#e )nation is separate! into two great !i;isions or clans, one of w#ic# is calle! t#e 6olf an! t#e ot#er t#e 0a;en. "#e 0a;en tr(n2 is again !i;i!e! into s(b?clans, calle! t#e *rog, t#e 9oose, t#e %ea? ion, t#e >wl, an! t#e %almon. "#e 6olf family comprises t#e /ear, 'agle, <olp#in, %#ar2, an! &lca...... "ribes of t#e same clan may not war on eac# ot#er, b(t at t#e same time members of t#e same clan may not marry wit# eac# ot#er. "#(s, t#e yo(ng 6olf warrior m(st see2 #is mate among t#e 0a;ens.8 "#e 's2imos !o not belong to t#e 9anowanian family. "#eir occ(pation of t#e &merican continent in comparison wit# t#at of t#e latter family was recent or mo!ern. "#ey are also wit#o(t gentes. IIII. Salish$ Sahaptin and 4ootenay Tribes, "#e tribes of t#e Ialley of t#e Col(mbia, of w#om t#ose abo;e name! represent t#e principal stoc2s, are wit#o(t t#e gentile organiBation. >(r !isting(is#e! p#ilologists, Horatio Hale an! t#e late 9eorge 9ibbs, bot# of w#om !e;ote! special attention to t#e s(b:ect, faile! to !isco;er any traces of t#e system among t#em. "#ere are strong reasons for belie;ing t#at t#is remar2able area was t#e n(rsery lan! of t#e 9anowanian family, from w#ic#, as initial point of t#eir migrations,

1DA t#ey sprea! abroa! o;er bot# !i;isions of t#e continent. It seems probable, t#erefore, t#at t#eir ancestors possesse! t#e organiBation into gentes an! t#at it fell into !ecay an! finally !isappeare!. IL. Shoshonee Tribes. "#e Comanc#es of "exas, toget#er wit# t#e $te tribes, t#e /onna2s, t#e %#os#onees, an! some ot#er tribes, belong to t#is stoc2. Mat#ew 6al2er, a 6yan!ote #alf?bloo!, informe! t#e a(t#or in 184, t#at #e #a! li;e! among t#e Comanc#es, an! t#at t#ey #a! t#e following gentes: 1. 6olf. D. /ear. .. 'l2. -. <eer. 4. 9op#er. G. &ntelope. If t#e Comanc#es are organiBe! in gentes, t#ere is a pres(mption t#at t#e ot#er tribes of t#is stoc2 are t#e same. "#is completes o(r re;iew of t#e social system of t#e In!ian tribes of =ort# &merica, nort# of =ew Mexico. "#e greater portion of t#e tribes name! were in t#e ower %tat(s of barbarism at t#e epoc# of '(ropean !isco;ery, an! t#e remain!er in t#e $pper %tat(s of sa;agery. *rom t#e wi!e an! nearly (ni;ersal pre;alence of t#e organiBation into gentes, its ancient (ni;ersality among t#em wit# !escent in t#e female line may wit# reason be ass(me!. "#eir system was p(rely social, #a;ing t#e gens as its (nit, an! t#e p#ratry, tribe an! confe!eracy as t#e remaining members of t#e organic series. "#ese fo(r s(ccessi;e stages of integration an! re? integration express t#e w#ole of t#eir experience in t#e growt# of t#e i!ea of go;ernment. %ince t#e principal &ryan an! %emitic tribes #a! t#e same organic series w#en t#ey emerge! from barbarism, t#e system was s(bstantially (ni;ersal in ancient society, an! inferentially #a! a common origin. "#e p(nal(an gro(p, #ereafter to be !escribe! mare f(lly in connection wit# t#e growt# of t#e i!ea of t#e family, e;i!ently ga;e birt# to t#e gentes, so t#at t#e &ryan, %emitic, $ralian, "(ranian an! 9anowanian families of man2in! point wit# a !istincti;eness seemingly (nmista2able to a common p(nal(an stoc2, wit# t#e organiBation into gentes engrafte! (pon it, from w#ic# eac# an! all were !eri;e!, an! finally !ifferentiate! into families. "#is concl(sion, I belie;e, will (ltimately enforce its own acceptance, w#en f(t(re in;estigation #as !e;elope! an! ;erifie! t#e facts on a min(ter scale. %(c# a great organic series, able to #ol! man2in! in society t#ro(g# t#e latter part of t#e perio! of sa;agery, t#ro(g# t#e entire perio! of barbarism, an! into t#e early part of t#e perio! of ci;iliBation, !oes not arise by acci!ent, b(t #a! a nat(ral !e;elopment from pre?existing elements. 0ationally an! rigoro(sly interprete!, it seems probable t#at it can be ma!e !emonstrati;e of t#e (nity of origin of all t#e families of man2in! w#o possesse! t#e organiBation into gentes. L. Billage %ndians. l. 'o>ui !ueblo %ndians. "#e Mo5(i tribes are still in (n!ist(rbe! possession of t#eir ancient comm(nal #o(ses, se;en in n(mber, near t#e ittle Colora!o in &riBona, once a part of =ew Mexico. "#ey are li;ing (n!er t#eir ancient instit(tions, an! (n!o(bte!ly at t#e present moment fairly represent t#e type of Iillage In!ian life w#ic# pre;aile! from K(ni to C(Bco at t#e epoc# of <isco;ery. K(ni, &coma, "aos, an! se;eral ot#er =ew Mexican p(eblos are t#e same

1Dstr(ct(res w#ic# were fo(n! t#ere by Corona!o in 14-H?14-D. =otwit#stan!ing t#eir apparent accessibility we 2now in reality b(t little concerning t#eir mo!e of life or t#eir !omestic instit(tions. =o systematic in;estigation #as e;er been ma!e. 6#at little information #as fo(n! its way into print is general an! acci!ental. "#e Mo5(is are organiBe! in gentes, of w#ic# t#ey #a;e nine, as follows: 1. <eer. D. %an!. A. 0ain. -. /ear. 4. Hare. G. 3rairie 6olf. 7. 0attlesna2e. 8. "obacco 3lant. ,. 0ee! 9rass. <r. "en /roec2, &ssistant %(rgeon, $. %. &., f(rnis#e! to Mr. %c#oolcraft t#e Mo5(i legen! of t#eir origin w#ic# #e obtaine! at one of t#eir ;illages. "#ey sai! t#at )many years ago t#eir 9reat Mot#er[42] bro(g#t from #er #ome in t#e 6est nine races of men in t#e following form. *irst, t#e <eer race; secon!, t#e %an! race; t#ir!, t#e 6ater M0ainN race; fo(rt#, t#e /ear race; fift#, t#e Hare race; sixt#, t#e 3rairie 6olf race; se;ent#, t#e 0attlesna2e race; eig#t#, t#e "obacco 3lant race; an! nint#, t#e 0ee! 9rass race. Ha;ing plante! t#em on t#e spot w#ere t#eir ;illages now stan!, s#e transforme! t#em into men w#o b(ilt (p t#e present p(eblos; an! t#e !istinction of race is still 2ept (p. >ne tol! me t#at #e was of t#e %an! race, anot#er, the <eer, etc. "#ey are firm belie;ers in metempsyc#osis, an! say t#at w#en t#ey !ie t#ey will resol;e into t#eir original forms an! become bears, !eer, etc., again.... "#e go;ernment is #ere!itary, b(t !oes not necessarily !escen! to t#e son of t#e inc(mbent; for if t#ey prefer any ot#er bloo! relati;e, #e is c#osen.8[43] Ha;ing passe!, in t#is case, from t#e ower into t#e Mi!!le %tat(s of barbarism, an! fo(n! t#e organiBation into gentes in f(ll !e;elopment, its a!aptation to t#eir c#ange! con!ition is !emonstrate!. Its existence among t#e Iillage In!ians in general is ren!ere! probable; b(t from t#is point forwar! in t#e remain!er of =ort#, an! in t#e w#ole of %o(t# &merica, we are left wit#o(t !efinite information except wit# respect to t#e ag(nas. It s#ows #ow incompletely t#e wor2 #as been !one in &merican 't#nology, t#at, t#e (nit of t#eir social system #as been b(t partially !isco;ere!, aR! its significance not (n!erstoo!. %till, t#ere are traces of it, in t#e early %panis# a(t#ors, an! !irect 2nowle!ge of it in a few later writers, w#ic# w#en bro(g#t toget#er will lea;e b(t little !o(bt of t#e ancient (ni;ersal pre;alence of t#e gentile organiBation t#ro(g#o(t t#e In!ian family. "#ere are c(rrent tra!itions in many gentes, li2e t#at of t#e Mo5(is, of t#e transformation of t#eir first progenitors from t#e animal, or inanimate ob:ect, w#ic# became t#e symbol of t#e gens, into men an! women. "#(s, t#e Crane gens of t#e >:ibwas #a;e a legen! t#at a pair of cranes flew o;er t#e wi!e area from t#e 9(lf to t#e 9reat a2es anS from t#e prairies of t#e Mississippi to t#e &tlantic in 5(est of a place w#ere s(bsistence was most ab(n!ant, an! finally selecte! t#e 0api!s on t#e o(tlet of a2e %(perior, since celebrate! for its fis#eries. Ha;ing alig#te! on t#e ban2 of t#e ri;er an! fol!e! t#eir wings t#e 9reat %pirit imme!iately c#ange! t#em into a man an! woman, w#o became t#e progenitors of t#e Crane gens of t#e >:ibwas. "#ere are a n(mber of gentes in t#e !ifferent tribes w#o abstain from eating t#e animal w#ose name t#ey bear; b(t t#is is far from (ni;ersal. D. Lagunas. "#e ag(na 3(eblo In!ians are organiBe! in gentes, wit# !escent in female line, as appears from an a!!ress of 0e;. %am(el 9orman before t#e

1D4 Historical %ociety of =ew Mexico in 18GH. )'ac# town is classe! into tribes or families, an! eac# of t#ese gro(ps is name! after some animal, bir!, #erb, timber, planet, or one of t#e fo(r elements. In t#e p(eblo of ag(na, w#ic# is one of abo;e one t#o(san! in#abitants, t#ere are se;enteen of t#ese tribes; some are calle! bear, some !eer, some rattlesna2e, some corn, some wolf, some water, etc., etc. "#e c#il!ren are of t#e same tribe as t#eir mot#er. &n!, accor!ing to ancient c(stom, two persons of t#e same tribe are forbi!!en to marry; b(t, recently, t#is c(stom begins to be less rigoro(sly obser;e! t#an anciently.8 )"#eir lan! is #el! in common, as t#e property of t#e comm(nity, b(t after a person c(lti;ates a lot #e #as a personal claim to it, w#ic# #e can sell to any one of t#e same comm(nity; or else w#en #e !ies it belongs to #is wi!ow or !a(g#ters; or, if #e were a single man, it remains in #is fat#erFs family. [44]8 "#at wife or !a(g#ter in#erit from t#e fat#er is !o(btf(l. A. A#tecs$ Te#cucans and Tlacopans. "#e 5(estion of t#e organiBation of t#ese, an! t#e remaining =a#(atlac tribes of Mexico, in gentes will be consi!ere! in t#e next ens(ing c#apter. -. 'ayas of <ucatan. Herrera ma2es fre5(ent reference to t#e E2in!re!,F an! in s(c# a manner wit# regar! to t#e tribes in Mexico, Central an! %o(t# &merica as to imply t#e existence of a bo!y of persons organiBe! on t#e basis of consang(inity m(c# more n(mero(s t#an wo(l! be fo(n! apart from gentes. "#(s: )He t#at 2ille! a free man was to ma2e satisfaction to t#e c#il!ren an! 2in!re! [45].8 It was spo2en of t#e aborigines of =icarag(a, an! #a! it been of t#e Iro5(ois, among w#om t#e (sage was t#e same, t#e term +indred wo(l! #a;e been e5(i;alent to gens. &n! again, spea2ing generally of t#e Maya In!ians of 1(catan, #e remar2s t#at )w#en any satisfaction was to be ma!e for !amages, if #e w#o was a!:(!ge! to pay was li2e to be re!(ce! to po;erty, t#e 2in!re! contrib(te! [46].8 In t#is anot#er gentile (sage may be recogniBe!. &gain, spea2ing of t#e &Btecs; )if t#ey were g(ilty, no fa;o(r or 2in!re! co(l! sa;e t#em from !eat#[47].8 >ne more citation to t#e same effect may be ma!e, applie! to t#e *lori!a In!ians w#o were organiBe! in gentes. He obser;es )t#at t#ey were extra;agantly fon! of t#eir c#il!ren, an! c#eris#e! t#em, t#e parents an! 2in!re! lamenting s(c# as !ie! a w#ole year. [48] "#e early obser;ers notice!, as a pec(liarity of In!ian society, t#at large n(mbers of persons were bo(n! toget#er by t#e bon! of 2in, an! t#erefore t#e gro(p came to be mentione! as Et#e 2in!re!.8 /(t t#ey !i! not carry t#e scr(tiny far eno(g# to !isco;er, w#at was probably t#e tr(t#, t#at t#e 2in!re! forme! a gens, an!, as s(c#, t#e (nit of t#eir social system. Herrera remar2s f(rt#er of t#e Mayas, t#at )t#ey were wont to obser;e t#eir pe!igrees ;ery m(c#, an! t#erefore t#o(g#t t#emsel;es all relate!, an! were #elpf(l to one anot#er..... "#ey !i! not marry mot#ers, or sisters?in?law, nor any that bore the same name as t#eir fat#er, w#ic# was loo2e! (pon as (nlawf(l [49].8 "#e pe!igree of an In!ian (n!er t#eir system of consang(inity co(l! #a;e no significance apart from a gens; b(t lea;ing t#is o(t of ;iew, t#ere was no possible way, (n!er In!ian instit(tions, by w#ic# a fat#er an! #is c#il!ren co(l! bear t#e same name except t#ro(g# a gens, w#ic# conferre! a common gentile name (pon all its members. It wo(l! also re5(ire !escent in t#e male line to bring fat#er an!

1DG c#il!ren into t#e same gens. "#e statement s#ows, moreo;er, t#at intermarriage in t#e gens among t#e Mayas was pro#ibite!. &ss(ming t#e correctness of HerreraFs wor!s, it is proof concl(si;e of t#e existence of gentes among t#e Mayas, wit# !escent in t#e male line. "ylor, in #is ;al(able wor2 on t#e E'arly History of Man2in!,F w#ic# is a repository of wi!ely?!rawn an! well?!igeste! et#nological informations, cites t#e same fact from anot#er so(rce, wit# t#e following remar2s: )"#e analogy of t#e =ort# &merican In!ian c(stom is t#erefore wit# t#at of t#e &(stralian in ma2ing clans#ip on t#e female si!e a bar to marriage, b(t if we go !own f(rt#er so(t# into Central &merica, t#e re;erse c(stom, as in C#ina, ma2es its appearance. <iego !e an!a says of t#e people of 1(catan, t#at no one too2 a wife of #is name, on t#e fat#erFs si!e, for t#is was a ;ery ;ile t#ing among t#em; b(t, t#ey mig#t marry co(sins german on t#e mot#erFs si!e.[50]8 LI. South American %ndian Tribes. "races of t#e gens #a;e been fo(n! in all parts of %o(t# &merica, as well as t#e act(al presence of t#e 9anowanian system of consang(inity, b(t t#e s(b:ect #as not been f(lly in;estigate!. %pea2ing of t#e n(mero(s tribes of t#e &n!es bro(g#t by t#e Incas (n!er a species of confe!eration, Herrera obser;es t#at )t#is ;ariety of tong(es procee!e! from t#e nations being !i;i!e! into races, tribes, or clans [51].8 Here in t#e clans t#e existence of gentes is recogniBe!. Mr. "ylor, !isc(ssing t#e r(les wit# respect to marriage an! !escent, remar2s t#at )f(rt#er so(t#, below t#e Ist#m(s, bot# t#e clans#ip an! t#e pro#ibition reappear on t#e female si!e.8 /erna( says t#at among t#e &rrawa2s of /ritis# 9(iana, )Caste is !eri;e! from t#e mot#er, an! c#il!ren are allowe! to marry into t#eir fat#erFs family, b(t not into t#at of t#eir mot#er.8 astly, *at#er Martin <obriB#offer says t#at t#e 9(aranis a;oi!, as #ig#ly criminal, marriage wit# t#e most !istant relations; an! spea2ing of t#e &bipones, #e ma2es t#e following statement...... "#e &bipones, instr(cte! by nat(re an! t#e example of t#eir ancestors, ab#or t#e ;ery t#o(g#t of marrying any one relate! to t#em by t#e most !istant tie of relations#ip [52].8 "#ese references to t#e social system of t#e aborigines are ;ag(e; b(t in t#e lig#t of t#e facts alrea!y presente! t#e existence of gentes wit# !escent in t#e female line, an! wit# intermarriage in t#e gens pro#ibite!, ren!ers t#em intelligible. /rett remar2s of t#e In!ian tribes in 9(iana t#at t#ey )are !i;i!e! into families, eac# of w#ic# #as a !istinct name, as t#e %iwi!i, 7ar(af(!i, >nisi!i, etc. $nli2e o(r families, t#ese all !escen! in t#e female line, an! no in!i;i!(al of eit#er sex is allowe! to marry anot#er of t#e same family name. "#(s a woman of t#e %iwi!i family bears t#e same name as #er mot#er, b(t neit#er #er fat#er nor #er #(sban! can be of t#at family. Her c#il!ren an! t#e c#il!ren of #er !a(g#ters will also be calle! %iwi!i, b(t bot# #er sons an! !a(g#ters are pro#ibite! from an alliance wit# any in!i;i!(al bearing t#e same name; t#o(g# t#ey may marry into t#e family of t#eir fat#er if t#ey c#oose. "#ese c(stoms are strictly obser;e!, an! any breac# of t#em wo(l! be consi!ere! as wic2e![53].F In t#e family of t#is writer may at once be recogniBe! t#e gens in its arc#aic form. &ll t#e %o(t# &merican tribes abo;e?name!, wit# t#e exception of t#e &n!ean, were w#en !isco;ere! eit#er in t#e ower %tat(s of barbarism, or in t#e %tat(s of sa;agery. Many of t#e 3er(;ian tribes concentrate! (n!er t#e go;ernment establis#e! by t#e Inca Iillage In!ians were in t#e ower %tat(s of

1D7 barbarism, if an opinion may be forme! from t#e imperfect !escription of t#eir !omestic instit(tions fo(n! in 9arcillasso !e la Iega. "o t#e Iillage In!ians of =ort# an! %o(t# &merica, w#ose in!igeno(s c(lt(re #a! a!;ance! t#em far into, an! near t#e en! of, t#e Mi!!le 3erio! of barbarism, o(r attention nat(rally t(rns for t#e transitional #istory of t#e gentes. "#e arc#aic constit(tion of t#e gens #as been s#own; its latest p#ases remain to be presente! in t#e gentes of t#e 9ree2s an! 0omans; b(t t#e interme!iate c#anges, bot# of !escent an! in#eritance, w#ic# occ(rre! in t#e Mi!!le 3erio!, are essential to a complete #istory of t#e gentile organiBation. >(r information is 5(ite ample wit# respect to t#e earlier an! later con!ition of t#is great instit(tion, b(t !efecti;e wit# respect to t#e transitional stage. 6#ere t#e gentes are fo(n! in any tribe of man2in! in t#eir latest form, t#eir remote ancestors m(st #a;e possesse! t#em in t#e arc#aic form; b(t #istorical criticism !eman!s affirmati;e proofs rat#er t#an !e!(ctions. "#ese proofs once existe! among t#e Iillage In!ians. 6e are now well ass(re! t#at t#eir system of go;ernment was social an! not political. "#e (pper members of t#e series, namely, t#e tribe an! t#e confe!eracy, meet (s at many points; wit# positi;e e;i!ence of t#e gens, t#e (nit of. t#e system, in a n(mber of t#e tribes of Iillage In!ians. /(t we are not able to place o(r #an!s (pon t#e gentes among t#e Iillage In!ians in general wit# t#e same precise information affor!e! by t#e tribes in t#e ower %tat(s of barbarism. "#e gol!en opport(nity was presente! to t#e %panis# con5(erors an! colonists, an! lost, from apparent inability to (n!erstan! a con!ition of society from w#ic# ci;iliBe! man #a! so far !eparte! in #is onwar! progress. 6it#o(t, a 2nowle!ge of t#e (nit of t#eir social system, w#ic# impress? e! its c#aracter (pon t#e w#ole organism of society, t#e %panis# #istories fail entirely in t#e portrayal of t#eir go;ernmental instit(tions. & glance at t#e remains of ancient arc#itect(re in Central &merica an! 3er( s(fficiently pro;es t#at t#e Mi!!le 3erio! of barbarism was one of great progress in #(man !e;elopment, of growing 2nowle!ge, an! of expan!ing intelligence. It was followe! by a still more remar2able perio! in t#e 'astern #emisp#ere after t#e in;ention of t#e process of ma2ing iron #a! gi;en t#at final great imp(lse to #(man progress w#ic# was to bear a portion of man2in! into ci;iliBation. >(r appreciation of t#e gran!e(r of manFs career in t#e ater 3erio! of barbarism, w#en in;entions an! !isco;eries m(ltiplie! wit# s(c# rapi!ity, wo(l! be intensifie! by an acc(rate 2nowle!ge of t#e con!ition of society in t#e Mi!!le 3erio!, so remar2ably exemplifie! by t#e Iillage In!ians. /y a great effort, atten!e! wit# patient labo(r, it may yet be possible to reco;er a large portion at least of t#e treas(res of 2nowle!ge w#ic# #a;e been allowe! to !isappear. $pon o(r present information t#e concl(sion is warrantable t#at t#e &merican In!ian tribes were (ni;ersally organiBe! in gentes at t#e epoc# of '(ropean !isco;ery, t#e few exceptions fo(n! not being s(fficient to !ist(rb t#e general r(le.

Footnotes
1 )%ystems of Consang(inity an! &ffinity of t#e H(man *amily.8 +)%mit#sonian Contrib(tions to 7nowle!ge,8 ;ol. x;ii, 1871,. p. 1A1.. ! 6olf, "or?yo#F?no. D. /ear, =e?e?ar?g(yF?ee.

1D8
A. /ea;er, =on?gar?neFe?ar?go#. -. "(rtle, 9a?ne?e?ar?te#?goF?wa. 0. <eer, =a?oF?ge#. G. %nipe, <oo?eese?!oo?we. 7. Heron, Co?asF?se#. 8. Haw2, >s?swe#?ga?!a?ggF?a#. " &#?na? reseF?2wa, /one 9nawers. D. &#?n(?ye#, "ree i;er. .. "so?taF?ee, %#y &nimal. -. 9e a#F? wis#, *ine an!. %. >s 2enF?o?to#, 0oaming. G. %ine?gainF?see, Creeping. 7. 1a?ra? #atsF? see, "all "ree. 8. <a?soa2, *lying. # Mr. Horatio Hale #as recently pro;e! t#e connection of t#e "(telos wit# t#e Iro5(ois. $ Mr. *rancis 3ar2man, a(t#or of t#e brilliant series of wor2s on t#e coloniBation of &merica, was t#e first to establis# t#e affiliation of t#e %(s5(e#annoc2s wit# t#e Iro5(ois. % )"ra;els in =ort# &merica,8 3#ila. e!., 17,G, p, 1G-. & E"ra;els in =ort# &merica,F p. 1G4. ' 6a?sa?be. D. /e a?g#e?ta. .. =o?2o?poB?na. -. Mo#? 2(#. 4. 6a?s#a?ba. G. 6a?B#a?B#a. 7. =o#?ga. 8. 6a#?ga. ( 6a B#ese?ta. D. In2?2a?sa?ba. A. a?ta?!a. 5. 7a?i#, 4. <a?t#(nF?!a. G.6a?sa?ba. 7. H(nF? ga. 8. 7(nF?Ba. ,. "aF?pa. 1H. In?graF?B#e?!a. 11. Is# !aF?s(n?!a. 1D. >?non?eF?2a?ga?#a. 1) 1. Me?:eF?ra?:a. D. "oo?n(mF?pe. A. &#Fro?w#a. -. HoF?!as#. 4. C#e#F?#e?ta. G. (F? c#i#. 7.waa 2ee#F. 8. MaF?2otc#. EHF represents a !eep sonant g(tt(ral. It is 5(ite common in t#e !ialects of t#e Misso(ri tribes an! also in t#e Minnitaree an! Crow. 11 1. Me?:eFra?:a. D. MoonF?c#a, A. &#F?or?w#a. -. HooF?ma. 4. 7#aF?a. G. (teF?:a. 7. 6aF?2a. 8. MaF 2otc#. 1! 1. "a?2e?2a?s#eF?ga. D. %inF?:a?ye?ga. A. Mo?eF?2we a# #a. -. H(?eF?ya. 4. H(n?go tinF? ga. G. Me?#a?s#(nF?ga. 7. HF?ps. 8. #f,e?2aF. ,. %#oF?ma?2oo?sa. 1H. <o?#a?2elF?ya. 11. Mo.eF 2a?ne 2aF?s#e ga. 1D. <a?sin?:a?#a?ga. 1A. IcF?#a s#e. 1-. o neF?2a?s#e?ga. 1" 1. %#on2?c#(n?ga?!a. D. Hone?c#a?!a. A. C#a?ra. -. 6a#2? c#a?#e?!a. 0. Hoo?w(n?na. G. C#a?ra. 7. 6a?2on?na. 8. 6a? 2on?c#a?ra. 1# )"ra;els, loc. cit.,8 p. 1GG. 1$ 1. Ho?ra?ta?m(?ma2e. D. Ma to?no?ma2e. A. %ee? poos# 2a. -. "a?na ts(?2a. 4. 7i?ta ne? ma2e, G. '?sta?pa. 7. Me? te?a#?2e. 1% Mit?c#e?ro?2a. D. Min ne?pa?ta. A. /a #o?#a?ta. -. %eec#?2a?be?r(# pa?2a. %. '?tis#? s#o?2a. G. &#?na# #a na?me te. 7. ' 2( pa?be?2a. 1& 1. &?c#e?pa?be?c#a. D. '?sac#?2a?b(2. A. Ho?2a?r(t?c#a. 7. &s# bot?c#ee a#. 4. &#? s#in?na?!g?a#. G. 'se 2ep?2a?b(2. 7 >o?sa?bot?see. 8. &#?#a?c#ic2. ,. %#ip?tet?Ba. 1H. &s#? 2ane? na. 11. /oo?a !a s#a. 1D. H?#ot?!(?s#a. 1A. 3et c#ale r(#? pa?2a. 1' "#is practice as an act of mo(rning is ;ery common among t#e Crows, an! also as a religio(s offering w#en t#ey #ol! a EMe!icine o!ge,F a great religio(s ceremonial. In a

1D,
bas2et #(ng (p in a Me!icine o!ge for t#eir reception as offerings, fifty, an! sometimes a #(n!re! finger :oints, I #a;e been tol!, are sometimes t#(s collecte!. &t a Crow encampment on t#e $pper Misso(ri I notice! a n(mber of women an! men wit# t#eir #an!s m(tilate! by t#is practice. 1( 1. 1a?#a. D. =o?2(se. A. 7(?m(. 5. 7al?p(t?l(. 0. '? c#o. G. "(s?wa. 7. 7at?c#(. 8. Ho? tor?lee. ,. %o?pa2?t(. 1H. "(2?2o. 11. C#(?la. 1D. 6ot.2o. 1A. H( #lo. 1-. $?c#e. 14. &#?a#. 1G. >?c#e. 17. >2?c#(n?wa. 18. 7(?wa 2(?c#e. 1,. "a?m(l 2ee. DH. &2?t(?ya c#(l 2ee. D1. Is?fa?n(l?2e. DD. 6a?#la2 2(l?2ee. !) %igFn e5(als signification. !1

*irst. 7(?s#ap. >2?la. l. 7(s#?i2?sa. D. aw?o2?la. A. (?la2 I2?sa. -. in?o2 l( s#a. %econ!. 6a?ta2?i H(?la?ta. 1. C#(?fan?i2?sa. D. Is 2(?la?ni. A. C#i to. -. %#a2?c#(2 la.
!!

I. 7oi. 1. 7o?in?c#(s#. D. Ha ta2?f(?s#i. A. =(n ni. -. Is?si. II. Is#?pan?ee. 1. %#a?( ee. D. Is#?pan?ee. A. Ming?2o. -. H(s#?2o ni. 8. "(n?ni. G. Ho?c#on?c#ab?ba. 7. =a?s#o?la. 8. C#(#?#la.
!" l. &#?ne?w#i?ya. D. &#?ne?w#o?t#e. A. &#?ne?ga?ta?ga?ni#. -. <s(?ni li?a?na. 4. $?ni? s!a?s!i. G. &#?nee?2a?wi# 7. &# riee?sa?#o2?ni#. 8. &#?n(?2a lo?#ig#. +&#?nee signifies t#e pl(ral.. !# 1. *rom t#e >:ibwa, gi?tc#i, great, an! ga?me, la2e, t#e aboriginal name of a2e %(perior, an! ot#er great la2es. !$ 1. My?een g(n. D. Ma?2wa. A. &#?mi2. -. Me?s#e?2a. %. Mi2?o?no#. G. Me?s2wa?!a re. 7. &#?!i2. 8. C#(?e?s2we: s2e?wFa. ,. >?:ee?:o2. 1H. 7a.2a2e. 11. H?me?gee?Be. 1D. Mong. 1A. &#?a#?we#. 1-. %#e?s#ebe. 14. 7e?na?big. 1G. 6a?B#(s#. 17. 6a?be B#aBe. 18. Moos#? 2a?oo Be. 1,. &#?wa#?sis?sa. DH. =a?ma?bin. D1. ? DD..=a?ma. DA. 7e?no?B#e. !% &n >:ibwa sac#em, 7e?we 2ons, w#o !ie! abo(t 18-H, at t#e age of ninety years, w#en as2e! by my informant 6#y #e !i! not retire from office an! gi;e place to #is son, replie!, t#at #is son co(l! not s(ccee! #im; t#at t#e rig#t of s(ccession belonge! to #is nep#ew, '?2wa 2a?mi2, w#o m(st #a;e t#e office. "#is nep#ew was a son of one of #is sisters. *rom t#is statement it follows t#at !escent, anciently, an! wit#in a recent perio!, was in t#e female line. It !oes not follow from t#e form of t#e statement t#at t#e nep#ew wo(l! ta2e by #ere!itary rig#t b(t t#at #e was in t#e line of s(ccession, an! #is election

1AH
was s(bstantially ass(re!. !& 1. Mo?a#?a#. D. MF?2o. A. M(2. -. Mis?s#a?wa. 4. Ma?a2. G. 7F?no(, 7. =F?ma. 8. =F? ma?pe?na. ,.? MF?ge?Be?wa. 1H. C#e?2wa. 11. 6a bo Bo. 1K. 7a?2ag?s#e. 1A. 6a2e?s#i. 1-. 3en?na. 14. MF?2e?eas#?s#e?2a?2a#. 1G. >?ta?wa. !' 3rono(nce! >?ta?wa. !( 1. Mo?;r#a?wa. D. Mon?gwa. .. 7en?!a?wa. -. &#?pa? ?2ose e?a. 0. 7a?no?Ba?wa. G. 3i? la?wa. 7. &#?se?pon?na. 8. Mon?na?to. ,. 7(l?swa. 1H. +=ot obtaine!.. ") 1. MFwa?wa. D. ? Ma?gwa. A. MF?2wa. -, 6e?wa?see. 4. MF?se?pa?se. G. MF?at#?wa. 7. 3a la?wa. 8. 3sa2e?t#e. ,. %#a?pa?ta. 1H. =a?ma?t#a. 11. Ma?na?to. 1D. 3e?sa?wa. 1A. 3a? ta2e?e?no?t#e. "1 In e;ery tribe t#e name in!icate! t#e gens. "#(s, among "#e %a(2s an! *oxes ong Horn is a name belonging to t#e <eer gens; /lac2 6olf, to t#e wolf. In t#e 'agle gens t#e following are specimen names: 7a?po?na, E'agle !rawing #is nest;F Ca?2a?2wa pe, E'agle sitting wit# #is #ea! (p;F 3e?a ta?na?2a?#o2, E'agle flying o;er a limb.F "! 1. Mo?w#a?wis so?(2. D. Ma?2wis?so?:i2. A. 3a?s#a?ga? sa?wis?so?(2. -. Ma?s#a?wa?(2. 0. 7a?2a?2wis?so?(2. G. 3a?mis so (2. 7. =a?ma?sis?so?(2. 8. =a?n(s?s(s?so?(2, =a na?ma 2eFw?(2, 1H. &#?2(# ne?na2. 11. 6a?2o?a?wis?so?:i2, 1D. 7a?c#e? 2onea?we?so (2, 1A. =a ma?we so?(2. 1-. Ma?s#e ma?ta2. "" 1. 7i no. D. Ma?me?o?ya. A. &# pe?2i. -. & ne?pa. 0. 3o? no?2ix. "# l. &#?a#?pi ta?pe. D. &#?pe 2i?e. A, I# po?se ma. -. 7a? 2a?po?ya, %. Mo?ta?to?sis. G. 7a ti?ya?ye?mix. 7. 7a?ta ge? ma?ne. 8. '?2o to?pis?taxe. "$

1. 6olf. "oo2?seat. l. ga?an?greet, /ig *eet. D. 6ee?sow?#et?2o, 1ellow "ree. A. 3a? sa?2(n?a?mon, 3(lling Corn. -. 6e yar?ni#?2a?to. Care 'nterer. 0. "oos#?war 2a?ma, &cross t#e 0i;er. G. H l(m? a ne, Iermilion. 7. 3(n?ar?yo(, <og stan!ing by *iresi!e. 8. 7win ee2?c#a, ong /o!y. ,. Moon?#ar?tar?ne, <igging. 1H. =on?#ar min, 3(lling (p %tream. 11. ong?(s#?#ar?2ar? to, /r(s# og. 1D. Maw?soo?to#, /ringing &long. II. "(rtle. 3o2e 2oo (n?go. l. >?2a #o?2i, 0(ler. D. "a?2o?ong?o to, Hig# /an2 %#ore. A. %ee? #ar?ong?o?to, <rawing !own Hill. 7. >le?#ar?2ar me? 2ar?to, 'lector. 0. Ma?#ar?o?l(2?ti, /ra;e. G. "oos#?2i pa 2wis?i, 9reen ea;es. 7. "(ng?(l?(ng?si, %mallest "(rtle. 8. 6e?l(n?(ng?si, ittle "(rtle, ,. ee 2win?a?i, %napping "(rtle. 1H. 7wis?aese? 2ees?to, <eer. ? "#e two remaining s(b?gentes are extinct.

1A1 III. "(r2ey. 3(l?la?oo2. 1. Mo #ar?a?la, /ig /ir!. D. e?le?wa?yo(, /ir!Fs Cry. A. Moo? 2w(ng?wa?#o?2i, 'ye 3ain. -. Moo?#ar?mo?wi 2ar?n(+ %cratc# t#e 3at#. 4. >?ping?#o?2i, >poss(m 9ro(n!. G. M(#? #o?we?2a?2en, >l! %#in. 7. "ong?o?na?o?to, <rift og. 8. =ool? a?mar lar?mo, i;ing in 6ater. ,. M(#?2rent #ar?ne, 0oot <igger. 1H. M(#? 2arm?#(2?se, 0e! *ace. 11. 7oo?wa?#o?2e. 3ine 0egion. 1D. >o? c#(2#am, 9ro(n! %cratc#ar.
"%

I. "oo2?se t(2. 1. =e #?:a?o. D. Ma?2wa. A. = !e?ya o. -. 6a?pa 2we, II. "one ba?o. 1. 9a2?po?m(te. D. ?? A. "one?ba?o. -. 6e?saw?ma?(n, III. "(r2ey. 1. =a?a#?ma?o. D. 9a? #?2o. A. ??.
"& In E%ystems of Consang(inity,F t#e aboriginal names of t#e principal In!ian tribes, wit# t#eir significations, may be fo(n!. "' 1. Mals s(m. D. 3is?s(#. A. &#?we#.soos. -. %2oo2e. 4. &# l(n2?soo. G. "a?ma?2wa. 7. Ma?g(#?le?1oo. 8. 7:a? ba#?se#. ,. Moos?2wa?s(#. 1H. 7F c#e?ga?gong?go. 11. Me#? 2o?a. 1D. C#e?gwa?lis. 1A 7oos 2oo. 1-. Ma?!a? we#?soos. "( "rans. &m, 't#. %oc., Intro., cxlix #) )&las2a an! its 0eso(rces,8 p. -1-. #1 )=ati;e 0aces of t#e 3aciae %tates,8 1H,. #! "#e %#awnees formerly wors#ipe! a *emale <eity, calle! 9o?gome t#a?ma, E>(r 9ran! Mot#er.F #" )%c#oolcraftFs Hist., etc., of In!ian "ribes8 i;. 8G. ## E&!!ress,F p. 1D. #$ )9eneral History of &merica,8 on!. e!., 17DG. %te;ens "rans., iii D,,. #% Ib., i; 171. #& Ib., iii, DHD #' Ib., i;, AA. #( )9eneral History of &merica,8 i;, 171. $) )'arly History of Man2in!,8 p. D87. $1 )9en. Hist. of &mer.,8 i;, DA1.

1AD
$! )'arly History of Man2in!,8 p. D87. $" )In!ian "ribes of 9(iana,8 p. ,8; cite! by (bboc2 >rigin of Ci;iliBation, p. ,8.

Chapter VII THE AZTEC CONFEDERACY

"#e %panis# a!;ent(rers, w#o capt(re! t#e 3(eblo of Mexico, a!opte! t#e erroneo(s t#eory t#at t#e &Btec go;ernment was a monarc#y, analogo(s in essential respects to existing monarc#ies in '(rope. "#is opinion was a!opte! generally by t#e early %panis# writers, wit#o(t in;estigating min(tely t#e str(ct(re an! principles of t#e &Btec social system. & terminology not in agreement wit# t#eir instit(tions came in wit# t#is misconception w#ic# #as ;itiate! t#e #istorical narrati;e nearly as completely as t#o(g# it were, in t#e main, a st(!ie! fabrication. 6it# t#e capt(re of t#e only strong#ol! t#e &Btecs possesse!, t#eir go;ernmental fabric was !estroye!, %panis# r(le was s(bstit(te! in its place, an! t#e s(b:ect of t#eir internal organiBation an! policy was allowe! s(bstantially to pass into obli;ion.[1] "#e &Btecs an! t#eir confe!erate tribes were ignorant of iron an! conse5(ently wit#o(t iron tools; t#ey #a! no money, an! tra!e! by barter of commo!ities; b(t t#ey wor2e! t#e nati;e metals, c(lti;ate! by irrigation, man(fact(re! coarse fabrics of cotton, constr(cte! :oint?tenement #o(ses of a!obe? bric2s an! of stone, an! ma!e eart#enware of excellent 5(ality. "#ey #a!, t#erefore, attaine! to t#e Mi!!le %tat(s of barbarism. "#ey still #el! t#eir lan!s in common, li;e! in large #o(se#ol!s compose! of a n(mber of relate! families; an!, as t#ere are strong reasons for belie;ing, practice! comm(nism in li;ing in t#e #o(se#ol!. It is ren!ere! reasonably certain t#at t#ey #a! b(t one prepare! meal eac# !ay, a !inner; at w#ic# t#ey separate!, t#e men eating first an! by t#emsel;es, an! t#e women an! c#il!ren afterwar!s. Ha;ing neit#er tables nor c#airs for !inner ser;ice t#ey #a! not learne! to eat t#eir single !aily meal in t#e manner of ci;iliBe! nations. "#ese feat(res of t#eir social con!ition s#ow s(fficiently t#eir relati;e stat(s of a!;ancement. In connection wit# t#e Iillage In!ians of ot#er parts of Mexico an! Central &merica, an! of 3er(, t#ey affor!e! t#e best exemplification of t#is con!ition of ancient society t#en existing on t#e eart#. "#ey represente! one of t#e great stages of progress towar! ci;iliBation in w#ic# t#e instit(tions !eri;e! from a pre;io(s et#nical perio! are seen in #ig#er a!;ancement, an! w#ic# were to be transmitte!, in t#e co(rse of #(man experience, to an et#nical con!ition still #ig#er, an! (n!ergo still f(rt#er !e;elopment before ci;iliBation was possible. /(t t#e Iillage In!ians were not !estine! to attain t#e $pper %tat(s of barbarism so well represente! by t#e Homeric 9ree2s. "#e In!ian p(eblos in t#e ;alley of Mexico re;eale! to '(ropeans a lost con!ition of ancient society, w#ic# was so remar2able an! pec(liar t#at it aro(se! at t#e time an insatiable c(riosity. More ;ol(mes #a;e been written, in t#e proportion of ten to one, (pon t#e Mexican aborigines an! t#e %panis# Con5(est, t#an (pon any ot#er people of t#e same a!;ancement, or (pon any e;ent of t#e same importance. &n!

1AA yet, t#ere is no people concerning w#ose instit(tions an! plan of life so little is acc(rately 2nown. "#e remar2able spectacle presente! so inflame! t#e imagination t#at romance swept t#e fiel!, an! #as #el! it to t#e present #o(r. "#e fail(re to ascertain t#e str(ct(re of &Btec society w#ic# res(lte! was a serio(s loss to t#e #istory of man2in!. It s#o(l! not be ma!e a ca(se of reproac# to anyone, b(t rat#er for !eep regret. ';en t#at w#ic# #as been written, wit# s(c# painsta2ing in!(stry, may pro;e (sef(l in some f(t(re attempt to reconstr(ct t#e #istory of t#e &Btec confe!eracy. Certain facts remain of a positi;e 2in! from w#ic# ot#er facts may be !e!(cte!; so t#at it is not improbable t#at a well?!irecte! original in;estigation may yet reco;er, meas(rably at least, t#e essential feat(res of t#e &Btec social system. "#e E2ing!om of MexicoF as it stan!s in t#e early #istories, an! t#e Eempire of MexicoF as it appears in t#e later, is a fiction of t#e imagination. &t t#e time t#ere was a seeming fo(n!ation for !escribing t#e go;ernment as a monarc#y, in t#e absence of a correct 2nowle!ge of t#eir instit(tions; b(t t#e misconception can no longer be !efen!e!. "#at w#ic# t#e %paniar!s fo(n! was simply a confe!eracy of t#ree In!ian tribes, of w#ic# t#e co(nterpart existe! in all parts of t#e continent, an! t#ey #a! no occasion in t#eir !escriptions to a!;ance a step beyon! t#is single fact. "#e go;ernment was a!ministere! by a co(ncil of c#iefs, wit# t#e co?operation of a general comman!er of t#e military ban!s. It was a go;ernment of two powers; t#e ci;il being represente! by t#e co(ncil, an! t#e military by a principal war?c#ief. %ince t#e instit(tions of t#e confe!erate tribes were essentially !emocratical, t#e go;ernment may be calle! a military !emocracy, if a !esignation more special t#an confe!eracy is re5(ire!. "#ree tribes, t#e &Btecs or Mexicans, t#e "eBc(cans an! t#e "lacopans, were (nite! in t#e &Btec confe!eracy, w#ic# gi;es t#e two (pper members of t#e organic social series. 6#et#er or not t#ey possesse! t#e first an! t#e secon!, namely, ? t#e gens an! t#e p#ratry, !oes not appear in a !efinite form in any of t#e %panis# writers; b(t t#ey #a;e ;ag(ely !escribe! certain instit(tions w#ic# can only be (n!erstoo! by s(pplying t#e lost members of t#e series. 6#ilst t#e p#ratry is not essential, it is ot#erwise wit# t#e gens, beca(se it is t#e (nit (pon w#ic# t#e social system rests. 6it#o(t entering t#e ;ast an! (n?t#rea!able labyrint# of &Btec affairs as t#ey now stan! #istorically, I s#all ;ent(re to in;ite attention to a few partic(lars only of t#e &Btec social system, w#ic# may ten! to ill(strate its real c#aracter. /efore !oing t#is, t#e relations of t#e confe!erate! to s(rro(n!ing tribes s#o(l! be notice!. "#e &Btecs were one of se;en 2in!re! tribes w#o #a! migrate! from t#e nort# an! settle! in an! near t#e ;alley of Mexico; an! w#o were among t#e #istorical tribes of t#at co(ntry at t#e epoc# of t#e %panis# Con5(est. "#ey calle! t#emsel;es collecti;ely t#e =a#(atlacs in t#eir tra!itions. &costa, w#o ;isite! Mexico in 1484, an! w#ose wor2 was p(blis#e! at %e;ille in 148,, #as gi;en t#e c(rrent nati;e tra!ition of t#eir migrations, one after t#e ot#er, from &Btlan, wit# t#eir names an! places of settlement. He states t#e or!er of t#eir arri;al as follows: 1. %oc#imilcas, E=ation of t#e %ee!s of *lowers,F w#o settle! (pon a2e Lgoc#imilco, on t#e so(t# slope of t#e ;alley of Mexico; D. C#alcas, E3eople of Mo(t#s,F w#o came long after t#e former an! settle! near t#em, on a2e C#alco; A. "epanecans, E3eople of t#e /ri!ge,F w#o settle! at &BcopoBalco, west of a2e

1A"eBc(co, on t#e western slope of t#e ;alley; -. C(l#(as, E& Croo2e! 3eople,F w#o settle! on t#e east si!e of a2e "eBc(co, an! were afterwar!s 2nown as "eBc(cans; 4. "latl(icans, EMen of t#e %ierra,F w#o, fin!ing t#e ;alley appropriate! aro(n! t#e la2e, passe! o;er t#e %ierra so(t#war! an! settle! (pon t#e ot#er si!e; G. "lascalans, EMen of /rea!,F w#o, after li;ing for a time wit# t#e "epanecans, finally settle! beyon! t#e ;alley eastwar!, at "lascala; 7. "#e &Btecs, w#o came last an! occ(pie! t#e site of t#e present city of Mexico. [2] &costa f(rt#er obser;es t#at t#ey came )from far co(ntries w#ic# lie towar!s t#e nort#, w#ere now t#ey #a;e fo(n! a 2ing!om w#ic# t#ey call =ew Mexico.[3]8 "#e same tra!ition is gi;en by Herrera[4], an! also Cla;igero[5]. It will be notice! t#at t#e "lacopans are not mentione!. "#ey were, in all probability, a s(b? !i;ision of t#e "epanecans w#o remaine! in t#e original area of t#at tribe, w#ile t#e remain!er seem to #a;e re? mo;e! to a territory imme!iately so(t# of t#e "lascalans, w#ere t#ey were fo(n! (n!er t#e name of t#e "epeacas. "#e latter #a! t#e same legen! of t#e se;en ca;es, an! spo2e a !ialect of t#e =a#(atlac lang(age.[6] "#is tra!ition embo!ies one significant fact of a 2in! t#at co(l! not #a;e been in;ente!; namely, t#at t#e se;en tribes were of imme!iate common origin, t#e fact being confirme! by t#eir !ialects; an! a secon! fact of importance, t#at t#ey came from t#e nort#. It s#ows t#at t#ey were originally one people, w#o #a! fallen into se;en an! more tribes by t#e nat(ral process of segmentation. Moreo;er, it was t#is same fact w#ic# ren!ere! t#e &Btec confe!eracy possible as well as probable, a common lang(age being t#e essential basis of s(c# organiBations. "#e &Btecs fo(n! t#e best sit(ations in t#e ;alley occ(pie!, an! after se;eral c#anges of position t#ey finally settle! (pon a small expanse of !ry lan! in t#e mi!st of a mars# bor!ere! wit# fiel!s of pe!regal an! wit# nat(ral pon!s. Here t#ey fo(n!e! t#e celebrate! p(eblo of Mexico +"enoc#titlan., &.<. 1AD4, accor!ing to Cla;igero, one #(n!re! an! ninety?six years prior to t#e %panis# Con5(est. [7] "#ey were few in n(mber an! poor in con!ition. /(t fort(nately for t#em, t#e o(tlet of a2es Loc#imilco an! C#alo an! ri;(lets from t#e western #ills flowe! past t#eir site into a2e "eBc(co. Ha;ing t#e sagacity to percei;e t#e a!;antages of t#e location t#ey s(ccee!e!, by means of ca(seways an! !i2es, in s(rro(n!ing t#eir p(eblo wit# an artificial pon! of large extent, t#e waters being f(rnis#e! from t#e so(rces name!; an! t#e le;el of a2e "eBc(co being #ig#er t#en t#an at present, it ga;e t#em, w#en t#e w#ole wor2 was complete!, t#e most sec(re position of any tribe in t#e ;alley. "#e mec#anical engineering by w#ic# t#ey accomplis#e! t#is res(lt was one of t#e greatest ac#ie;ements of t#e &Btecs, an! one wit#o(t w#ic# t#ey wo(l! not probably #a;e risen abo;e t#e le;el of t#e s(rro(n!ing tribes. In!epen!ence an! prosperity followe!, an! in time a controlling infl(ence o;er t#e ;alley tribes. %(c# was t#e manner, an! so recent t#e time of fo(n!ing t#e p(eblo accor!ing to &Btec tra!itions w#ic# may be accepte! as s(bstantially tr(stwort#y. &t t#e epoc# of t#e %panis# Con5(est fi;e of t#e se;en tribes, namely, t#e &Btecs, "eBc(cans, "lacopans, %oc#milcas, an! C#alcans resi!e! in t#e ;alley, w#ic# was an area of 5(ite limite! !imensions, abo(t e5(al to t#e state of 0#o!e Islan!. It was a mo(ntain or (plan! basin #a;ing no o(tlet, o;al in form, being longest from nort# to so(t#, one #(n!re! an! twenty miles in circ(it, an! embracing abo(t sixteen

1A4 #(n!re! s5(are miles excl(!ing t#e s(rface co;ere! by water. "#e ;alley, as !escribe!, is s(rro(n!e! by a series of #ills, one range rising abo;e anot#er wit# !epressions between, encompassing t#e ;alley wit# a mo(ntain barrier. "#e tribes name! resi!e! in some t#irty p(eblos, more or less, of w#ic# t#at of Mexico was t#e largest. "#ere is no e;i!ence t#at any consi!erable portion of t#ese tribes an! coloniBe! o(tsi!e of t#e ;alley an! t#e a!:acent #ill?slopes; b(t, on t#e contrary, t#ere is ab(n!ant e;i!ence t#at t#e remain!er of mo!ern Mexico was t#en occ(pie! by n(mero(s tribes w#o spo2e lang(ages !ifferent from t#e =a#(atlac, an! t#e ma:ority of w#om were in!epen!ent. "#e "lasealans, t#e C#ol(lans, a s(ppose! s(b?!i;ision of t#e former, t#e "epeacas, t#e H(exotBincos, t#e MeBtitlans, a s(ppose! s(b!i;ision of t#e "eBc(cans, an! t#e "latl(icans were t#e remaining =a#(atlac tribes li;ing wit#o(t t#e ;alley of Mexico, all of w#om were in!epen!ent excepting t#e last, an! t#e "epeacas. & large n(mber of ot#er tribes, forming some se;enteen territorial gro(ps, more or less, an! spea2ing as many stoc2 lang(ages, #el! t#e remain!er of Mexico. "#ey present, in t#eir state of !isintegration an! in!epen!ence, a nearly exact repetition of t#e tribes of t#e $nite! %tates an! /ritis# &merica, at t#e time of t#eir !isco;ery, a cent(ry or more later. 3rior to &.<. 1-DG, w#en t#e &Btec confe!eracy was forme!, ;ery little #a! occ(rre! in t#e affairs of t#e ;alley tribes of #istorical importance. "#ey were !is(nite! an! belligerent, an! wit#o(t infl(ence beyon! t#eir imme!iate localities. &bo(t t#is time t#e s(perior position of t#e &Btecs began to manifest its res(lts in a prepon!erance of n(mbers an! of strengt#. $n!er t#eir war?c#ief, ItBcoatl, t#e pre;io(s s(premacy of t#e "eBc(cans an! "lacopans was o;ert#rown, an! a leag(e or confe!eracy was establis#e! as a conse5(ence of t#eir pre;io(s wars against eac# ot#er. It was an alliance between t#e t#ree tribes, offensi;e an! !efensi;e, wit# stip(lations for t#e !i;ision among t#em, in certain proportions, of t#e spoils, an! t#e after trib(tes of s(b:(gate! tribes. [8] "#ese trib(tes, w#ic# consiste! of t#e man(fact(re! fabrics an! #ortic(lt(ral pro!(cts of t#e ;illages s(b!(e!, seem to #a;e been enforce! wit# system, an! wit# rigor of exaction. "#e plan of organiBation of t#is confe!eracy #as been lost. *rom t#e absence of partic(lars it is now !iffic(lt to !etermine w#et#er it was simply a leag(e to be contin(e! or !issol;e! at pleas(re; or a consoli!ate! organiBation, li2e t#at of t#e Iro5(ois, in w#ic# t#e parts were a!:(ste! to eac# ot#er in permanent an! !efinite relations. 'ac# tribe was in!epen!ent in w#ate;er relate! to local self? go;ernment; b(t t#e t#ree were externally one people in w#ate;er relate! to aggression or !efence. 6#ile eac# tribe #a! its own co(ncil of c#iefs, an! its own #ea! war? c#ief, t#e war?c#ief of t#e &Btecs was t#e comman!er?in? c#ief of t#e confe!erate ban!s. "#is may be inferre! from t#e fact t#at t#e "eBc(cans an! "lacopans #a! a ;oice eit#er in t#e election or in t#e confirmation of t#e &Btec war? c#ief. "#e ac5(isition of t#e c#ief comman! by t#e &Btecs ten!s to s#ow t#at t#eir infl(ence pre!ominate! in establis#ing t#e terms (pon w#ic# t#e tribe confe!erate!. =eBa#(alco:otl #a! been !epose!, or at?least !ispossesse! of #is office, as principal war?c#ief of t#e "eBc(cans, to w#ic# #e was at t#is time +1-DG. restore! by &Btec proc(rement. "#e e;ent may be ta2en as t#e !ate of t#e formation of t#e confe!eracy or leag(e w#ic#e;er it was. /efore !isc(ssing t#e limite! n(mber of

1AG facts w#ic# ten! to ill(strate t#e c#aracter of t#is organiBation, a brief reference s#o(l! be ma!e to w#at t#e confe!eracy accomplis#e! in ac5(iring territorial !omination !(ring t#e s#ort perio! of its existence. *rom &.<. 1-DG to 14DH, a perio! of ninety?fo(r years, t#e confe!eracy was engage! in fre5(ent wars wit# a!:acent tribes, an! partic(larly wit# t#e feeble Iillage In!ians so(t#war! from t#e ;alley of Mexico to t#e 3acific, an! t#ence eastwar! well towar! 9(atemala. "#ey began wit# t#ose nearest in position w#om t#ey o;ercame, t#ro(g# s(perior n(mbers an! concentrate! action, an! s(b:ecte! to trib(te. "#e ;illages in t#is area were n(mero(s b(t small, consisting in many cases of a single large str(ct(re of a!obe? bric2 or of stone, an! in some cases of se;eral s(c# str(ct(res gro(pe! toget#er. "#ese :oint?tenement #o(ses interpose! serio(s #in!rances to &Btec con5(est, b(t t#ey !i! not pro;e ins(perable. "#ese forays were contin(e! from time to time for t#e a;owe! ob:ect of gat#ering spoil, imposing trib(te, an! capt(ring prisoners for sacrifice; (ntil t#e principal tribes wit#in t#e area name!, wit# some exceptions, were s(b!(e! an! ma!e trib(tary, incl(!ing t#e scattere! ;illages of t#e "otonacs near t#e present Iera Cr(B. =o attempt was ma!e to incorporate t#ese tribes in t#e &Btec confe!eracy, w#ic# t#e barrier of lang(age ren!ere! impossible (n!er t#eir instit(tions. "#ey were left (n!er t#e go;ernment of t#eir own c#iefs, an! to t#e practice of t#eir own (sages an! c(stoms. In some cases a collector of trib(te resi!e! among t#em. "#e barren res(lts of t#ese con5(ests, re;eal t#e act(al c#aracter of t#eir instit(tions. & !omination of t#e strong o;er t#e wea2 for no ot#er ob:ect t#an to enforce an (nwilling trib(te, !i! not e;en ten! to t#e formation of a nation. If organiBe! in gentes, t#ere was no way for an in!i;i!(al to become a member of t#e go;ernment except t#ro(g# a gens, an! no way for t#e a!mission of a gens except by its incorporation among t#e &Btec, "eBc(can, or "lacopan gentes. "#e plan ascribe! to 0om(l(s of remo;ing t#e gentes of con5(ere! atin tribes to 0ome mig#t #a;e been resorte! to by t#e &Btec confe!eracy wit# respect to t#e tribes o;err(n; b(t t#ey were not s(fficiently a!;ance! to form s(c# a conception, e;en t#o(g# t#e barrier of lang(age co(l! #a;e been ob;iate!. =eit#er co(l! colonists for t#e same reason, if sent among t#em, #a;e so far assimilate! t#e con5(ere! tribes as to prepare t#em for incorporation in t#e &Btec social system. &s it was t#e confe!eracy gaine! no strengt# by t#e terrorism it create!; or by #ol!ing t#ese tribes (n!er b(r!ens, inspire! wit# enmity an! e;er rea!y to re;olt. It seems, #owe;er, t#at t#ey (se! t#e military ban!s of s(b:(gate! tribes in some cases, an! s#are! wit# t#em t#e spoils. &ll t#e &Btecs co(l! !o, after forming t#e confe!eracy, was to expan! it o;er t#e remaining =a#(atlac tribes. "#is t#ey were (nable to accomplis#. "#e Loc#imilcas an! C#alcans were not constit(ent members of t#e confe!eracy, b(t t#ey en:oye! a nominal in!epen!ence, t#o(g# trib(tary. "#is is abo(t all t#at can now be !isco;ere! of t#e material basis of t#e so?calle! 2ing!om or empire of t#e &Btecs. "#e confe!eracy was confronte! by #ostile an! in!epen!ent tribes on t#e west, nort#west, nort#?east, east, an! so(t#east si!es: as witness, t#e Mec#oacans on t#e west, t#e >tomies on t#e nort#west, +scattere!. ban!s of t#e >tomies near t#e ;alley #a! been place! (n!er trib(te., t#e C#ic#imecs or wil! tribes nort# of t#e >tomies, t#e MeBtitlans on t#e nort#east, t#e

1A7 "lascalans on t#e east, t#e C#ol(lans an! H(exotBincos on t#e so(t#? east an! beyon! t#em t#e tribes of t#e "abasco, t#e tribes of C#iapas, an! t#e Kapotecs. In t#ese se;eral !irections t#e !ominion of t#e &Btec confe!eracy !i! not exten! a #(n!re! miles beyon! t#e ;alley of Mexico, a portion of w#ic# s(rro(n!ing area was (n!o(bte!ly ne(tral gro(n! separating t#e confe!eracy from perpet(al enemies. >(t of s(c# limite! materials t#e 2ing!om of Mexico of t#e %panis# c#ronicles was fabricate!, an! afterwar!s magnifie! into t#e &Btec empire of c(rrent #istory. & few wor!s seem to be necessary concerning t#e pop(lation of t#e ;alley an! of t#e p(eblo of Mexico. =o means exist for ascertaining t#e n(mber of t#e people in t#e fi;e =a#(atlac tribes w#o in#abite! t#e ;alley. &ny estimate m(st be con:ect(ral. &s a con:ect(re t#en, base! (pon w#at is 2nown of t#eir #ortic(lt(re, t#eir means of s(bsistence, t#eir instit(tions, t#eir limite! area, an! not forgetting t#e trib(te t#ey recei;e!, two #(n!re! an! fifty t#o(san! persons in t#e aggregate wo(l! probably be an excessi;e estimate. It wo(l! gi;e abo(t a #(n!re! an! sixty persons to t#e s5(are mile, e5(al to nearly twice t#e present a;erage pop(lation of t#e state of =ew 1or2, an! abo(t e5(al to t#e a;erage pop(lation of 0#o!e Islan!. It is !iffic(lt to percei;e w#at s(fficient reason can be assigne! for so large a n(mber of in#abitants in all t#e ;illages wit#in t#e ;alley, sai! to #a;e been from t#irty to forty. "#ose w#o claim a #ig#er n(mber will be bo(n! to s#ow #ow a barbaro(s people, wit#o(t floc2s an! #er!s, an! wit#o(t fiel! agric(lt(re, co(l! #a;e s(staine! in e5(al areas a large n(mber of in#abitants t#an a ci;iliBe! people can now maintain arme! wit# t#ese a!;antages. It cannot, be s#own for t#e simple reason t#at it co(l! not #a;e been tr(e. >(t of this pop(lation t#irty t#o(san! may, per#aps, be assigne! to t#e p(eblo of Mexico. It will be (nnecessary to !isc(ss t#e position an! relations of t#e ;alley tribes beyon! t#e s(ggestions ma!e. "#e &Btec monarc#y s#o(l! be !ismisse! from &merican aboriginal #istory, not only as !el(si;e, b(t as a misrepresentation of t#e In!ians, w#o #a! neit#er !e;elope! nor in;ente! monarc#ical instit(tions. "#e go;ernment t#ey forme! was a confe!eracy of tribes, an! not#ing more; an! probably not e5(al in plan an! symmetry wit# t#at of t#e Iro5(ois. In !ealing wit# t#is organiBation, 6ar?c#ief, %ac#em, an! C#ief will be s(fficient to !isting(is# t#eir official persons. "#e p(eblo of Mexico was t#e largest in &merica. 0omantically sit(ate! in t#e mi!st of an artificial la2e, its large :oint?tenement #o(ses plastere! o;er wit# gyps(m, w#ic# ma!e t#em a brilliant w#ite, an! approac#e! by ca(seways, it presente! to t#e %paniar!s, in t#e !istance a stri2ing an! enc#anting spectacle. It was a re;elation of an ancient society lying two et#nical perio!s bac2 to '(ropean society, an! eminently calc(late!, from its or!erly plan of life, to awa2en c(riosity an! inspire ent#(siasm. & certain amo(nt of extra;agance of opinion was (na;oi!able. & few partic(lars #a;e been name! ten!ing to s#ow t#e extent of &Btec a!;ancement to w#ic# some ot#ers may now be a!!e!. >rnamental gar!ens were fo(n!, magaBines of weapons an! of military cost(mes, impro;e! apparel, man(fact(re! fabrics of cotton of s(perior wor2mans#ip, impro;e! implements an! (tensils, an! an increase! ;ariety of foo!; pict(re?writing, (se! c#iefly to in!icate

1A8 t#e trib(te in 2in! eac# s(b:(gate! ;illage was to pay; a calen!ar for meas(ring time, an! open mar2ets for t#e barter of commo!ities. &!ministrati;e offices #a! been create! to meet t#e !eman!s of a growing m(nicipal life; priest#oo!, wit# temple wors#ip an! a rit(al incl(!ing #(man sacrifice, #a! been establis#e!. "#e office of #ea! war?c#ief #a! also risen into increase! importance. "#ese, an! ot#er circ(mstances of t#eir con!ition, not, necessary to be !etaile!, imply a correspon!ing !e;elopment of t#eir instit(tions. %(c# are some of t#e !ifferences between t#e ower an! t#e Mi!!le %tat(s of barbarism, as ill(strate! by t#e relati;e con!itions of t#e Iro5(ois an! t#e &Btecs, bot# #a;ing !o(btless t#e same original instit(tions. 6it# t#ese preliminary s(ggestions ma!e, t#e t#ree most important an! most !iffic(lt 5(estions wit# respect to t#e &Btec social system, remain to be consi!ere!. "#ey relate first, to t#e existence of 9entes an! 3#ratries; secon!, t#e existence an! f(nctions of t#e Co(ncil of C#iefs; an!, t#ir!, t#e existence an! f(nctions of t#e office of 9eneral Military Comman!er, #el! by MonteB(ma.

I. %he E$istence of 'entes and Phratries.

It may seem sing(lar t#at t#e early %panis# writers !i! not !isco;er t#e &Btec gentes, if in fact t#ey existe!; b(t t#e case was nearly t#e same wit# t#e Iro5(ois (n!er t#e obser;ation of o(r own people more t#an two #(n!re! years. "#e existence among t#em of clans, name! after animals, was pointe! o(t at an early !ay, b(t wit#o(t s(specting t#at it was t#e (nit of a social system (pon w#ic# bot# t#e tribe an! t#e confe!eracy reste!.[11] "#e fail(re of t#e %panis# in;estigators to notice t#e existence of t#e gentile organiBation among t#e tribes of %panis# &merica wo(l! affor! no proof of its non?existence; b(t if it !i! exist, it wo(l! simply pro;e t#at t#eir wor2 was s(perficial m t#is respect. "#ere is a large amo(nt of in!irect an! fragmentary e;i!ence in t#e %panis# writers pointing bot# to t#e gens an! t#e p#ratry, some of w#ic# will now be consi!ere!. 0eference #as been ma!e to t#e fre5(ent (se of t#e term E2in!re!F by Herrera, s#owing t#at gro(ps of persons were notice! w#o were bo(n! toget#er by affinities of bloo!. "#is, from t#e siBe of t#e gro(p, seems to re5(ire a gens. "#e term ElineageF is sometimes (se! to in!icate a still larger gro(p, an! implying a p#ratry. "#e p(eblo of Mexico was !i;i!e! geograp#ically into fo(r 5(arters, eac# of w#ic# was occ(pie! by a lineage, a bo!y of people more nearly relate! by consang(inity among t#emsel;es t#an t#ey were to t#e in#abitants of t#e ot#er 5(arters. 3res(mpti;ely, eac# lineage was a p#ratry. 'ac# 5(arter was again s(b!i;i!e!, an! eac# local s(b? !i;ision was occ(pie! by a comm(nity of persons bo(n! toget#er by some common tie.[12] 3res(mpti;ely, t#is comm(nity of persons was a gens. "(rning to t#e 2in!re! tribe of "lascalans, t#e same facts nearly re?appear. "#eir p(eblo was !i;i!e! into fo(r 5(arters, eac# occ(pie! by a, lineage. 'ac# #a! its own "e(ctli or #ea! war?c#ief, its !istincti;e military cost(me, an! its own stan!ar! an! blaBon.[13] &s one people t#ey were (n!er t#e go;ernment of a co(ncil of c#iefs, w#ic# t#e %paniar!s #ono(re! wit# #e name of t#e "lascalan senate.[14] C#ol(la, in li2e manner, was !i;i!e! into six 5(arters, calle! war!s by Herrera, w#ic# lea!s to t#e same inference.[15] "#e &Btecs in t#eir social s(b!i;isions #a;ing

1A, arrange! among t#emsel;es t#e parts of t#e p(eblo t#ey were se;erally to occ(py, t#ese geograp#ical !istricts wo(l! res(lt from t#eir mo!e of settlement. If t#e brief acco(nt of t#ese >uarters at, t#e fo(n!ation of Mexico, gi;en by Herrera, w#o follows &costa, is rea! in t#e lig#t of t#is explanation, t#e tr(t# of t#e matter will be bro(g#t 5(ite near. &fter mentioning t#e b(il!ing of a Ec#apel of lime an! stone for t#e i!ol.F Herrera procee!s as follows: )6#en t#is was !one, t#e i!ol or!ere! a priest to bi! t#e c#ief men !i;i!e t#emsel;es, wit# t#eir 2in!re! an! followers, into fo(r war!s or 5(arters, lea;ing t#e #o(se t#at #a! been b(ilt for #im to rest in t#e mi!!le, an! eac# party to b(il! as t#ey li2e! best. "#ese are t#e fo(r 5(arters of Mexico now calle! %t. Co#n, %t. Mary t#e 0o(n!, %t. 3a(l an! %t. %ebastian. "#at !i;ision being accor!ingly ma!e, t#eir i!ol again !irecte! t#em to !istrib(te among t#emsel;es t#e go!s #e s#o(l! name, an! eac# war! to appoint pec(liar places w#ere t#e go!s s#o(l! be wors#ippe!; an! t#(s e;ery 5(arter #as se;eral smaller war!s in it accor!ing to t#e n(mber of t#eir go!s t#is idol calle! t#em to a!ore;.... "#(s Mexico, "enoc#titlan, was fo(n!e!.... 6#en t#e aforesai! partition was ma!e, t#ose w#o t#o(g#t t#emsel;es in:(re!, wit# t#eir 2in!re! an! followers, went away to see2 some ot#er place,8 [16] namely, "latel(eco, w#ic# was a!:acent. It is a reasonable interpretation of t#is lang(age t#at t#ey !i;i!e! by 2in, first into to(r general !i;isions, an! t#ese into smaller s(b!i;isions, w#ic# is t#e (s(al form(la far stating res(lts. /(t t#e act(al process was t#e exact re;erse; namely, eac# bo!y of 2in!re! locate! in an area by t#emsel;es, an! t#e se;eral bo!ies in s(c# a way as to bring t#ose most nearly relate! in geograp#ical connection wit# eac# ot#er. &ss(ming t#at t#e lowest s(b!i;ision was a gens, an! t#at eac# 5(arter was occ(pie! by a p#ratry, compose! of relate! gentes, t#e primary !istrib(tion of t#e &Btecs in t#eir p(eblo is perfectly intelligible. 6it#o(t t#is ass(mption it is incapable of a satisfactory explanation. 6#en a people, organiBe! in gentes, p#ratries an! tribes, settle! in a town or city, t#ey locate! by gentes an! by tribes, as a necessary conse5(ence, of t#eir social organiBation. "#e 9recian an! 0oman tribes settle! in t#eir cities in t#is manner, *or example, t#e t#ree 0oman tribes were organiBe! in gentes an! curiae, t#e c(riae being t#e analog(e of t#e p#ratry; an! t#ey settle! at 0ome by gentes, by c(riae an! by tribes. "#e 0amnes occ(pie! t#e 3alatine Hill. "#e "ities were mostly on t#e J(irinal, an! t#e (ceres mostly on t#e 's5(iline. If t#e &Btecs were in gentes an! p#ratries, #a;ing b(t one tribe, t#ey wo(l! of necessity be fo(n! in as many 5(arters as t#ey #a! p#ratries, wit# eac# gens of t#e same p#ratry in t#e main locally by itself. &s #(sban! an! wife were of !ifferent gentes, an! t#e c#il!ren were of t#e gens of t#e fat#er or mot#er as !escent was in t#e male or t#e female line, t#e prepon!erating n(mber in eac# locality wo(l! be of t#e same gens. "#eir military organiBation was base! (pon t#ese social !i;isions. &s =estor a!;ise! &gamemnon to arrange t#e troops by p#ratries an! by tribes, t#e &Btecs seem to #a;e arrange! t#emsel;es by gentes an! by p#ratries. In t#e 'e"ican ?hronicles$ by t#e nati;e a(t#or "eBoBomoc +for a reference to t#e following passage in w#ic# I am in!ebte! to my frien! Mr. &!. *. /an!elier, of Hig#lan!, Illinois, w#o is now engage! (pon its translation., a propose! in;asion of Mic#oacan is referre! to. &xaycatl )spo2e to t#e Mexican captains "lacatecatl an! "lacoc#calcatl, an! to all t#e ot#ers, an! in5(ire! w#et#er all t#e Mexicans were

1-H prepare!, after t#e (sages an! c(stoms of eac# war!, eac# one wit# its captains; an! if so t#at t#ey s#o(l! begin to marc#, an! t#at all were to re(nite at MatlatBinco "ol(ca.8 [17] 1t in!icates t#at t#e military organiBation was by gentes an! by p#ratries. &n inference of t#e existence of &Btec gentes arises also from t#eir lan! ten(re. Cla;igero remar2s t#at )t#e lan!s w#ic# were calle! Atepetlalli MaltepetlTp(ebloN t#at is, t#ose of t#e comm(nities of cities an! ;illages, were !i;i!e! into as many parts as t#ere were !istricts in a city, an! e;ery. !istrict possesse! its own part entirely !istinct from, an! in!epen!ent of e;ery ot#er. "#ese lan!s co(l! not be alienate! by any means w#ate;er.[18]8 In eac# of t#ese comm(nities we are le! to recogniBe a gens, w#ose localiBation was a necessary conse5(ence of t#eir social system. Cla;igero p(ts t#e !istricts for t#e comm(nity, w#ereas it was t#e latter w#ic# ma!e t#e !istrict, an! w#ic# owne! t#e lan!s in common. "#e element of 2in, w#ic# (nite! eac# comm(nity, omitte! by Cla;igero is s(pplie! by Herrera. )"#ere were ot#er lor!s, calle! ma:or parents Msac#emsN, w#ose lan!e! property all belonge! to one lineage MgensN, w#ic# li;e! in one !istrict, an! t#ere were many of t#em w#en t#e lan!s were !istrib(te! at t#e time w#en %pain was people!; an! eac# lineage recei;e! its own, an! #a;e possesse! t#em (ntil now; an! t#ese lan!s !i! not belong to any one in partic(lar, b(t to all in common, an! #e w#o possesse! t#em co(l! not sell t#em, alt#o(g# #e en:oye! t#em for life an! left t#em to #is sons an! #eirs; an! if a #o(se !ie! o(t t#ey were left to t#e nearest parent to w#am t#ey were gi;en an! to no ot#er, w#o a!ministere! t#e same !istrict or lineage [19].8 In t#is remar2able statement o(r a(t#or was p(BBle! to #armoniBe t#e facts wit# t#e pre;ailing t#eory of &Btec instit(tions. He presents to (s an &Btec lor! w#o #el! t#e fee of t#e lan! as a fe(!al proprietor, an! a title of ran2 pertaining to it, bot# of w#ic# #e transmitte! to #is son an! #eir. /(t?in obe!ience to tr(t# #e states t#e essential fact t#at t#e lan!s belonge! to a bo!y of consang(inei of w#om #e is style! t#e ma:or parent, i.e.$ #e was t#e sac#em, it may be s(ppose!, of t#e gens, t#e latter owning t#ese lan!s in common. "#e s(ggestion t#at #e #el! t#e lan!s in tr(st means not#ing. "#ey fo(n! In!ian c#iefs connecte! wit# gentes, eac# gens owning a bo!y of lan!s in common, an! w#en t#e c#ief !ie!, #is place was fille! by #is son, accor!ing to Herrera. In so far it may #a;e been analogo(s to a %panis# estate an! title; an! t#e misconception res(lte! from a want of 2nowle!ge of t#e nat(re an! ten(re of t#e office of c#ief. In some cases t#ey fo(n! t#e son !i! not s(ccee! #is fat#er, b(t t#e office went to some ot#er person; #ence t#e f(rt#er statement, )if a #o(se +alguna casa$ anot#er fe(!al feat(re. !ie! o(t, t#ey Mt#e lan!sN were left to t#e nearest ma:or parent;8 i.e.$ anot#er person was electe! sac#em, as near as any concl(sion can be !rawn from t#e lang(age. 6#at little #as been gi;en to (s by t#e %panis# writers concerning In!ian c#iefs, an! t#e lan! ten(re of t#e tribes is corr(pte! by t#e (se of lang(age a!apte! to fe(!al instit(tions t#at #a! no existence among t#em. In t#is lineage we are warrante! in recogniBing an &Btec gens; an! in t#is lord an &Btec sac#em, w#ose office was #ere!itary in t#e gens, in t#e sense elsew#ere state!, an! electi;e among its members. If !escent was in t#e male line, t#e c#oice wo(l! fall (pon one of t#e sons of t#e !ecease! sac#em, own or collateral, (pon a gran!son, t#ro(g# one of #is sons, or (pon a brot#er, own or collateral. /(t if in t#e female line, it wo(l! fall (pon a brot#er or nep#ew, own

1-1 or collateral, as elsew#ere explaine!. "#e sac#em #a! no title w#ate;er to t#e lan!s, an! t#erefore none to transmit to any one. He was t#o(g#t to be t#e proprietor beca(se #e #el! an office w#ic# was perpet(ally maintaine!, an! beca(se t#ere was a bo!y of lan!s perpet(ally belonging to a gens o;er w#ic# #e was a sac#em. "#e misconception of t#is office an! of its ten(re #as been t#e fr(itf(l so(rce of (nn(mbere! errors in o(r aboriginal #istories. "#e lineage of Herrera, an! t#e communities of Cla;igero were e;i!ently organiBations, an! t#e same organiBation. "#ey fo(n! in t#is bo!y of 2in!re!, wit#o(t 2nowing t#e fact; t#e (nit of t#eir social system, a gens, as we m(st s(ppose. In!ian c#iefs are !escribe! as lor!s by %panis# writers, an! in;este! wit# rig#ts o;er lan!s an! o;er persons t#ey ne;er possesse!. It is a misconception to style an In!ian c#ief a lor! in t#e '(ropean sense, beca(se it implies a con!ition of society t#at !i! not exist. & lor! #ol!s a ran2 an! a title by #ere!itary rig#t, sec(re! to #im by special legislation in !erogation of t#e rig#ts of t#e people as a w#ole. "o t#is ran2 an! title, since t#e o;ert#row of fe(!alism, no !(ties are attac#e! w#ic# maybe claime! by t#e 2ing or t#e 2ing!om as a matter of rig#t. >n t#e contrary, an In!ian c#ief #ol!s an office, not by #ere!itary rig#t, b(t by election from a constit(ency, w#ic# retaine! t#e rig#t to !epose #im for ca(se. "#e office carrie! wit# it t#e obligation to perform certain !(ties for t#e benefit of t#e constit(ency. He #a! no a(t#ority o;er t#e persons or property or lan!s of t#e members of t#e gens. It is t#(s seen t#at no analogy exists between a lor! an! #is title, an! an In!ian c#ief an! #is office. >ne belongs to political society, an! represents an aggression of t#e few (pon t#e many; w#ile t#e ot#er belongs to gentile society an! is fo(n!e! (pon t#e common interests of t#e member of t#e gens. $ne5(al pri;ileges fin! no place in t#e gens, p#ratry or tribe. *(rt#er traces of t#e existence of &Btec gentes will appear. & prima facie case of t#e existence of gentes among t#em is at least ma!e o(t. "#ere was also an antece!ent probability to t#is effect, from t#e presence of t#e two (pper members of t#e organic series, t#e tribe, an! t#e confe!eracy, an! from t#e general pre;alence of t#e organiBation among ot#er tribes. & ;ery little close in;estigation by t#e early %panis# writers wo(l! #a;e place! t#e 5(estion beyon! a !o(bt, an!, as a conse5(ence, #a;e gi;en a ;ery !ifferent complexion to &Btec #istory. "#e (sages reg(lating t#e in#eritance of property among t#e &Btecs #a;e come !own to (s in a conf(se! an! contra!ictory con!ition. "#ey are not material in t#is !isc(ssion, except as t#ey re;eal t#e existence of bo!ies of consang(inei, an! t#e in#eritance by c#il!ren from t#eir fat#ers. If t#e latter were t#e fact it wo(l! s#ow t#at !escent was in t#e male line, an! also an extraor!inary a!;ance in a 2nowle!ge of property. It is not probable t#at c#il!ren en:oye! an excl(si;e in#eritance, or t#at any &Btec owne! a foot of lan! w#ic# #e co(l! call #is own, wit# power to sell an! con;ey to w#omsoe;er #e please!.

II. %he E$istence and )unctions of the Council of Chiefs.

"#e existence of s(c# a co(ncil among t#e &Btecs mig#t #a;e been pre!icte! from t#e necessary constit(tion of In!ian society. "#eoretically, it wo(l! #a;e been compose! of t#at class of c#iefs, !isting(is#e! as sac#ems, w#o represente! bo!ies

1-D of 2in!re! t#ro(g# an office perpet(ally maintaine!. Here again, as elsew#ere, a necessity is seen for gentes, w#ose principal c#iefs wo(l! represent t#e people in t#eir (ltimate social s(b!i;isions as among t#e =ort#ern tribes. &Btec gentes are fairly necessary to explain t#e existence of &Btec c#iefs. >f t#e presence of an &Btec co(ncil t#ere is no !o(bt w#ate;er; b(t of t#e n(mber of its members an! of its f(nctions we are left in almost total ignorance. /rasse(r !le /o(rbo(rg remar2s generally t#at )nearly all t#e towns or tribes are !i;i!e! into fo(r clans or 5(arters w#ose c#iefs constit(te t#e great co(ncil.8 [20] 6#et#er #e inten!e! to limit t#e n(mber to one c#if from eac# 5(arter is not clear; b(t elsew#ere #e limits t#e &Btec co(ncil to fo(r c#iefs. <iego <(ran, w#o wrote #is wor2 in 147,?1481, an! t#(s prece!e! bot# &costa an! "eBoBomoc, remar2s as follows: )*irst we m(st 2now, t#at in Mexico after #a;ing electe! a 2ing t#ey electe! fo(r lor!s of t#e brot#ers or near relations of t#is 2ing to w#om t#ey ga;e t#e titles of. princes, an! from w#om t#ey #a! to c#oose t#e 2ing. M"o t#e offices #e gi;es t#e names of "lacac#calcatl, "lacatecal, 'B(a((acatl, an! *illaneal5(eN.... "#ese fo(r lor!s an! titles after being electe! princes, t#ey ma!e t#em t#e royal co(ncil, li2e t#e presi!ents an! :(!ges of t#e s(preme co(ncil, wit#o(t w#ose opinion not#ing co(l! be !one.8 &costa, after naming t#e same offices, an! calling t#e persons w#o #el! t#em Eelectors,F remar2s t#at )all t#ese fo(r !ignities were of t#e great co(ncil, wit#o(t w#ose a!;ice t#e 2ing mig#t not !o anyt#ing of importance [22].8 &n! Herrera, after placing t#ese offices in fo(r gra!es, procee!s: )"#ese fo(r sorts of noblemen were of t#e s(preme co(ncil, wit#o(t w#ose a!;ice t#e 2ing was to !o not#ing of moment, an! no 2ing co(l! be c#osen b(t w#at was of one of t#ese fo(r or!ers [23].8 "#e (se of t#e term 2ing to !escribe a principal war?c#ief an! of princes to !escribe In!ian c#iefs cannot create a state or a political society w#ere none existe!; b(t as misnomers t#ey stilt (p an! !isfig(re o(r aboriginal #istory an! for t#at reason o(g#t to be !iscar!e!. 6#en t#e H(exotBincos sent !elegates to Mexico proposing an alliance against t#e "lascalans, MonteB(ma a!!resse! t#em, accor!ing to "eBoBomoc, as follows: )/rot#ers an! sons, yo( are welcome, rest yo(rsel;es aw#ile, for alt#o(g# I am 2ing in!ee! I alone cannot satisfy yo(, b(t only toget#er wit# all t#e c#iefs of t#e sacre! Mexican senate[24].8 "#e abo;e acco(nts recogniBe t#e existence of a s(preme co(ncil, wit# a(t#ority o;er t#e action of t#e principal war?c#ief, w#ic# is t#e material point. It ten!s to s#ow t#at t#e &Btecs g(ar!e! t#emsel;es against an irresponsible !espot, by s(b:ecting #is action to a co(ncil of c#iefs, an! by ma2ing #im electi;e an! !eposable. If t#e limite! an! incomplete statements of t#ese a(t#ors inten!e! to restrict t#is co(ncil to fo(r members, w#ic# <(ran seems to imply, t#e limitation is improbable. &s s(c# t#e co(ncil wo(l! represent, not t#e &Btec tribe, b(t t#e small bo!y of 2insmen from w#om t#e military comman!er was to be c#osen. "#is is not, t#e t#eory of a co(ncil of c#iefs. 'ac# c#ief represents a constit(ency, an! t#e c#iefs toget#er represent t#e tribe. & selection from t#eir n(mber is sometimes ma!e to form a general co(ncil; b(t it is t#ro(g# an organic pro;ision w#ic# fixes t#e n(mber, an! pro;i!es for t#eir perpet(al maintenance. "#e "eBc(can co(ncil is sai! to #a;e consiste! of fo(rteen members[25], w#ile t#e co(ncil at "lascala was a n(mero(s bo!y. %(c# a co(ncil among t#e &Btecs is re5(ire! by t#e str(ct(re an! principles of In!ian society, an! t#erefore wo(l! be expecte! to exist. In t#is co(ncil may be recogniBe! t#e lost

1-A element in &Btec #istory. & 2nowle!ge of its f(nctions is essential to a compre#ension of &Btec society. In t#e c(rrent #istories t#is co(ncil is treate! as an a!;isory boar! of MonteB(maFs, as a co(ncil of ministers of #is own creation; t#(s Cla;igero: )In t#e #istory of t#e con5(est we s#all fin! MonteB(ma in fre5(ent !eliberation wit# #is co(ncil on t#e pretensions of t#e %paniar!s. 6e !o not 2now t#e n(mber of eac# co(ncil, nor !o #istorians f(rnis# (s wit# t#e lig#ts necessary to ill(strate s(c# a s(b:ect [25].8 It was one of t#e first 5(estions re5(iring in;estigation, an! t#e fact t#at t#e early writers faile! to ascertain its composition an! f(nctions is proof concl(si;e of t#e s(perficial c#aracter of t#eir wor2. 6e 2now, #owe;er, t#at t#e co(ncil of c#iefs is an instit(tion w#ic# came in wit# t#e gentes, w#ic# represents electing constit(encies, an! w#ic# from time immemorial #a! a ;ocation as well as original go;erning powers. 6e fin! a "eBc(can an! "lacopan co(ncil, a "lascalan, a C#ol(lan an! a Mic#oacan co(ncil, eac# compose! of c#iefs. "#e e;i!ence establis#es t#e existence of an &Btec co(ncil of c#iefs; b(t so far as it is limite! to fo(r members, all of t#e same line? age, it is presente! in an improbable form. ';ery tribe in Mexico an! Central &merica, beyon! a reasonable !o(bt, #a! its co(ncil of c#iefs. It was t#e go;erning bo!y of t#e tribe, an! a constant p#enomenon in all parts of aboriginal &merica. "#e co(ncil of c#iefs is t#e ol!est instit(tion of go;ernment of man2in!. It can s#ow an (nbro2en s(ccession on t#e se;eral continents from t#e $pper %tat(s of sa;agery t#ro(g# t#e t#ree s(b?perio!s of barbarism to t#e commencement of ci;iliBation, w#en, #a;ing been c#ange! into a pre?consi!ering co(ncil wit# t#e rise of t#e assembly of t#e people, it ga;e birt# to t#e mo!ern legislat(re in two bo!ies. It !oes not appear t#at t#ere was a general co(ncil of t#e &Btec confe!eracy, compose! of t#e principal c#iefs of t#e t#ree tribes, as !isting(is#e! from t#e separate co(ncils of eac#. & complete el(ci!ation of t#is s(b:ect is re5(ire! before it can be 2nown w#et#er t#e &Btec organiBation was simply a leag(e, offensi;e an! !efensi;e, an! as s(c# (n!er t#e primary control of t#e &Btec tribe, or a confe!eracy in w#ic# t#e parts were integrate! in a symmetrical w#ole. "#is problem m(st await f(t(re sol(tion.

III. %he %enure and )unctions of the !ffice of Principal 9ar. chief.
"#e name of t#e office #el! by MonteB(ma, accor!ing to t#e best accessible information, was simply Teuctli$ w#ic# signifies a (ar*chief. &s a member of t#e co(ncil of c#iefs #e was sometimes calle! Tlatoani$ w#ic# signifies spea+er. "#is office of a general military comman!er was t#e #ig#est: 2nown to t#e &Btecs. It was t#e same office an! #el! by t#e same ten(re as t#at of principal war?c#ief in t#e Iro5(ois confe!eracy. It ma!e t#e person, e" officio$ a member of t#e co(ncil of c#iefs as may #e inferre! from t#e fact t#at in some of t#e tribes t#e principal war? c#ief #a! prece!ence in t#e co(ncil bot# in !ebate an! in prono(ncing #is opinion. =one of t#e %panis# writers apply t#is title to MonteB(ma or #is s(ccessor. It was s(perse!e! by t#e inappropriate title of 2ing. %"tlil"ochitl$ w#o was of mixe! "eBc(can an! %panis# !escent, !escribes t#e #ea! war?c#iefs of Mexico, "eBc(co

1-an! "lacopan, by t#e simple title of war?c#ief, wit# anot#er to in!icate t#e tribe. &fter spea2ing of t#e !i;ision of powers between t#e t#ree c#iefs w#en t#e confe!eracy was forme!, an! of t#e assembling of t#e c#iefs of t#e t#ree tribes on t#at occasion, #e procee!s: )"#e 2ing of "eBc(co was sal(te! by t#e title of Aclhua Teuctli$ also by t#at of ?hichimecatl Teuctli w#ic# #is ancestors #a! worn, an! w#ic# was t#e mar2 of t#e empire; %t#coat#in$ #is (ncle, recei;e! t#e title of ?cdlnta Tenctli$ beca(se #e reigne! o;er t#e "oltecs?C(l#(as; an! Toto>uihuat#in t#at, of Tecpannatl Teuctli$ w#ic# #a! been t#e title of &Bcapt#alco. %ince t#at time t#eir s(ccessors #a;e recei;e! t#e same title [28].8 %t#coat#in +%t#coatl.$ #ere mentione!, was war?c#ief of t#e &Btecs w#en t#e confe!eracy was forme!. &s t#e title was t#at of war?c#ief, t#en #el! by many ot#er persons, t#e compliment consiste! in connecting wit# it a tribal !esignation. In In!ian speec# t#e office #el! by MonteB(ma was e5(i;alent to #ea! war?c#ief, an! in 'nglis# to general. Cla;igero recogniBes t#is office in se;eral =a#(iatlac tribes, b(t, ne;er applies it to t#e &Btec war?c#ief. )"#e #ig#est ran2 of nobility in "lascala, in H(exotBinco an! in C#ol(la was t#at of Teuctli. "o obtain t#is ran2 it was necessary to be of noble birt#, to #a;e gi;en proofs in se;eral battles of t#e (tmost co(rage, to #a;e arri;e! at a certain age, an! to comman! great ric#es for t#e enormo(s expenses w#ic# were necessary to be s(pporte! by t#e possessor of s(c# a !ignity [29].8 &fter MonteB(ma #a! been magnifie! into an absol(te potentate, wit# ci;il as well as military f(nctions, t#e nat(re an! powers of t#e office, #e #el! were left in t#e bac2gro(n!? in fact (n?in;estigate!. &s t#eir general military comman!er #e possesse! t#e means of winning t#e pop(lar fa;o(r, an! of comman!ing t#e pop(lar respect. It was a !angero(s b(t necessary office to t#e tribe an! to t#e confe!eracy. "#ro(g#o(t #(man experience, from t#e ower %tat(s of barbarism to t#e present time, it #as e;er been a !angero(s office. Constit(tions an! laws f(rnis# t#e present sec(rity of ci;iliBe! nations, so far as t#ey #a;e any. & bo!y of (sages an! c(stoms grew (p, in all probability, among t#e a!;ance! In!ian tribes an! among t#e tribes of t#e ;alley of Mexico, reg(lating t#e powers an! prescribing t#e !(ties of t#is office. "#ere are general reasons warranting t#e s(pposition t#at t#e &Btec co(ncil of c#iefs was s(preme, not only in ci;il affairs, b(t o;er military affairs, t#e person an! !irection of t#e war?c#ief incl(!e!. "#e &Btec polity (n!er increase! n(mbers an! material a!;ancement; #a! (n!o(bte!ly grown complex, an! for t#at reason a 2nowle!ge of it wo(l! #a;e been t#e more instr(cti;e. Co(l! t#e exact partic(lars of t#eir go;ernmental organiBation be ascertaine!, t#ey wo(l! be s(fficiently remar2able wit#o(t embellis#ment. "#e %panis# writers conc(r generally in t#e statement t#at t#e office #el! by MonteB(ma was electi;e, wit# t#e c#oice confine! to a partic(lar family. "#e office was fo(n! to pass from brot#er to brot#er, or from (ncle to nep#ew. "#ey were (nable, #owe;er, to explain w#y it !i! not in some cases pass from fat#er to son. %ince t#e mo!e of s(ccession was (n(s(al to t#e %paniar!s t#ere was less possibility of a mista2e wit# regar! to t#e principal fact. Moreo;er, two s(ccessions occ(rre! (n!er t#e imme!iate notice of t#e con5(erors. MonteB(ma was s(ccee!e! by C(itla#(a. In t#is case t#e office passe! from brot#er to brot#er, alt#o(g# we cannot 2now w#et#er t#ey were own or collateral brot#ers wit#o(t a 2nowle!ge of t#eir system of consang(inity. $pon t#e !eat# of t#e latter 9(atemoBin was electe!

1-4 to s(ccee! #im. Here t#e office passe! from (ncle to nep#ew, b(t we !o not 2now w#et#er #e was an own or a collateral nep#ew. +%ee 3art "#ir!, c#. iii.. In pre;io(s cases t#e office #a! passe! from brot#er to brot#er an! also from (ncle to nep#ew[30]. &n electi;e office implies a constit(ency; b(t w#o were t#e constit(ents in t#is caseU "o meet t#is 5(estion t#e fo(r c#iefs mentione! by <(ran +supra. are intro!(ce! as electors, to w#om one elector from "eBc(co an! one from "lacopans are a!!e!, ma2ing six, w#o are t#en in;este! wit# power to c#oose from a partic(lar family t#e principal war?c#ief. "#is is not t#e t#eory of an electi;e In!ian office, an! it may be !ismisse! as improbable, %a#ag(n in!icates a m(c# larger constit(ency. )6#en t#e 2ing or lor! !ie!,8 #e remar2s, )all t#e senators calle! Tecutlato>ues$ an! t#e ol! men of t#e tribe calle! Achcacauhti$ an! also t#e captains an! ol! warriors calle! <aate>uioa>ues$ an! ot#er prominent captains in warli2e matters, an! also t#e priests calle! Tlenameca>ues$ or !epasa>aes * all t#ese assemble! in t#e royal #o(ses. "#en t#ey !eliberate! (pon an! !etermine! w#o #a! to be lor!, an! c#ose one of t#e most noble of t#e lineage of t#e past lor!s, w#o s#o(l! be a ;aliant man, experience! in warli2e matters, !aring an! bra;eV 6#en t#ey agree! (pon one t#ey at once name! #im as lor!, b(t t#is election was not ma!e by ballot or ;otes, b(t all toget#er conferring at last agree! (pon t#e man. "#e lor! once electe! t#ey also electe! fo(r ot#ers w#ic# were li2e senators, an! #a! to #e always wit# t#e lor!, an! be informe! of all t#e b(siness of t#e 2ing!om[31].8 "#is sc#eme of election by a large assembly, w#ile it s#oes t#e pop(lar element in t#e go;ernment w#ic# (n!o(bte!ly existe!, is wit#o(t t#e met#o! of In!ian instit(tions, /efore t#e ten(re of t#is office an! t#e mo!e of election can be ma!e intelligible, it is necessary to fin! w#et#er or not t#ey were organiBe! in gentes, w#et#er !escent was in t#e female line or t#e male, an! to 2now somet#ing of t#eir system of consang(inity. If t#ey #a! t#e system fo(n! in many ot#er tribes of t#e 9anowanian family, w#ic# is probable, a man wo(l! call #is brot#erFs son #is son, an! #is sisterFs son #is nep#ew; #e wo(l! call #is fat#erFs brot#er #is fat#er, an! #is mot#erFs brot#er #is (ncle; t#e c#il!ren of #is fat#erFs brot#er #is brot#ers an! sisters, an! t#e c#il!ren of #is mot#erFs brot#er #is co(sins, an! so on. If organiBe! into gentes wit# !escent m t#e female line, a man wo(l! #a;e brot#ers, (ncles an! nep#ews, collateral gran!fat#ers an! gran!sons wit#in #is own gens; b(t neit#er own fat#er, own son, nor lineal gran!son. His own sons an! #is brot#erFs sons wo(l! belong to ot#er gentes. It cannot as yet be affirme! t#at t#e &Btecs were organiBe! in gentes; b(t t#e s(ccession to t#e office of principal war? c#ief is of itself strong proof of t#e fact, beca(se it wo(l! explain t#is s(ccession completely. "#en wit# !escent in t#e female line t#e office wo(l! be #ere!itary in a partic(lar gens, b(t electi;e among its members. In t#at case t#e office wo(l! pass, by election wit#in t#e gens, from brot#er to brot#er, or from (ncle to nep#ew, precisely as it !i! among t#e &Btecs, an! ne;er from fat#er to son. &mong t#e Iro5(ois at t#at same time t#e offices of sac#em an! of principal war?c#ief were passing from brot#er to brot#er or from (ncle to nep#ew, as t#e c#oice mig#t, #appen to fall, an! ne;er to t#e son. It was t#e gens, wit# !escent in t#e female line, w#ic# ga;e t#is mo!e of s(ccession, an! w#ic# co(l! #a;e been sec(re! in no ot#er concei;able way. It is !iffic(lt to resist t#e concl(sions, from t#ese facts alone, t#at t#e &Btecs were or organiBe! in gentes, an! t#at in respect to t#is office at least

1-G !escent was still in t#e female line. It may t#erefore be s(ggeste!, as a probable explanation, t#at t#e office #el! by MonteB(ma was #ere!itary in a gens +t#e eagle was t#e blaBon or totem on t#e #o(se occ(pie! by MonteB(ma, by t#e members of w#ic# t#e c#oice was ma!e from among t#eir n(mber; t#at t#eir nomination. was t#en s(bmitte! separately to t#e fo(r lineages or !i;isions of t#e &Btecs +con:ect(re! to be p#ratries., for acceptance or re:ection; an! also to t#e "eBc(cans an! "lacopans, w#o were !irectly intereste! in t#e selection of t#e general comman!er. 6#en t#ey #a! se;erally consi!ere! an! confirme! t#e nomination eac# !i;ision appointe! a person to signify t#eir conc(rrence: w#ence t#e six miscalle! electors. It is not (nli2ely t#at t#e fo(r #ig# c#iefs of t#e &Btecs, mentione! as electors by a n(mber of a(t#ors, were in fact t#e war?c#iefs of t#e fo(r !i;isions of t#e &Btecs, li2e t#e fo(r war?c#iefs of t#e fo(r lineages of t#e "lascalans. "#e f(nction of t#ese persons was not to elect, b(t to ascertain by a conference wit# eac# ot#er w#et#er t#e c#oice ma!e by t#e gens #a! been conc(rre! in, an! if so to anno(nce t#e res(lt; "#e foregoing is s(bmitte! as a con:ect(ral explanation (pon t#e fragments of e;i!ence remaining, of t#e mo!e of s(ccession to t#e &Btec office of principal war? c#ief. It is seen to #armoniBe wit# In!ian (sages, an! wit# t#e t#eory of t#e office of an electi;e In!ian c#ief. "#e rig#t to !epose from office follows as a necessary conse5(ence of t#e rig#t to elect, w#ere t#e term was for life. It is t#(s t(rne! into an office !(ring goo! be#a;io(r. In t#ese two principles of electing an! !eposing, (ni;ersally establis#e! in t#e social system of t#e &merican aborigines, s(fficient e;i!ence is f(rnis#e! t#at t#e so;ereign power remaine! practically in t#e #an!s of t#e people. "#is power to !epose, t#o(g# sel!om exercise!, was ;ital in t#e gentile organiBation MonteB(ma was no exception to t#e r(le. 1t re5(ire! time to reac# t#is res(lt from t#e pec(liar circ(mstances of t#e case; for a goo! reason was necessary. 6#en MonteB(ma allowe! #imself, t#ro(g# intimi!ation, to be con!(cte! from #is place of resi!ence to t#e 5(arters of Cortes w#ere #e was place! (n!er confinement, t#e &Btecs were paralyBe! for a time for t#e want of a military comman!er. "#e %paniar!s #a! possession bot# of t#e man an! of #is office. "#ey waite! some wee2s; #oping t#e %paniar!s wo(l! retire; #(t w#en t#ey fo(n! t#e latter inten!e! to remain t#ey met t#e necessity, as t#ere are s(fficient reasons for belie;ing by !eposing MonteB(ma for want of resol(tion, an! electe! #is brot#er to fill #is place. Imme!iately t#ereafter t#ey assa(lte! t#e %panis# 5(arters wit# great f(ry, an! finally s(ccee!e! in !ri;ing t#em from t#eir p(eblo. "#is concl(sion respecting t#e !eposition of MonteB(ma is f(lly warrante! by HerreraFs statement of t#e facts. &fter t#e assa(lt commence!, Cortes, obser;ing t#e &Btecs obeying a new comman!er, at once s(specte! t#e tr(t# of t#e matter, an! )sent Mariria to as2 MonteB(ma w#et#er #e t#o(g#t t#ey #a! p(t t#e go;ernment into #is #an!s, [33]8 ie.$ t#e #an!s of t#e new comman!er. MonteB(ma is sai! to #a;e replie! Et#at t#ey wo(l! not pres(me to c#oose a 2ing in Mexico w#ilst #e was li;ing. [34]8 He t#en went (pon t#e roof of t#e #o(se an! a!!resse! #is co(ntrymen, saying among ot#er t#ings, )t#at #e #a! been informe! t#ey #a! c#osen anot#er 2ing beca(se #e was confine! an! lo;e! t#e %paniar!s; to w#ic# #e recei;e! t#e following (ngracio(s

1-7 reply from an &Btec warrior: )Hol! yo(r peace, yo( effeminate sco(n!rel, born to wea;e an! spin: t#ese !ogs 2eep yo( a prisoner, yo( are a cowar!. [35]8 "#en t#ey !isc#arge! arrows (pon #im an! stone! #im, from t#e effects of w#ic# an! from !eep #(miliation #e s#ortly afterwar!s !ie!. "#e war?c#ief in t#e comman! of t#e &Btecs in t#is assa(lt was C(itla#(a, t#e brot#er of MonteB(ma an! #is s(ccessor.
[36]

0especting t#e f(nctions of t#is office ;ery little satisfactory information can be !eri;e! from t#e %panis# writers. "#ere is no reason for s(pposing t#at MonteB(ma. possesse! any power o;er t#e ci;il affairs of t#e &Btecs. Moreo;er, e;ery pres(mption is against it. In military affairs w#en in t#e fiel! #e #a! t#e powers of a general; b(t military mo;ements were probably !eci!e! (pon by t#e co(ncil. It is an interesting fact to #e notice! t#at t#e f(nctions of a priest were attac#e! to t#e office of principal war?c#ief, an!, as it is claime!, t#ose of a :(!ge. [37] "#e early appearance of t#ese f(nctions in t#e nat(ral growt# of t#e military office will be referre! to again in connection wit# t#at of basile(s. &lt#o(g# t#e go;ernment was of two powers it is probable t#at t#e co(ncil was s(preme, in case of a conflict of a(t#ority, o;er ci;il an! military affairs. It s#o(l! be remembere! t#at t#e co(ncil of c#iefs was t#e ol!est in time, an! possesse! a soli! basis of power in t#e nee!s of society an! in t#e representati;e c#aracter of t#e office of c#ief. "#e ten(re of t#e office of principal war?c#ief an! t#e presence of a co(ncil wit# power to !epose from office, ten! to s#ow t#at t#e instit(tions of t#e &Btecs were essentially !emocratical. "#e electi;e principle wit# respect to war?c#ief, an! we m(st s(ppose existe! wit# respect to sac#em an! c#ief, an! t#e presence of a co(ncil of c#iefs, !etermine t#e material fact. & p(re !emocracy of t#e &t#enian type was (n2nown in t#e ower, in t#e Mi!!le, or e;en in t#e $pper %tat(s of barbarism; b(t it is ;ery important to 2now w#et#er t#e instit(tions of a people are essentially !emocratical, or essentially monarc#ical, w#en we see2 to (n!erstan! t#em. Instit(tions of t#e former 2in! are separate! nearly as wi!ely from t#ose of t#e latter, as !emocracy is from monarc#y. 6it#o(t ascertaining t#e (nit of t#eir social system, if organiBe! in gentes as t#ey probably were, an! wit#o(t gaining a 2nowle!ge of t#e system t#at !i! exist, t#e %panis# writers bol!ly in;ente! for t#e &Btecs an absol(te monarc#y wit# #ig# fe(!al c#aracteristics, an! #a;e s(ccee!e! in placing it in #istory, "#is misconception #as stoo!, t#ro(g# &merican in!olence, 5(ite as long as it !eser;es to stan!. "#e &Btec organiBation presente! itself plainly to t#e %paniar!s as a leag(e or confe!eracy of tribes. =ot#ing b(t t#e grossest per;ersion of ob;io(s facts co(l! #a;e enable! t#e %panis# writers to fabricate t#e &Btec monarc#y o(t of a !emocratic organiBation. "#eoretically, t#e &Btecs, "eBc(cans an! "lacopans s#o(l! se;erally #a;e #a! a #ea!?sac#em to represent t#e tribe in ci;il affairs w#en t#e co(ncil of c#iefs was not in session, an! to ta2e t#e initiati;e in preparing its wor2. "#ere are traces of s(c# an officer among t#e &Btecs in t#e @iahuacatl$ w#o is sometimes calle! t#e secon! c#ief, as t#e war?c#ief is calle! t#e first. /(t t#e accessible information respecting t#is office is too limite! to warrant a !isc(ssion of t#e s(b:ect. 1t #as been s#own among t#e Iro5(ois t#at t#e warriors co(l! appear before t#e

1-8 co(ncil of c#iefs an! express t#eir ;iews (pon p(blic 5(estions; an! t#at t#e women co(l! !o t#e same t#ro(g# orators of t#eir own selection. "#is pop(lar participation in t#e go;ernment le! in time to t#e pop(lar assembly, wit# power to a!opt, or re:ect p(blic meas(res s(bmitte! to t#ereby t#e co(ncil. &mong t#e Iillage In!ians t#ere is no e;i!ence, so far as t#e a(t#or is aware, t#at t#ere was an assembly of t#e people to consi!er p(blic 5(estions wit# power to act (pon t#em. "#e fo(r lineages probably met for special ob:ects, b(t t#is was ;ery !ifferent from a general assembly for p(blic ob:ects. *rom t#e !emocratic c#aracter of t#eir instit(tions an! t#eir a!;ance! con!ition t#e &Btecs were !rawing near t#e time w#en t#e assembly of t#e people mig#t #e expecte! to appear. "#e growt# of t#e i!ea of go;ernment, among t#e &merican aborigines, as elsew#ere remar2e!, commence! wit# t#e gens an! en!e! wit# t#e confe!eracy. "#eir organiBations were social an! not political. $ntil t#e i!ea of property #a! a!;ance! ;ery far beyon! t#e point t#ey #a! attaine!, t#e s(bstit(tion of political for gentile society was impossible. "#ere is not a fact to s#ow t#at any portion of t#e aborigines, at least in =ort# &merica, #a! reac#e! any conception of t#e secon! great plan of go;ernment fo(n!e! (pon territory an! (pon property. "#e spirit of t#e go;ernment an! t#e con!ition of t#e people #armoniBe wit# t#e instit(tions (n!er w#ic# t#ey li;e. 6#en t#e military spirit pre!ominates, as it !i! among t#e &Btecs, a military !emocracy rises nat(rally (n!er gentile instit(tions. %(c# a go;ernment neit#er s(pplants t#e free spirit of t#e gentes, nor wea2ens t#e principles of !emocracy, b(t accor!s wit# t#em #armonio(sly.

Footnotes
1 "#e #istories of %panis# &merica may be tr(ste! in w#ate;er relates to t#e acts of t#e %paniar!s an! to t#e acts an! personal c#aracteristics of t#e In!ians; in w#ate;er relates to t#eir weapons, implements an! (tensils, fabrics, foo! an! raiment, an! t#ings of a similar c#aracter. /(t in w#ate;er relates to In!ian society an! go;ernment, t#eir social relations, an! plan of life, t#ey are nearly wort#less, beca(se t#ey learne! not#ing an! 2new not#ing of eit#er. 6e are at f(ll liberty to re:ect t#em in t#ese respects an! commence anew; (sing any facts t#ey may contain w#ic# #armoniBe wit# w#at is 2nown of In!ian society. ! )"#e =at(ral an! Moral History of t#e 'ast an! 6est In!ies,8 on!. e!., 1GH-. 9rimstoneFs "rans., pp. -,7?4H-. " )"#e =at(ral an! Moral History of t#e 'ast an! 6est In!ies.8 p. -,,. # )9eneral History of &merica,8 on!. e!., 17D4, %te;ensF "rans. iii, 188. $ )History of Mexico,8 3#ila!elp#ia e!., 1817. C(llenFs "rans., i, 11,. % Herrera, )Hist. of &mer.,8 iii, 11H & )Hitory of Mexico,8 loc cit., i, 1GD. ' Cla;igero, )Hist. of Mex.8 i, DD,: Herrera, iii, A1D: 3rescott, )Con5. of Mex.,8 i, 18. ( "#e &Btecs, li2e t#e =ort#ern In!ians, neit#er exc#ange! nor release! prisoners. &mong

1-,
t#e latter t#e sta2e was t#e !oom of t#e capti;e (nless sa;e! by a!option; b(t among t#e former, (n!er t#e teac#ings of t#e priest#oo!, t#e (nfort(nate capti;e was offere! as a sacrifice to t#e principal go! t#ey wors#ipe!. "o (tiliBe t#e life of t#e prisoner in t#e ser;ice of t#e go!s, a life forfeite! by t#e immemorial (sages of sa;ages an! barbarians was t#e #ig# conception of t#e first #ierarc#y in t#e or!er of instit(tions. &n organiBe! priest#oo! first appeare! among t#e &merican aborigines in t#e Mi!!le %tat(s of barbarism; an! it stan!s connecte! wit# t#e in;ention of i!ols an! #(man sacrifices, as a means of ac5(iring a(t#ority o;er man2in! t#ro(g# t#e religio(s sentiments. It probably #as a similar #istory in t#e principal tribes of man2in!. "#ree s(ccessi;e (sages wit# respect to capti;es appeare! in t#e t#ree s(b?perio!s of barbarism. In t#e first #e was b(rne! at t#e sta2e in t#e secon! #e was sacrifice! to t#e go!s, an! in t#e t#ir! be was ma!e a sla;e. &ll ali2e t#ey procee!e! (pon t#e principle t#at t#e life of t#e prisoner was forfeite! to #is captor. "#is principle became so !eeply seate! in t#e #(man min! t#at ci;iliBation an! C#ristianity combine! were re5(ire! for its !isplacement. 1) "#ere is some !ifference in t#e estimates of t#e pop(lation of Mexico fo(n! in t#e %panis# #istories; b(t se;eral of t#em conc(rre! in t#e n(mber of #o(ses, w#ic#, strange to say, is place! at sixty t#o(san!. K(aBo, w#o ;isite! Mexico in 14D1, wrote sixty t#o(san! in#abitants +3rescott, ECon5. of Mex.,F ii, 11D, note.; t#e &nonymo(s Con5(eror, w#o accompanie! Cortes also wrote sixty t#o(san! in#abitants, Esoixante mille #abitansF +EH. "erna(x?Compans,F x, ,D.; b(t 9omora an! Martyr wrote sixty t#o(san! #o(ses, an! t#is estimate #as been a!opte! by Cla;igero +EHist. of Mex.,F ii, AGH. by Herrera +EHist. of &mer.,F ii, AGH., an! by 3rescott +ECon5. of Mex.,F ii, 11D.. %olis says sixty t#o(san! families +EHist. Con5. of Mex., I. c.,F i, A,A.. "#is estimate wo(l! gi;e a pop(lation of AHH,HHH, alt#o(g# on!on at t#at time containe! b(t 1-4,HHH in#abitants +/lac2Fs E on!on.F p. 4.. *inally, "or5(ema!a, cite! by Cla;igero +ii, AGH, note., bol!ly writes one #(n!re! an! twenty t#o(san! #o(ses. "#ere can scarcely be a !o(bt t#at t#e #o(ses in t#is p(eblo were in general large comm(nal, or :oint?tenement #o(ses, li2e t#ose in =ew Mexico of t#e, same perio!, large eno(g# to accommo!ate from ten to fifty an! a #(n!re! families in eac#. &t eit#er n(mber t#e mista2e is egregio(s. K(aBo an! t#e &nonymo(s Con5(eror came t#e nearest to a respectable estimate beca(se t#ey !i! not m(c# more t#an !o(ble t#e probable n(mber. 11 ) eag(e of t#e Iro5(ois8 p. 78. 1! Herrera, iii, 1,-, DH,. 1" Herrera, ii, D7,, AH-; Cla;igero, i, 1-G. 1# Cla;igero, i, 1-7; "#e fo(r war?c#iefs were ex?officio members of t#e Co(ncil. Ib., ii, 1A7. 1$ Herrera, ii, A1H. Herrera, iii, 1,-. 1% Herrera, iii, 1,-.

14H
1& )Cronica Mexicana,8 <e *ernan!o !e &i;ara!a "eBoBomoc, c#. 1i, p. 8A, 7ingsboro(g#, ;. ix. 1' )History of Mexico,8 ii, 1-1. 1( )History of &merica,8 iii, A1-. "#e abo;e is a re?translation by Mr. /an!elier from t#e %panis# text. !) )3opol I(#,8 Intro. p. 117, note D. !1 )History of t#e In!ies of =ew %pain an! Islan!s of t#e Main an!,8 Mexico, 18G7. '!. by Cose *. 0amireB, p. 1HD. 3(blis#e! from t#e original M%. "ranslate! by Mr. /an!elier. !! )"#e =at(ral an! Moral History of t#e 'ast an! 6est In!ies,8 on!. e!., 1GH-. 9rimstoneFs "rans., p. -84. !" )History of &merica,8 iii, DD-. !# )Cronica Mexicana,8 cap. xc;ii. /an!elierFs "rans. !$ xtilxoc#itl, )Hist, C#ic#imeca,8 7ingsboro(g# )Mex. &nti5.,8 ix, p. D-A.

!% )History of Mexico,8 ii, 1AK. !& )"#e title of E"e(ctliF was a!!e! in t#e manner of a s(rname to t#e proper name of t#e person a!;ance! to t#is !ignity, as C#ic#imeca? "e(ctli, E3il "e(ct1i,F an! ot#ers. "#e E"e(ctliF too2 prece!ency of all ot#ers in t#e senate, bot# in t#e or!er of sitting an! ;oting, an! were permitte! to #a;e a ser;ant be#in! t#em wit# a seat; w#ic# was esteeme! a pri;ilege of t#e #ig#est #ono(r.8 ? Cla;igero, ii, 1A7. "#is is a. reappearance of t#e s(b? sac#em of t#e Iro5(ois be#in! #is principal. !' )Historia C#ic#imeca,8 c#. xxxii, 7ingsboro(g#: )Mex. &nti5.,8 ix, D1,. !( )History of Mexico,8 1. c., ii, 1AG. ") Cla;igero, ii, 1DG. "1 )Historia 9eneral,8 c#. x;iii. "! In t#e 6est In!ia Islan!s t#e %paniar!s !isco;ere! t#at w#en t#ey capt(re! t#e caci5(e of a tribe an! #el! #im a prisoner, t#e In!ians became !emoraliBe! an! ref(se! to fig#t. "a2ing a!;antage of t#is 2nowle!ge w#en t#ey reac#e! t#e main?lan! t#ey ma!e it a point to entrap t#e principal c#ief, by force or fra(!, an! #el! #im a prisoner (ntil t#eir ob:ect was gaine!. Cortes simply acte! (pon t#is experience w#en #e capt(re! MonteB(ma an! #el! #im a prisoner in #is 5(arters; an! 3iBaarro !i! t#e same w#en #e seiBe! &ta#(allpa. $n!er In!ian c(stoms t#e prisoner was p(t to !eat#, an! if a principal c#ief t#e office re;erte! to t#e tribe an! was at once fille!. /(t in t#ese cases t#e prisoner remaine! ali;e, an! in possession of #is office, so t#at it co(l! not be fille!. "#e action of t#e people was paralyBe! by no;el circ(mstances. Cortes p(t t#e &Btecs in t#is position. "" )History of Mexico,8 iii, GG.

141
"# Ib., iii, G7. "$ Cla;igero, ii, -HG. "% Ib., ii, -H-. "& Herrera, iii, A,A.

Chapter VIII THE GRECIAN GENS

Ci;iliBation may be sai! to #a;e commence! among t#e &siatic 9ree2s wit# t#e composition of t#e Homeric poems abo(t 84H /. C.; an! among t#e '(ropean 9ree2s abo(t a cent(ry later wit# t#e composition of t#e Hesio!ic poems. &nterior to t#ese epoc#s, t#ere was a perio! of se;eral t#o(san! years !(ring w#ic# t#e Hellenic tribes were a!;ancing t#ro(g# t#e ater 3erio! of barbarism, an! preparing for t#eir entrance (pon a ci;iliBe! career. "#eir most ancient tra!itions fin! t#em alrea!y establis#e! in t#e 9recian penins(la, (pon t#e eastern bor!er of t#e Me!iterranean, an! (pon t#e interme!iate an! a!:acent islan!s. &n ol!er branc# of t#e same stoc2, of w#ic# t#e 3elasgians were t#e c#ief representati;es, #a! prece!e! t#em in t#e occ(pation of t#e greater part of t#ese areas, an! were in time eit#er HelleniBe! by t#em, or force! into emigration. "#e anterior con!ition of t#e Hellenic tribes an! of t#eir pre!ecessors m(st be !e!(ce! from t#e arts an! in;entions w#ic# t#ey bro(g#t !own from t#e pre;io(s perio!, from t#e state of !e;elopment of t#eir lang(age, from t#eir tra!itions an! from t#eir social instit(tions, w#ic# se;erally s(r;i;e! into t#e perio! of ci;iliBation. >(r !isc(ssion will be restricte!, in t#e main, to t#e last class of facts. 3elasgians an! Hellenes ali2e were organiBe! in gentes, p#ratries[1] an! tribes; an! t#e latter (nite! by coalescence into nations. In some cases t#e organic series was not complete. 6#et#er m tribes or nations t#eir go;ernment reste! (pon t#e gens as t#e (nit of organiBation, an! res(lte! in a gentile society or a people, as !isting(is#e! from a political society or a state. "#e instr(ment of go;ernment was a co(ncil of c#iefs, wit# t#e co?operation of an agora or assembly of t#e people, an! of a basile(s or military comman!er. "#e people were free, an! t#eir instit(tions !emocratical. $n!er t#e infl(ence of a!;ancing i!eas an! wants t#e pens #a! passe! o(t of its arc#aic into its (ltimate form. Mo!ifications #a! been force! (pon it by t#e irresistible !eman!s of an impro;ing society; b(t, notwit#stan!ing t#e concessions ma!e, t#e fail(re of t#e gentes to meet t#ese wants was constantly becoming more apparent. "#e c#anges were limite!, in t#e main, to t#ree partic(lars: firstly, !escent was c#ange! to t#e male line; secon!ly, intermarriage in t#e gens was permitte! in t#e case of female orp#ans an! #eiresses; an! t#ir!ly, c#il!ren #a! gaine! an excl(si;e in#eritance of t#eir fat#erFs property. &n attempt will elsew#ere be ma!e to trace t#ese c#anges, briefly, an! t#e ca(ses by w#ic# t#ey were pro!(ce!. "#e Hellenes in general were in fragmentary tribes, presenting t#e same c#aracteristics in t#eir form of go;ernment as t#e barbaro(s tribes in general, w#en

14D organiBe! in gentes an! in t#e same stage of a!;ancement. "#eir con!ition was precisely s(c# as mig#t #a;e been pre!icte! wo(l! exist (n!er gentile instit(tions, an! t#erefore presents not#ing remar2able. 6#en 9recian society came for t#e first time (n!er #istorical obser;ation, abo(t t#e first >lympia! +77G /.C.. an! !own to t#e legislation of Cleist#enes +4H, /.C.., it was engage! (pon t#e sol(tion of a great problem. It was no less t#an a f(n!amental c#ange in t#e plan of go;ernment, in;ol;ing a great mo!ification of? instit(tions. "#e people were see2ing to transfer t#emsel;es o(t of gentile society, in w#ic# t#ey #a! li;e! from time immemorial, into political society base! (pon territory an! (pon property, w#ic# #a! become essential to a career of ci;iliBation. In fine, t#ey were stri;ing to establis# a state, t#e first in t#e experience of t#e &ryan family, an! to place it (pon a territorial fo(n!ation, s(c# as t#e state #as occ(pie! from t#at time to t#e present. &ncient society reste! (pon an organiBation of persons, an! was go;erne! t#ro(g# t#e relations of persons to a gens an! tribe; b(t t#e 9recian tribes were o(tgrowing t#is ol! plan of go;ernment, an! began to feel t#e necessity of a political system. "o accomplis# t#is res(lt it was only necessary to in;ent a !eme or towns#ip, circ(mscribe! wit# bo(n!aries, to c#risten it wit# a name, an! organiBe t#e people t#erein as a bo!y politic. "#e towns#ip, wit# t#e fixe! property it containe!, an! wit# t#e people w#o in? #abite! it for t#e time being, was to become t#e (nit of organiBation in t#e new plan of go;ernment. "#ereafter t#e gentilis, c#ange! into a citiBen, wo(l! be !ealt wit# by t#e state t#ro(g# #is territorial relations, an! not t#ro(g# #is personal relations to a gens. He wo(l! be enrolle! in t#e !eme of #is resi!ence, w#ic# enrolment was t#e e;i!ence of #is citiBens#ip; wo(l! ;ote an! be taxe! in #is !eme; an! from it be calle! into t#e military ser;ice. &lt#o(g# apparently a simple i!ea, it re5(ire! cent(ries of time an! a complete re;ol(tion of pre?existing conceptions of go;ernment to accomplis# t#e res(lt. "#e gens, w#ic# #a! so long been t#e (nit of a social system, #a! pro;e! ina!e5(ate, as before s(ggeste!, to meet t#e re5(irements of an a!;ancing society. /(t to set t#is organiBation asi!e, toget#er wit# t#e p#ratry an! tribe, an! s(bstit(te a n(mber of fixe! areas, eac# wit# its comm(nity of citiBens, was, in t#e nat(re of t#e case, a meas(re of extreme !iffic(lty. "#e relations of t#e in!i;i!(al to #is gens, w#ic# were personal, #a! to be transferre! to t#e towns#ip an! become territorial; t#e !emarc# of t#e towns#ip ta2ing, in some sense, t#e place of t#e c#ief of t#e gens. & towns#ip wit# its fixe! property wo(l! be permanent; an! t#e people t#erein s(fficiently so; w#ile t#e gens was a fl(ct(ating aggregate of persons, more or less scattere!, an! now growing incapable of permanent establis#ment in a local circ(mscription. &nterior to experience, a towns#ip, as t#e (nit of a political system, was abstr(se eno(g# to tax t#e 9ree2s an! 0omans to t#e !ept#s of t#eir capacities before t#e conception was forme! an! set in practical operation. 3roperty was t#e new element t#at #a! been gra!(ally remo(l!ing 9recian instit(tions to prepare t#e way for political society, of w#ic# it was to be t#e mainspring as well as t#e fo(n!ation. It was no easy tas2 to accomplis# s(c# a f(n!amental c#ange, #owe;er simple an! ob;io(s it may now seem; beca(se all t#e pre;io(s experience of t#e 9recian tribes #a! been i!entifie! wit# t#e gentes w#ose powers were to be s(rren!ere! to t#e new political bo!ies. %e;eral cent(ries elapse!, after t#e first attempts were ma!e to fo(n! t#e new

14A political system, before t#e problem was sol;e!. &fter experience #a! !emonstrate! t#at t#e gentes were incapable of forming t#e basis of a state, se;eral !istinct sc#emes of legislation were trie! in t#e ;ario(s 9recian comm(nities, w#o copie! more or less eac# ot#erFs experiment, all ten!ing to t#e same res(lt. &mong t#e &t#enians from w#ose experience t#e c#ief ill(strations will be !rawn, may be mentione! t#e legislation of "#ese(s, on t#e a(t#ority of tra!ition; t#at of <raco +GD- /. C..; t#at of %olon +4,- /. C..; an! t#at of Cleist#enes +4H, /. C.., t#e last t#ree of w#ic# were wit#in t#e #istorical perio!. "#e !e;elopment of m(nicipal life an! instit(tions, t#e aggregation of wealt# in walle! cities, an! t#e great c#anges in t#e mo!e of life t#ereby pro!(ce!, prepare! t#e way for t#e o;ert#row of gentile society, an! for t#e establis#ment of political society in its place. /efore attempting to trace t#e transition from gentile into political society, wit# w#ic# t#e closing #istory of t#e gentes is i!entifie!, t#e 9recian gens an! its attrib(tes will be first, consi!ere!. &t#enian instit(tions are typical of 9recian instit(tions in general, in w#ate;er relates to t#e constit(tion of t#e gens an! tribe, !own to t#e en! of ancient society among t#em. &t t#e commencement of t#e #istorical perio!, t#e Ionians of &ttica were s(b!i;i!e!, as is well 2nown, into fo(r tribes +9eleontes, Hopletes, &egicores, an! &rga!es., spea2ing t#e same !ialect, an! occ(pying a common territory. "#ey #a! coalesce! into a nation as !isting(is#e! from a confe!eracy of tribes; b(t s(c# a confe!eracy #a! probably existe! in anterior times. [2] 'ac# &ttic tribe was compose! of t#ree p#ratries, an! eac# p#ratry of t#irty gentes, ma2ing an aggregate of twel;e p#ratries, an! of t#ree #(n!re! an! sixty gentes in t#e fo(r tribes, %(c# is t#e general form of t#e statement, t#e fact being constant wit# respect to t#e n(mber of tribes, an! t#e n(mber of p#ratries in eac#, b(t liable to ;ariation in t#e n(mber of gentes in eac# p#ratry. In li2e manner t#e <orians were generally fo(n! in t#ree tribes +Hylleis, 3amp#yli, an! <ymanes., alt#o(g# forming a n(mber of nationalities; as at %parta, &rgos, %icyon, Corint#, 'pi!a(r(s an! "roeBen; an! beyon! t#e 3eloponnes(s at Megara, an! elsew#ere. >ne or more non?<orian tribes were fo(n! in some cases (nite! wit# t#em, as at Corint#, %icyon an! &rgos. In all cases t#e 9recian tribe pres(pposes t#e gentes, t#e bon! of 2in an! of !ialect forming t#e basis (pon w#ic# t#ey (nite! in a tribe; b(t t#e tribe !i! not pres(ppose t#e p#ratry, w#ic#, as an interme!iate organiBation, alt#o(g# ;ery common among all t#ese tribes, was liable to be intermitte!. &t %parta, t#ere were s(b!i;isions of t#e tribes calle! obes, eac# tribe containing ten, w#ic# were analogo(s to p#ratries; b(t concerning t#e f(nctions of t#ese organiBations some (ncertainty pre;ails.[3] "#e &t#enian gentes will now be consi!ere! as t#ey appeare! in t#eir (ltimate form an! in f(ll ;itality; b(t wit# t#e elements of an incipient ci;iliBation arraye! against t#em, before w#ic# t#ey were yiel!ing step by step; an! by w#ic# t#ey were to be o;ert#rown wit# t#e social system t#ey create!. In some respects it is t#e most interesting portion of t#e #istory of t#is remar2able organiBation, w#ic# #a! bro(g#t #(man society o(t of sa;agery, an! carrie! it t#ro(g# barbarism into t#e early stages of ci;iliBation.

14"#e social system of t#e &t#enians ex#ibits t#e following series: first, t#e gens +genos. fo(n!e! (pon 2in; secon!, t#e p#ratry +phratra an! phratria.$ a brot#er#oo! of gentes !eri;e! by segmentation, probably, from an original gens; t#ir!, t#e tribe +phgilon$ later phyle.$ compose! of se;eral p#ratries, t#e members of w#ic# spo2e t#e same !ialect; an! fo(rt#, a people or nation, compose! of se;eral tribes (nite! by coalescence into one gentile society, an! occ(pying t#e same territory. "#ese integral an! ascen!ing organiBations ex#a(ste! t#eir social system (n!er t#e gentes, excepting t#e confe!eracy of tribes occ(pying in!epen!ent territories, w#ic#, alt#o(g# it occ(rre! in some instances in t#e early perio! an! sprang nat(rally o(tof gentile instit(tions, le! to no important res(lts. It is li2ely t#at t#e fo(r &t#enian tribes confe!erate! before t#ey coalesce!, t#e last occ(rring after t#ey #a! collecte! in one territory (n!er press(re from ot#er tribes. If tr(e of t#em, it wo(l! be e5(ally tr(e of t#e <orian an! ot#er tribes. 6#en s(c# tribes coalesce! into a nation, t#ere was no term in t#e lang(age to express t#e res(lt, beyon! a national name. "#e 0omans, (n!er ;ery similar instit(tions, style! t#emsel;es t#e !opulus Romanus$ w#ic# ex? presse! t#e fact exactly. "#ey were t#en simply a people, an! not#ing more; w#ic# was all t#at co(l! res(lt from an aggregation of gentes, curiae an! tribes. "#e fo(r &t#enian tribes forme! a society or people, w#ic# became completely a(tonomo(s in t#e legen!ary perio! (n!er t#e name of t#e &t#enians. "#ro(g#o(t t#e early 9recian comm(nities, t#e gens, p#ratry an! tribe were constant p#enomena of t#eir social systems, wit# t#e occasional absence of t#e p#ratry. Mr. 9rote #as collecte! t#e principal facts wit# respect to t#e 9recian gentes wit# s(c# critical ability t#at t#ey cannot be presente! in a more a(t#oritati;e manner t#an in #is own lang(age, w#ic# will be 5(ote! w#ere #e treats t#e s(b:ect generally. &fter commenting (pon t#e tribal !i;isions of t#e 9ree2s, #e procee!s as follows: 8But t#e 3#ratries an! 9entes are a !istrib(tion completely !ifferent from t#is. "#ey seem aggregations of small primiti;e (nities into larger; t#ey are in!epen!ent of, an! !o not pres(ppose, t#e tribe; t#ey arise separately an! spontaneo(sly, wit#o(t pre?concerte! (niformity, an! wit#o(t reference to a common political p(rpose; t#e legislator fin! t#em pre?existing, an! a!apts or mo!ifies t#em to, answer some national sc#eme. 6e m(st !isting(is# t#e general fact of t#e classification, an! t#e s(ccessi;e s(b? or!ination in t#e scale, of t#e families to t#e gens, of t#e gentes to t#e p#ratry, an! of t#e p#ratries to t#e tribe ? from t#e precise n(merical symmetry wit# w#ic# t#is s(bor!ination is in;este!, as we rea! it,? t#irty families to a gens, t#irty gentes to a p#ratry, t#ree p#ratries to eac# tribe. If s(c# nice e5(ality of n(mbers co(l! e;er #a;e been proc(re!, by legislati;e constraint, operating (pon pre?existent nat(ral elements, t#e proportions co(l! not #a;e been permanently maintaine!. /(t we may reason? ably !o(bt w#et#er it !i! e;er so exist.... "#at e;ery p#ratry containe! an e5(al n(mber of gentes, an! e;ery gens an e5(al n(mber of families is a s(pposition #ar!ly a!missible wit#o(t better e;i!ence t#an we possess. /(t apart from t#is 5(estionable precision of n(merical scale, t#e 3#ratries an! 9entes t#emsel;es were real, ancient, an! !(rable associations among t#e &t#enian people, #ig#ly important, to be (n!erstoo!. "#e basis of t#e w#ole was t#e #o(se, #eart#, or family,? a n(mber of w#ic#, greater or less, compose! t#e 9ens or 9enos. "#is

144 gens was t#erefore a clan, sept, or enlarge!, an! partly factitio(s, brot#er#oo!, bo(n! toget#er by,? 1. Common religio(s ceremonies, an! excl(si;e pri;ilege of priest#oo!, in #ono(r of t#e same go!, s(ppose! to be t#e primiti;e ancestor, an! c#aracteriBe! by a special s(rname. D. /y a common b(rial place.[4] A. /y m(t(al rig#ts of s(ccession to property. -. /y reciprocal obligations of #elp, !efence, an! re!ress of in:(ries. %. /y m(t(al rig#t an! obligation to intermarry in certain !eterminate cases, especially w#ere t#ere was an orp#an !a(g#ter or #eiress. G. /y possession, in some cases, at least, of common property, an arc#on an! treas(rer of t#eir own. %(c# were t#e rig#ts an! obligations c#aracteriBing t#e gentile (nion. "#e p#ratric (nion, bin!ing toget#er se;eral gentes, was less intimate, b(t still incl(!e! some m(t(al rig#ts an! obligations of an analogo(s c#aracter; especially a comm(nion of partic(lar sacre! rites, an! m(t(al pri;ileges of prosec(tion in t#e e;ent of a p#rator being slain. 'ac# p#ratry was consi!ere! as belonging to one of t#e fo(r tribes, an! all t#e p#ratries of t#e same tribe en:oye! a certain perio!ical comm(nion of sacre! rites (n!er t#e presi!ency of a magistrate calle! t#e 3#ylo? /asile(s or tribe?2ing selecte! from t#e '(patri!s.8[5] "#e similarities between t#e 9recian an! t#e Iro5(ois gens will at once #e recogniBe!. <ifferences in c#aracteristics will also be percei;e!, growing o(t of t#e more a!;ance! con!ition of 9recian society, an! a f(ller !e;elopment of t#eir religio(s system. It will not be necessary to ;erify t#e existence of t#e se;eral attrib(tes of t#e gens name! by Mr. 9rote, as t#e proof is plain in t#e classical a(t#orities. "#ere were ot#er c#aracteristics w#ic# !o(btless pertaine! to t#e 9recian gens, alt#o(g# it may be !iffic(lt to establis# t#e existence of all of t#em; s(c# as: 7. "#e limitation of !escent to t#e male line; 8. "#e pro#ibition of intermarriage in t#e gens excepting in t#e case of #eiresses; ,. "#e rig#t of a!opting strangers into t#e gens: an! 1H. "#e rig#t of electing an! !eposing its c#iefs. "#e rig#ts, pri;ileges an! obligations of t#e members of t#e 9recian gens may be recapit(late!, wit# t#e a!!itions name!, as follows: I. ?ommon religious rites. II. A common burial place. III. 'utual rights of succession to property of deceased members. II. Reciprocal obligations of help$ defence and redress of in3uries. I. The right to intermarry in the gens in the cases of orphan daughters and heiresses. II. The possession of common property$ an archon$ and a treasurer, III. The obligation of descent to the male line. IIII. The obligation not to marry in the gens e"cept in specified cases. IL. The right to adopt strangers into the gnu.

14G L. The right to elect and depose its chiefs. & brief reference to t#e a!!e! c#aracteristics s#o(l! be ma!e. 7. The limitation of descent to the male line. "#ere is no !o(bt t#at s(c# was t#e r(le, beca(se it is pro;e! by t#eir genealogies. I #a;e not been able to fin! in any 9ree2 a(t#or a !efinition of a gens or of a gentilis t#at wo(l! f(rnis# a s(fficient test of t#e rig#t of a gi;en person to t#e gentile connection. Cicero, Iarro an! *est(s #a;e !efine! t#e 0oman gens an! gentilis, w#ic# were strictly analogo(s to t#e 9recian, wit# s(fficient f(llness to s#ow t#at !escent was in t#e male line. *rom t#e nat(re of t#e gens, !escent was eit#er in t#e female line or t#e male, an! incl(!e! b(t a moiety of t#e !escen!ants of t#e fo(n!er. It is precisely li2e t#e family among o(rsel;es; "#ose w#o are !escen!e! from t#e males bear t#e family name, an! t#ey constit(te a gens in t#e f(ll sense of t#e term, b(t in a state of !ispersion, an! wit#o(t any bon! of (nion excepting t#ose nearest in !egree. "#e females lose, wit# t#eir marriage, t#e family name, an! wit# t#eir c#il!ren are transferre! to anot#er family. 9rote remar2s t#at &ristotle was t#e son of t#e p#ysician =i2omac#(s w#o belonge! to t#e gens of t#e &s2lepia!s.8 [6] 6#et#er &ristotie was of t#e gens of #is fat#er !epen!s (pon t#e f(rt#er 5(estion w#et#er t#ey bot# !eri;e! t#eir !escent from &esc(lapi(s, t#ro(g# males excl(si;ely. "#is is s#own by aerti(s, w#o states t#at &ristotle was t#e son of =i2omac#(s.... an! =i2omac#(s was !escen!e! from =i2omac#(s t#e son of Mac#aon, t#e son of &esc(lapi(s.8[7] &lt#o(g# t#e #ig#er members of t#e series may be fab(lo(s, t#e manner of tracing t#e !escent wo(l! s#ow t#e gens of t#e person. "#e statement of Hermann, on t#e a(t#ority of Isae(s, is also to t#e point. )';ery infant was registere! in t#e p#ratria an! clan of its fat#er.8[8] 0egistration in t#e gens of t#e fat#er implies t#at #is c#il!ren were of #is gens. 8. The obligation not to marry in the gens e"cepting in specified cases. "#is obligation may be !e!(ce! from t#e conse5(ences of marriage. "#e wife by #er marriage lost t#e religio(s rites of #er gens, an! ac5(ire! t#ose of #er #(sban!Fs gens. "#e r(le is state! as so general as to imply t#at marriage was (s(ally o(t of t#e gens. )"#e ;irgin w#o 5(its #er fat#erFs #o(se,8 6ac#sm(t# remar2s, )is no longer a s#arer of t#e paternal sacrificial #eart#, b(t enters t#e religio(s comm(nion of #er #(sban!, an! t#is ga;e sanctity to t#e marriage tie.8 [9] "#e fact of #er registration is state! by Hermann as follows: )';ery newly marrie! woman, #erself a citiBen, was on t#is acco(nt enrolle! in t#e p#ratry of #er #(sban!.8[10] %pecial religio(s rites +sacra gentilicia. were common in t#e 9recian an! atin gens. 6#et#er t#e wife forfeite! #er agnatic rig#ts by #er marriage, as among t#e 0omans, I am (nable to state. It is not probable t#at marriage se;ere! all connection wit# #er gens, an! t#e wife !o(btless still co(nte! #erself of t#e gens of #er fat#er. "#e pro#ibition of intermarriage in t#e gens was f(n!amental in t#e arc#aic perio!; an! it (n!o(bte!ly remaine! after !escent was c#ange! to t#e male line, wit# t#e exception of #eiresses an! female orp#ans for w#ose case special pro;ision was ma!e. &lt#o(g# a ten!ency to free marriage, beyon! certain !egrees of consang(inity, wo(l! follow t#e complete establis#ment of t#e monogamian family, t#e r(le re5(iring persons to marry o(t of t#eir own gens wo(l! be apt to

147 remain so long as t#e gens was t#e basis of t#e social system. "#e special pro;ision in respect to #eiresses ten!s to confirm t#is s(pposition. /ec2er remar2s (pon t#is 5(estion, t#at )relations#ip was, wit# trifling limitations, no #in!rance to marriage, w#ic# co(l! ta2e place wit#in all !egrees of anchisteia$ or sungeneia$ t#o(g# nat(rally not in t#e gens itself.8[11] ,. The right to adopt strangers into the gens. "#is rig#t was practice! at a later !ay, at least in families; b(t it was !one wit# p(blic formalities, an! was !o(btless limite! to special cases.[12] 3(rity of lineage became a matter of #ig# concerns in t#e &ttic gentes, interposing no !o(bt serio(s obstacles to t#e (se of t#e rig#t except for weig#ty reasons. 1H. The right to elect and depose its chiefs. "#is rig#t (n!o(bte!ly existe! in t#e 9recian gentes in t#e early perio!. 3res(mpti;ely it was possesse! by t#em w#ile in t#e (pper %tat(s of barbarism. 'ac# gens #a! its arc#on, w#ic# was t#e common name for a c#ief. 6#et#er t#e office was electi;e, for example, in t#e Homeric perio!, or was transmitte! by #ere!itary rig#t to t#e el!est son, is a 5(estion "#e latter was not t#e ancient t#eory of t#e office; an! a c#ange so great an! ra!ical, affecting t#e in!epen!ence an! personal rig#ts of all t#e members of t#e gens, re5(ires positi;e proof to o;erri!e t#e pres(mption against it. Here!itary rig#t to an office, carrying wit# it a(t#ority o;er, an! obligations from, t#e members oW a gens is a ;ery !ifferent t#ing from an office bestowe! by a free election, wit# t#e reser;e! power to !epose for (nwort#y be#a;io(r. "#e free spirit of t#e &t#enian gentes !own to t#e time of %olon an! Cleist#enes forbi!s t#e s(pposition, as to t#em, t#at t#ey #a! parte! wit# a rig#t so ;ital to t#e in!epen!ence of t#e members of t#e gens. I #a;e not been able to fin! any satisfactory explanation of t#e ten(re of t#is office. Here!itary s(ccession, if it existe!, wo(l! in!icate a remar2able !e;elopment of t#e aristocratical element in ancient society, in !erogation of t#e !emocratical constit(tion of t#e gentes. Moreo;er, it wo(l! be a sign of t#e commencement, at least, of t#eir !eca!ence. &ll t#e members of a gens were free an! e5(al, t#e ric# an! t#e poor en:oying e5(al rig#ts an! pri;ileges, an! ac2nowle!ging t#e same in eac# ot#er. 6e fin! liberty, e5(ality an! fraternity, written as plainly in t#e constit(tion of t#e &t#enian gentes as in t#ose of t#e Iro5(oias Here!itary rig#t to t#e principal office of t#e gens is totally inconsistent wit# t#e ol!er !octrine of e5(al rig#ts an! pri;ileges. 6#et#er t#e #ig#er offices of anax, 2oiranos, an! basile(s were transmitte! by #ere!itary rig#t from fat#er to son, or were electi;e or confirmati;e by a larger constit(ency, is also a 5(estion. It will be consi!ere! elsew#ere. "#e former wo(l! in!icate t#e s(b;ersion, as t#e latter t#e conser;ation, of gentile instit(tions. 6it#o(t !ecisi;e e;i!ence to t#e contrary e;ery pres(mption is a!;erse to #ere!itary rig#t. %ome a!!itional lig#t will be gaine! on t#is s(b:ect w#en t#e 0oman gentes are consi!ere!. & caref(l re?in;estigation of t#e ten(re of t#is office wo(l!, not (nli2ely, mo!ify essentially t#e recei;e! acco(nts. It may be consi!ere! s(bstantially ass(re! t#at t#e 9recian gentes possesse! t#e ten principal attrib(tes name!. &ll sa;e t#ree, namely, !escent in t#e male line, marrying into t#e gens in t#e case of #eiresses, an! t#e possible transmission of t#e #ig#est military office by #ere!itary rig#t, are fo(n! wit# slig#t ;ariations in t#e

148 gentes of t#e Iro5(ois. It is t#(s ren!ere! apparent t#at m t#e gentes, bot# t#e 9recian an! t#e Iro5(ois tribes possesse! t#e same original instit(tion, t#e one #a;ing t#e gens in its later, an! t#e ot#er in its arc#aic form. 0ec(rring now to t#e 5(otation from Mr. 9rote, it may be remar2e! t#at #a! #e been familiar wit# t#e arc#aic form of t#e gens, an! wit# t#e se;eral forms of t#e family anterior to t#e monogamian, #e wo(l! probably #a;e mo!ifie! essentially some portion of #is statement. &n exception m(st be ta2en to #is position t#at t#e basis of t#e social system of t#e 9ree2s )was t#e #o(se, #eart#, or family.8 "#e form of t#e family in t#e min! of t#e !isting(is#e! #istorian was e;i!ently t#e 0oman, (n!er t#e iron?cla! r(le of a pater familias$ to w#ic# t#e 9recian family of t#e Homeric perio! approximate! in t#e complete !omination of t#e fat#er o;er t#e #o(se#ol!. It wo(l! #a;e been e5(ally (ntenable #a! ot#er an! anterior forms of t#e family been inten!e!. "#e gens, in its origin, is ol!er t#an t#e monogamian family, ol!er t#an t#e syn!yasmian, an! s(bstantially contemporaneo(s wit# t#e p(nal(an. In no sense was it fo(n!e! (pon eit#er. It !oes not recogniBe t#e existence of t#e family of any form as a constit(ent of itself. >n t#e contrary, e;ery family in t#e arc#aic as well as in t#e later perio! was partly wit#in an! partly wit#o(t t#e gens, beca(se #(sban! an! wife m(st belong to !ifferent gentes. "#e explanation is bot# simple an! complete; namely, t#at t#e family springs (p in!epen!ently of t#e gens wit# entire free!om to a!;ance from a lower into a #ig#er form, w#ile t#e gens is constant, as well as t#e (nit of t#e social system. "#e gens entere! entire into t#e p#ratry, t#e p#ratry entere! entire into t#e tribe, an! t#e tribe entere! into t#e nation; b(t t#e family co(l! not enter entire into t#e gens beca(se #(sban! an! wife m(st belong to !ifferent gentes. "#e 5(estion #ere raise! is important, since not only Mr. 9rote, b(t also =ieb(#r, "#ir#wall, Maine, Mommsen, an! many ot#er able an! ac(te in;estigators #a;e ta2en t#e same position wit# respect to t#e monogamian family of t#e patriarc#al type as t#e integer aro(n! w#ic# society integrate! in t#e 9recian an! 0oman systems. =ot#ing w#ate;er was base! (pon t#e family in any of its forms, beca(se it was incapable of entering a gens as a w#ole. "#e gens was #omogeneo(s an! to a great extent permanent in !(ration, an! as s(c#, t#e nat(ral basis of a social system. & family of t#e monogamian type mig#t #a;e become in!i;i!(aliBe! an! powerf(l in a gens, an! in society at large; b(t t#e gens ne;ert#eless !i! not an! co(l! not recogniBe or !epen! (pon t#e family as an integer of itself. "#e same remar2s are e5(ally tr(e wit# respect to t#e mo!ern family an! political society. &lt#o(g# in!i;i!(aliBe! by property rig#ts an! pri;ileges, an! recognise! as a legal entity by stat(tory enactment, t#e family is not t#e (nit of t#e political system. "#e state recogniBes t#e co(nties of w#ic# it is compose!, t#e co(nty its towns#ips, b(t t#e towns#ip ta2es no note of t#e family; so t#e nation recogniBe! its tribes, t#e tribe its p#ratries, an! t#e p#ratry its gentes; b(t t#e gens too2 no note of t#e family. In !ealing wit# t#e str(ct(re of society, organic relations alone are to be consi!ere!. "#e towns#ip stan!s in t#e same relation to political society t#at t#e gens !i! to gentile society. 'ac# is t#e (nit of a system. "#ere are a n(mber of ;al(able obser;ations by Mr. 9rote, (pon t#e 9recian gentes, w#ic# I !esire to incorporate as an exposition of t#em; alt#o(g# t#ese

14, obser;ations seem to imply t#at t#ey are no ol!er t#an t#e t#en existing myt#ology, or #ierarc#y of t#e go!s from t#e members of w#ic# some of t#e gentes claime! to #a;e !eri;e! t#eir eponymo(s ancestor. In t#e lig#t of t#e facts presente!, t#e gentes are seen to #a;e existe! long before t#is myt#ology was !e;elope! ? before C(piter or =ept(ne, Mars or Ien(s were concei;e! in t#e #(man min!. Mr. 9rote procee!s: )"#(s stoo! t#e primiti;e religio(s an! social (nion of t#e pop(lation of &ttica in its gra!(ally ascen!ing scale ? as !isting(is#e! from t#e political (nion, probably of later intro!(ction, represente! at first by t#e trittyes an! na(2raries, an! in after times by t#e ten 7leist#enean tribes, s(b!i;i!e! into trittyes an! !emes. "#e religio(s an! family bon! of aggregation is t#e earlier of t#e two; b(t t#e political bon!, t#o(g# beginning later will be fo(n! to ac5(ire constantly increasing infl(ence t#ro(g#o(t t#e greater part of t#is #istory. In t#e former, personal relation is t#e essential an! pre? !ominant c#aracteristic ? local relation being s(bor!inate; in t#e latter, property an! resi!ence become t#e c#ief consi!erations, an! t#e personal element co(nts only as meas(re! along wit# t#ese accompaniments. &ll t#ese p#ratric an! gentile associations, t#e larger as well as t#e smaller, were fo(n!e! (pon t#e same principles an! ten!encies of t#e 9recian min! ? a coalescence of t#e i!ea of wors#ip8 wit# t#at of ancestry, or of comm(nion in certain special religio(s rites wit# comm(nion of bloo!, real or s(ppose!. "#e go! or #ero, to w#om t#e assemble! members offere! t#eir sacrifices, was concei;e! as t#e primiti;e ancestor to w#om t#ey owe! t#eir origin; often t#ro(g# a long list of interme!iate names, as in t#e case of t#e Milesian He2atae(s, so often before referre! to. 'ac# family #a! its own sacre! rites an! f(neral commemorations of ancestors, celebrate! by t#e master of t#e #o(se, to w#ic# none b(t members of t#e family were a!missible..... "#e larger associations, calle! gens, p#ratry, tribe, were forme! by an extension of t#e same principle ? of t#e family consi!ere! as a religio(s brot#er?. #oo!, wors#iping some common go! or #ero wit# an appropriate s(rname, an! recogniBing #im as t#eir :oint ancestor; an! t#e festi;al of "#eoenia, an! &pat(ria +t#e first &ttic, t#e secon! common to all t#e Ionian race. ann(ally bro(g#t toget#er t#e members of t#ese p#ratries an! gentes for wors#ip, festi;ity, an! maintenance of special sympat#ies; t#(s strengt#ening t#e larger ties wit#o(t effacing t#e smaller..... /(t t#e #istorian m(st accept as an (ltimate fact t#e earliest state of t#ings w#ic# #is witnesses ma2e 2nown to #im, an! in t#e case now before (s, t#e gentile an! p#ratric (nions are matters into t#e beginning of w#ic# we cannot preten! to penetrate.8[13] )"#e gentes bot# at &t#ens, an! in ot#er parts of 9reece, bore a patronymic name, t#e stamp of t#eir belie;e! common paternity. [14] .... /(t at &t#ens, at least after t#e re;ol(tion of 7leist#enes, t#e gentile name was not employe!: a man was !escribe! by #is own single name followe! first by t#e name of #is fat#er, an! next by t#at of t#e !eme to w#ic# #e belonge!,? as Aeschines son of Atrometus$ a 4otho+id.... "#e gens constit(te! a close incorporation, bot# as to property an! as to persons. $ntil t#e time of %olon, no man #a! any power of testamentary !isposition. If #e !ie! wit#o(t c#il!ren, #is gennetes s(ccee!e! to #is property, an! so t#ey contin(e! to !o e;en after %olon, if #e !ie!

1GH intestate. &n orp#an girl mig#t be claime! in marriage of rig#t by any member of t#e gens, t#e nearest agnates being preferre!; if s#e was poor, an! #e !i! not c#oose to marry #er #imself, t#e law of %olon compelle! #im to pro;i!e #er wit# a !owry proportional to #is enrolle! scale of property, an! to gi;e #er o(t in marriage to anot#er.... If a man was m(r!ere!, first #is near relations, next, #is gennetes an! p#rators, were bot# allowe! an! re5(ire! to prosec(te t#e crime at law; w#ile #is fellow !emots, or in#abitants of t#e same !eme, !i! not possess t#e li2e rig#t of prosec(ting. &ll t#at we #ear of t#e most ancient &t#enian laws is base! (pon t#e gentile an! p#ratric !i;isions, w#ic# are treate! t#ro(g#? o(t as extensions of t#e family. It is to be obser;e! t#at t#is !i;ision is completely in!epen!ent of any property 5(alification ? ric# men as well as poor being compre#en!e! in t#e same gens. Moreo;er, t#e !ifferent gentes were ;ery (ne5(al, in !ignity, arising c#iefly from t#e religio(s ceremonies of w#ic# eac# possesse! t#e #ere!itary an! excl(si;e a!ministration, an! w#ic#, being in some cases consi!ere! of pre?eminent sanctity in reference to t#e w#ole city, were t#erefore nationaliBe!. "#(s t#e '(molpi!ae an! 7ery2es, w#o s(pplie! t#e #ierop#ant an! s(perinten!ent of t#e mysteries of t#e 'le(sinian <emeter ? an! t#e /(ta!ae w#o f(rnis#e! t#e priestess of &t#ene 3olias, as well as t#e priest of 3osei!on 'rec#t#e(s in t#e &cropolis ? seem to #a;e been re;erence! abo;e all t#e ot#er gentes.8[15] Mr. 9rote spea2s of t#e gens as an extension of t#e family, an! as pres(pposing its existence; treating t#e family as primary an! t#e gens as secon!ary. "#is ;iew for t#e reasons state!, is (ntenable. "#e two organiBations procee! (pon !ifferent principles an! are in!epen!ent of eac# ot#er. "#e gens embraces a part only of t#e !escen!ants of a s(ppose! common ancestor, an! excl(!es t#e remain!er; it also embraces a part, only of a family, an! excl(!es t#e remain!er. In or!er to be a constit(ent of t#e gens, t#e family s#o(l! enter entire wit#in its fol!s, w#ic# was impossible in t#e arc#aic perio!, an! constr(cti;e only in t#e later. In t#e organiBation of gentile society t#e gens is primary, forming bot# t#e basis an! t#e (nit of t#e system. "#e family also is primary an! ol!er t#an t#e gens; t#e p(nal(an an! t#e consang(ine families #a;ing prece!e! it in t#e or!er of time; b(t it was not a member of t#e organic series in ancient society any more t#an it is in mo!ern. "#e gens existe! in t#e &ryan family w#en t#e atin, 9recian an! %ans2rit spea2ing tribes were one people, as is s#own by t#e presence in t#eir !ialects of t#e same term +gens, genos$ an! ganas. to express t#e organiBation. "#ey !eri;e! it from t#eir barbaro(s ancestors, an! more remotely from t#eir sa;age progenitors. If t#e &ryan family became !ifferentiate! as early as t#e Mi!!le perio! of barbarism, w#ic# seems probable, t#e gens m(st #a;e been transmitte! to t#em in its arc#aic form. &fter t#at e;ent, an! !(ring t#e long perio!s of time w#ic# elapse! between t#e separation of t#ese tribes from eac# ot#er an! t#e commencement of ci;iliBation, t#ose c#anges in t#e constit(tion of t#e gens, w#ic# #a;e been notice! #ypot#etically, m(st, #a;e occ(rre!. It is impossible to concei;e of t#e gens as

1G1 appearing, for t#e first time, in any ot#er t#an its arc#aic form; conse5(ently t#e 9recian gens m(st #a;e been originally in t#is form. If, t#en, ca(ses can be fo(n! a!e5(ate to acco(nt for so great a c#ange of !escent as t#at from t#e female line to t#e male, t#e arg(ment will be complete, alt#o(g# in t#e en! it s(bstit(te! a new bo!y of 2in!re! in t#e gens in place of t#e ol!. "#e growt# of t#e i!ea of property, an! t#e rise of monogamy, f(rnis#e! moti;es s(fficiently powerf(l to !eman! an! obtain t#is c#ange in or!er to bring c#il!ren into t#e gens of t#eir fat#er, an! into a participation in t#e in#eritance of #is estate. Monogamy ass(re! t#e paternity of c#il!ren; w#ic# was (n2nown w#en t#e gens was instit(te!, an! t#e excl(sion of c#il!ren from t#e in#eritance was no longer possible. In t#e face of t#e new circ(mstances, t#e gens wo(l! be force! into reconstr(ction or !issol(tion. 6#en t#e gens of t#e Iro5(ois, as it appeare! in t#e ower %tat(s of barbarism, is place! besi!e t#e gens of t#e 9recian tribes as it appeare! in t#e $pper %tat(s, it is impossible not to percei;e t#at t#ey are t#e same organiBation, t#e one in its arc#aic an! t#e ot#er in its (ltimate form. "#e !ifferences between t#em are precisely t#ose w#ic# wo(l! #a;e been force! (pon t#e gens by t#e exigencies of #(man progress. &long wit# t#ese m(tations in t#e constit(tion of t#e gens are fo(n! t#e parallel m(tations in t#e r(le of in#eritance. 3roperty, always #ere!itary in t#e gens, was first #ere!itary among t#e gentiles; secon!ly, #ere!itary among t#e agnates, to t#e excl(sion of t#e remaining gentiles; an! now, t#ir!ly, #ere!itary among t#e agnates in s(ccession, in t#e or!er of t#eir nearness to t#e !ece!ent, w#ic# ga;e an excl(si;e in#eritance to t#e c#il!ren as t#e nearest agnates. "#e pertinacity, wit# w#ic# t#e principle was maintaine! !own to t#e time of %olon, t#at t#e property s#o(l! remain in t#e gens of t#e !ecease! owner, ill(strates t#e ;itality of t#e organiBation t#ro(g# all t#ese perio!s. It was t#is r(le w#ic# compelle! t#e #eiress to marry in #er own gens to pre;ent a transfer of t#e property by #er marriage to anot#er gens. 6#en %olon allowe! t#e owner of property to !ispose of it by will, in case #e #a! no c#il!ren, #e ma!e t#e first inroa! (pon t#e property rig#ts of t#e gens. How nearly t#e members of a gens were relate!, or w#et#er t#ey were relate! at all, #as been ma!e a 5(estion. Mr. 9rote remar2e! t#at )3oll(x informs (s !istinctly t#at t#e members of t#e same gens at &t#ens were not commonly relate! by bloo!,? an! e;en wit#o(t any express testimony we mig#t #a;e concl(!e! s(c# to be t#e fact. "o w#at extent t#e gens, at t#e (n2nown epoc# of its formation was base! (pon act(al relations#ip, we #a;e no means of !etermining, eit#er wit# regar! to t#e &t#enian or t#e 0oman gentes, w#ic# were in t#e main points analogo(s. 9entilism is a tie by itself !istinct from t#e family ties, b(t pres(pposing t#eir existence an! exten!ing t#em by an artificial analogy, partly fo(n!e! in religio(s belief, an! partly on positi;e compact, so as to compre#en! strangers in bloo!. &ll t#e members of one gens, or e;en of one p#ratry, belie;e! t#emsel;es to be spr(ng, not in!ee! from t#e same gran!?fat#er or great?gran!fat#er, b(t from t#e same !i;ine or #eroic ancestor.... &n! t#is f(n!amental belief, into w#ic# t#e 9ree2 min! passe! wit# so m(c# facility, was

1GD a!opte! an! con;erte! by positi;e compact into t#e gentile an! p#ratric principle of (nion.... <o(btless =ieb(#r, in #is ;al(able !isc(ssion of t#e ancient 0oman gentes, is rig#t in s(pposing t#at t#ey were not real families, procreate! from any common #istorical ancestor. %till it is not t#e less tr(e +alt#o(g# #e seems to s(ppose ot#erwise. t#at t#e i!ea of t#e gens in;ol;e! the belief in a common first fat#er, !i;ine or #eroic ? a genealogy w#ic# we may properly call fab(lo(s, b(t w#ic# was consecrate! an! accre!ite! among t#e members of t#e gens itself; an! ser;e! as one important bon! of (nion between t#em.... "#e nat(ral families of co(rse c#ange! from generation to generation, some exten!ing t#emsel;es, w#ile ot#ers !iminis#e! or !ie! o(t; b(t t#e gens recei;e! no alterations, except t#ro(g# t#e procreation, extinction, or s(b!i;ision of t#ese component families. &ccor!ingly t#e relations of t#e families wit# t#e gens were in perpet(al co(rse of fl(ct(ation, an! t#e gentile ancestorial genealogy, a!apte! as it !o(btless was to t#e early con!ition of t#e gens, became in process of time partially obsolete an! (ns(itable. 6e #ear of t#is genealogy b(t rarely beca(se it is only bro(g#t before t#e p(blic in certain cases pre?eminent an! ;enerable. /(t t#e #(mbler gentes #a! t#eir common rites, an! common s(per#(man ancestor an! genealogy, as well as t#e more celebrate!: t#e sc#eme an! i!eal basis was t#e same in all.8[16] "#e se;eral statements of 3oll(x, =ieb(#r an! 9rote are tr(e in a certain sense, b(t not absol(tely so. "#e lineage of a gens ran bac2 of t#e ac2nowle!ge! ancestor, an! t#erefore t#e gens of ancient !ate co(l! not #a;e #a! a 2nown progenitor; neit#er co(l! t#e fact of a bloo! connection be pro;e! by t#eir system of consang(inity; ne;ert#eless t#e gentiles not only belie;e! in t#eir common !escent, b(t were :(stifie! in so belie;ing. "#e system of consang(inity w#ic# pertaine! to t#e gens in its arc#aic form, an! w#ic# t#e 9ree2s probably once possesse!, preser;e! a 2nowle!ge of t#e relations#ips of all t#e members of a gens to eac# ot#er. "#is fell into !es(et(!e wit# t#e rise of t#e monogamian family, as I s#all en!ea;o(r else? w#ere to s#ow. "#e gentile name create! a pe!igree besi!e w#ic# t#at of a family was insignificant. It was t#e f(nction of t#is name to preser;e t#e fact of t#e common !escent of t#ose w#o bore it; b(t t#e lineage of t#e gens was so ancient t#at its members co(l! not pro;e t#e act(al relations#ip existing between t#em, except in a limite! n(mber of cases t#ro(g# recent common ancestors. "#e name itself was t#e e;i!ence of a common !escent, an! concl(si;e, except as it was liable to interr(ption t#ro(g# t#e a!option of strangers in bloo! in t#e pre;io(s #istory of t#e gens. "#e practical !enial of all relations#ip between its members ma!e by 3oll(x an! =ieb(#r, w#ic# wo(l! c#ange t#e gens into a p(rely fictitio(s association, #as no gro(n! to rest (pon. & large proportion of t#e n(mber co(l! pro;e t#eir relations#ip t#ro(g# !escent from common ancestors wit#in t#e gens, an! as to t#e remain!er t#e gentile name t#ey bore was s(fficient e;i!ence of common !escent for practical p(rposes. "#e 9recian gens was not (s(ally a large bo!y of persons. "#irty families to a gens, not co(nting t#e wi;es of t#e #ea!s of

1GA families, wo(l! gi;e, by t#e common r(le of comp(tation, an a;erage of one #(n!re! an! twenty persons to t#e gens. &s t#e (nit of t#e organic social system, t#e gens wo(l! nat(rally become t#e centre of social life an! acti;ity. It was organiBe! as a social bo!y, wit# its arc#on or c#ief, an! treas(rer; #a;ing common lan!s to some extent, a common b(rial place, an! common religio(s rites. /esi!e t#ese were t#e rig#ts, pri;ileges an! obligations w#ic# t#e gens conferre! an! impose! (pon all its members. It was in t#e gens t#at t#e religio(s acti;ity of t#e 9ree2s originate!, w#ic# expan!e! o;er t#e p#ratries, an! c(lminate! in perio!ical festi;als common to all t#e tribes. "#is s(b:ect #as been a!mirably treate! by M. <e Co(langes in #is recent wor2 on )"#e &ncient City.8 In or!er to (n!erstan! t#e con!ition of 9recian society, anterior to t#e formation of t#e state, it is necessary to 2now t#e constit(tion an! principles of t#e 9recian gens; for t#e c#aracter of t#e (nit !etermines t#e c#aracter of its compo(n!s in t#e ascen!ing series, an! can alone f(rnis# t#e means for t#eir explanation.

Footnotes
1 "#e p#ratries were not common to t#e <orian tribes. ? M(ller@s )<orians,8 "(fnel an! aw@s "rans., >xfor! e!., ii, 8D. ! Hermann mentions t#e confe!eracies of &egina. &t2ens, 3rasia, =a(plia, etc.? )3olitical &nti5(ities of 9reece,8 >xfor! "rans., c#. i, s. 11. A?In t#e ancient )0#etra8 of yc(rg(s, t#e tribes an! obes are !irecte! to be maintaine! (naltere!: b(t t#e statement of >. M(ller an! /oec2# t#at t#ere were t#irty obes in all, ten to eac# tribe ? rests (pon no #ig#er e;i!ence t#an a pec(liar p(nct(ation in t#is )0#etra,8 w#ic# ;ario(s ot#er critics re:ect; an! seemingly wit# goo! reason. 6e are t#(s left wit#o(t any information respecting t#e obe, t#o(g# we 2now t#at it was an ol! pec(liar an! lasting !i;ision among t#e %partan people. ? 9roteFs )History of 9reece,8 M(rrayFs e!., ii, AGD. /(t see M(llerFs )<orians,8 1. c., ii, 8H. # <emost#enes, )'(b(li!e,8 1AH7. $ )History of 9reece,8 iii, 4A. % )History of 9reece,8 iii, GH. & <iogenes, aerti(s, )Iit. &ristotle,8 ;, I. ' )3olitical &nti5(ities of t#e 9ree2s,8 c. ;, s. 1HH; an! ;i!e )'(b(li!es8 of <emost#enes, D-. ( )Historical &nti5(ities of t#e 9ree2s,8 6oolryc#Fs "rans., >xfor! e!., 18A7, i, -41. 1) )3olitical &nti5(ities, 1. c., cap. ;, s. 1HH. 11 )C#aricles.8 MetcalfeFs "rans., on!, e!., 18GG, p. -77; citing EIsae;s !e Cir. #er.F D17: E<emost#enes a!;. 'b(lF 1AH-.: E3l(tarc#, "#emist., AD: E3a(sanias,F i, 7, 1: E&c#ill.

1G"at.,F i, A 1! Hermann, EI. c.,F ;, s. 1HH an! 1H1. 1" )History of 9reece,8 iii, 44. 1# )6e fin! t#e &s2lepia!ae in many parts of 9reece ? the &le(a!ae in "#essaly ? t#e Mi!yli!ae, 3sa1yc#i!ae, /elpsia!x, '(xeni!ai at &egina ? t#e /ranc#i!ae at Milet(s ? t#e =ebri!ae at 7os ? t#e Iami!ae an! 7lytia!ae at >lympia ? t#e &2estori!ae at &rgos ? t#e 7inyra!ae at Cypr(s ? t#e 3ent#ili!ae at Mitylene ? t#e "alt#ybia!ae at %parta ? not less t#an t#e 7o!ri!ae, '(molpi!ae, 3#ytali!ae, y2ome!ae, /(ta!ae, '(nei!ae, Hesyc#i!ae, /rytia!ae, etc, in &ttica. "o eac# of t#ese correspon!e! a myt#ical ancestor more or less 2nown, an! passing for t#e first fat#er as well as t#e eponymo(s #ero of t#e gens ? 7o!r(s, '(molp(s, /(tes 3#ytal(s, Hesyc#(s, etc.8 ? 9roteFs )Hist. of 9reece,8 iii, GD. 1$ )History of 9reece,8 iii, GD, et se5. 1% )History of 9reece,8 iii, 48, ct se5.

Chapter IX THE GRECIAN PHRATRY, TRIBE AND NATION

"#e p#ratry, as we #a;e seen, was t#e secon! stage of organiBation in t#e 9recian social system. It consiste! of se;eral gentes (nite! for ob:ects, especially religio(s, w#ic# were common to t#em all. It #a! a nat(ral fo(n!ation in t#e bon! of 2in, as t#e gentes in a p#ratry were probably s(b!i;isions of an original gens, a 2nowle!ge of t#e fact #a;ing been preser;e! by tra!ition. )&ll t#e contemporary members of t#e p#ratry of He2atae(s,8 Mr. 9rote remar2s, )#a! a common go! for t#eir ancestor at t#e sixteent# !egree,[1]8 w#ic# co(l! not #a;e been asserte! (nless t#e se;eral gentes comprise! in t#e p#ratry of He2atae(s, were s(ppose! to be !eri;e! by segmentation from an original gens. "#is genealogy, alt#o(g# in part fab(lo(s, wo(l! be trace! accor!ing to gentile (sages. <il2aerc#(s s(ppose! t#at t#e practice of certain gentes in s(pplying eac# ot#er wit# wi;es, le! to t#e p#ratric organiBation for t#e performance of common religio(s rites. "#is is a pla(sible explanation, beca(se s(c# marriages wo(l! intermingle t#e bloo! of t#e gentes. >n t#e contrary, gentes forme!, in t#e co(rse of time, by t#e !i;ision of a gens an! by s(bse5(ent s(b!i;isions, wo(l! gi;e to ail a common lineage, an! form a nat(ral basis for t#eir re?integration in a p#ratry. &s s(c# t#e p#ratry wo(l! be a nat(ral growt#, an! as s(c# only can it be explaine! as a gentile instit(tion. "#e gentes t#(s (nite! were brot#er gentes, an! t#e association itself was a brot#er#oo! as t#e term imports. %tep#an(s of /yBanti(m #as preser;e! a fragment of <i2aearc#(s, in w#ic# an explanation of t#e origin of t#e gens, p#ratry an! tribe is s(ggeste!. It is not f(ll eno(g#, wit# respect to eit#er, to amo(nt to a !efinition; b(t, it is ;al(able as a recognition of t#e t#ree stages of organiBation in ancient 9recian society. He (ses

1G4 patry in t#e place of gens, as 3in!ar !i! in a n(mber of instances, an! Homer occasionally. "#e passage may be ren!ere!: E3atry is one of t#ree forms of social (nion among t#e 9ree2s, accor!ing to <i2aearc#(s, w#ic# we call respecti;ely, patry, p#ratry, an! tribe. "#e patry comes into being w#en relations#ip, originally solitary, passes o;er into t#e secon! stage Mt#e relations#ip of parents wit# c#il!ren an! c#il!ren wit# parents, an! !eri;es its eponym from t#e ol!est an! c#ief member of t#e patry, as &ici!as, 3elopi!as.F )/(t it came to be calle! p#atria an! p#ratria w#en certain ones ga;e t#eir !a(g#ters to be marrie! into anot#er patry. *or t#e woman w#o was gi;en in marriage participate! no longer in #er paternal sacre! rites, b(t was enrolle! in t#e patry of #er #(sban!; so t#at for t#e (nion, formerly s(bsisting by affection between sisters an! brot#ers, t#ere was establis#e! anot#er (nion base! on comm(nity of religio(s rites, w#ic# t#ey !enominate! a p#ratry; an! so t#at again, w#ile t#e patry too2 its rise in t#e way we #a;e pre;io(sly mentione!, from t#e bloo! relation between parents an! c#il!ren an! c#il!ren an! parents, t#e p#ratry too2 its rise from t#e relations#ip between brot#ers.8 )/(t tribe an! tribesmen were so calle! from t#e coalescence into comm(nities an! nations so calle!, for eac# of t#e coalescing bo!ies was calle! a tribe.8[2] It will be notice! t#at marriage o(t of t#e gens is #ere recogniBe! as a c(stom, an! t#at t#e wife was enrolle! to t#e gens, rat#er t#an t#e p#ratry, of #er #(sban!. <i2aearc#(s, w#o was a p(pil of &ristotle, li;e! at a time w#en t#e gens existe! c#iefly as a pe!igree of in!i;i!(als, its powers #a;ing been transferre! to new political bo!ies. He !eri;e! t#e origin of t#e gens from primiti;e times; b(t #is statement t#at t#e p#ratry originate! in t#e matrimonial practices of t#e gentes, w#ile tr(e !o(btless as to t#e practice; is b(t an opinion as to t#e origin of t#e organiBation. Intermarriages, wit# common religio(s rites, wo(l! cement, t#e p#ratric (nion; b(t a more satisfactory fo(n!ation of t#e p#ratry may be fo(n! in t#e common lineage of t#e gentes of w#ic# it was compose!. It m(st be remembere! t#at t#e gentes #a;e a #istory r(nning bac2 t#ro(g# t#e t#ree s(b? perio!s of barbarism into t#e pre;io(s perio! of sa;agery, ante!ating t#e existence e;en of t#e &ryan an! %emitic families. "#e p#ratry #as been s#own to #a;e appeare! among t#e &merican aborigines in t#e ower %tat(s of barbarism; w#ile t#e 9ree2s were familiar wit# so m(c# only of t#eir former #istory as pertaine! to t#e $pper %tat(s of barbarism. Mr. 9rote !oes not attempt to !efine t#e f(nctions of t#e p#ratry, except generally. "#ey were !o(btless of a religio(s c#aracter c#iefly; b(t t#ey probably manifeste! t#emsel;es, as among t#e Iro5(ois, at t#e b(rial of t#e !ea!, at p(blic games, at religio(s festi;als, at co(ncils, an! at t#e agoras of t#e people, w#ere t#e gro(ping of c#iefs an! people wo(l! be by p#ratries rat#er t#an by gentes. It wo(l! also nat(rally s#ow itself in t#e array of t#e military forces, of w#ic# a memorable example is gi;en by Homer in t#e a!!ress of =estor to &gamemnon. [3] )%eparate t#e troops by tribes an! by p#ratries, &gamemnon, so t#at p#ratry may s(pport

1GG p#ratry, an! tribes, tribes. If t#o( wilt t#(s act, an! t#e 9ree2s obey, t#o( wilt t#en ascertain w#ic# of t#e comman!ers an! w#ic# of t#e sol!iers is a cowar!, an! w#ic# of t#em may be bra;e, for t#ey will fig#t t#eir best.8 "#e n(mber from t#e same gens in a military force wo(l! be too small to be ma!e a basis in t#e organiBation of an army; b(t t#e larger aggregations of t#e p#ratries an! tribes wo(l! be s(fficient. "wo t#ings may be inferre! from t#e a!;ice of =estor: first, t#at t#e organiBation of armies by p#ratries an! tribes #a! t#en cease! to be common; an! secon!ly, t#at in ancient times it, #a! been t#e (s(al plan of army organiBation, a 2nowle!ge of w#ic# #a! not t#en !isappeare!. 6e #a;e seen t#at t#e "lascalans an! &Btecs, w#o were in t#e Mi!!le %tat(s of barbarism, organiBe! an! sent o(t t#eir military ban!s by p#ratries w#ic#, in t#eir con!ition, was probably t#e only met#o! in w#ic# a military force co(l! be organiBe!. "#e ancient 9erman tribes organiBe!: t#eir armies for battle on a similar principle. [4] It is interesting to notice #ow closely s#(t in t#e tribes of man2in! #a;e been to t#e t#eory of t#eir social system. "#e obligation of bloo! re;enge; w#ic# was t(rne! at a later !ay into a !(ty of prosec(ting t#e m(r!erer before t#e legal trib(nals, reste! primarily (pon t#e gens of t#e slain person; b(t it was also s#are! in by t#e p#ratry, an! became a p#ratric obligation.[5] In t#e '(meni!es of &esc#yl(s, t#e 'rinnys, after spea2ing of t#e slaying of #is mot#er by >restes, p(t t#e 5(estion: )6#at l(stral water of #is p#rators s#all await #imU8[6] w#ic# seems to imply t#at if t#e criminal escape! p(nis#ment final p(rification was performe! by #is p#ratry instea! of #is gens. Howe;er, t#e extension of t#e obligation from t#e gens to t#e p#ratry implies a common lineage of all t#e gentes in a p#ratry. %ince t#e p#ratry was interme!iate between t#e gens an! t#e tribe, an! not in;este! wit# go;ernmental f(nctions, it was less f(n!amental an! less important t#an eit#er of t#e ot#ers; b(t it was a common, nat(ral an! per#aps necessary stage of re? integration between t#e two. Co(l! an intimate 2nowle!ge of t#e social life of t#e 9ree2s in t#at early perio! be reco;ere!, t#e p#enomena wo(l! centre probably in t#e p#ratric organiBation far more conspic(o(sly t#an o(r scanty recor!s lea! (s to infer. It probably possesse! more power an! infl(ence t#an is (s(ally ascribe! to it, as an organiBation. &mong t#e &t#enians it s(r;i;e! t#e o;ert#row of t#e gentes as t#e basis of a system, an! retaine!, (n!er t#e new political system, some Control o;er t#e registration of citiBens, t#e enrolment of marriages an! t#e prosec(tion of t#e m(r!erer of a p#rator before t#e co(rts. It is c(stomary to spea2 of t#e fo(r &t#enian tribes as !i;i!e! eac# into t#ree p#ratries an! of eac# p#ratry as !i;i!e! into t#irty gentes; b(t t#is is merely for con;enience in !escription. & people (n!er gentile instit(tions !o not !i;i!e t#emsel;es into symmetrical !i;isions an! s(b!i;isions. "#e nat(ral process of t#eir formation was t#e exact re;erse of t#is met#o!; t#e gentes fell into p#ratries, an! (ltimately into tribes, w#ic# re(nite! in a society or a people. 'ac# was a nat(ral growt#. "#at t#e n(mber of gentes in eac# &t#enian p#ratry was t#irty is a remar2able fact incapable of explanation by nat(ral ca(ses. & moti;e s(fficiently powerf(l, s(c# as a !esire for a symmetrical organiBation of t#e p#ratries an! tribes, mig#t lea! to a s(b!i;ision of gentes by consent (ntil t#e n(mber was raise! to

1G7 t#irty in eac# of t#ese p#ratries; an! w#en t#e n(mber in a tribe was in excess, by t#e consoli!ation of 2in!re! gentes (ntil t#e n(mber was re!(ce! to t#irty. & more probable way wo(l! be by t#e a!mission of alien gentes into p#ratries nee!ing an increase of n(mber. Ha;ing a certain n(mber of tribes, p#ratries an! gentes by nat(ral growt#, t#e re!(ction of t#e last two to (niformity in t#e fo(r tribes co(l! t#(s #a;e been sec(re!. >nce cast in t#is n(merical scale of t#irty gentes to a p#ratry an! t#ree p#ratries to a tribe, t#e proportion mig#t easily #a;e been maintaine! for cent(ries, except per#aps as to t#e n(mber of gentes in eac# p#ratry. "#e religio(s life of t#e 9recian tribes #a! its centre an! so(rce in t#e gentes an! p#ratries. It m(st be s(p? pose! t#at, in an! t#ro(g# t#ese organiBations, was perfecte! t#at mar;ello(s polyt#eistic system, wit# its #ierarc#y of go!s, its symbols an! forms of wors#ip, w#ic# impresse! so powerf(lly t#e min! of t#e classical worl!. In no small !egree t#is myt#ology inspire! t#e great ac#ie;ements of t#e legen!ary an! #istorical perio!s, an! create! t#at ent#(siasm w#ic# pro!(ce! t#e temple an! ornamental arc#itect(re in w#ic# t#e mo!ern worl! #as ta2en so m(c# !elig#t. %ome of t#e religio(s rites, w#ic# originate! in t#ese social aggregates, were nationaliBe! from t#e s(perior sanctity t#ey were s(ppose! to possess; t#(s s#owing to w#at extent t#e gentes an! p#ratries were n(rseries of religion. "#e e;ents of t#is extraor!inary perio!, t#e most e;entf(l in many respects in t#e #istory of t#e &ryan family, are lost, in t#e main, to #istory. egen!ary genealogies an! narrati;es, myt#s an! fragments of poetry, concl(!ing wit# t#e Homeric an! Hesio!ic poems, ma2e (p its literary remains. /(t t#eir instit(tions, arts, in;entions, myt#ological system, in a wor! t#e s(bstance of ci;iliBation w#ic# t#ey wro(g#t o(t an! bro(g#t wit# t#em, were t#e legacy t#ey contrib(te! to t#e new society t#ey were !estine! to fo(n!. "#e #istory of t#e perio! may yet be reconstr(cte! from t#ese ;ario(s so(rces of 2nowle!ge, repro!(cing t#e main feat(res of gentile society as t#ey appeare! s#ortly before t#e instit(tion of political society. &s t#e gens #a! its arc#on, w#o officiate! as its priest in t#e religio(s obser;ances of t#e gens, so eac# p#ratry #a! its p#ratriarc#, w#o presi!e! at its meetings, an! officiate! in t#e solemniBation of its religio(s rites. )"#e p#ratry,8 obser;es, M. <e Co(langes, )#a! its assemblies an! its trib(nals, an! co(l! pass !ecrees. In it, as well as in t#e family, t#ere was a go!, a priest#oo!, a legal trib(nal an! a go;ernment.8[7] "#e religio(s rites of t#e p#ratries were an expansion of t#ose of t#e gentes of w#ic# it was compose!. It is in t#ese !irections t#at attention s#o(l! #e t(rne! in or!er to (n!erstan! t#e religio(s life of t#e 9ree2s. =ext in t#e ascen!ing scale of organiBation was t#e tribe, consisting of a n(mber of p#ratries, eac# compose! of gentes. "#e persons in eac# p#ratry were of t#e same common lineage, an! spo2e t#e same !ialect. &mong t#e &t#enians as before state! eac# tribe containe! t#ree p#ratries, w#ic# ga;e to eac# a similar organiBation. "#e tribe correspon!s wit# t#e atin tribe, an! also wit# t#ose of t#e &merican aborigines, an in!epen!ent !ialect for eac# tribe being necessary to ren!er t#e analogy wit# t#e latter complete "#e concentration of s(c# 9recian tribes as #a! coalesce! into a people, in a small area, ten!e! to repress !ialectical ;ariation, w#ic# a s(bse5(ent written lang(age an! literat(re ten!e! still f(rt#er to arrest;

1G8 'ac# tribe from antece!ent #abits, #owe;er, was more or less localiBe! in a fixe! area, t#ro(g# t#e re5(irements of a social system resting on personal relations. It seems probable t#at eac# tribe #a! its co(ncil of c#iefs, s(preme in all matters relating to t#e tribe excl(si;ely. /(t since t#e f(nctions an! powers of t#e general co(ncil of c#iefs, w#o a!ministere! t#e general affairs of t#e (nite! tribes, were allowe! to fall into obsc(rity, it wo(l! not be expecte! t#at t#ose of an inferior an! s(bor!inate co(ncil wo(l! be preser;e!. If s(c# a co(ncil existe!, w#ic# was !o(btless t#e fact from its necessity (n!er t#eir social system; it wo(l! #a;e consiste! of, t#e c#iefs of t#e gentes. 6#en t#e se;eral p#ratries of a tribe (nite! in t#e commemoration of t#eir religio(s obser;ances it was in t#eir #ig#er organic constit(tion as a tribe. &s s(c#, t#ey were (n!er t#e presi!ency, as we fin! it expresse!, of a p#ylo? basile(s, w#o was t#e principal c#ief of t#e tribe. 6#et#er #e acte! as t#eir comman!er in t#e military ser;ice I am (nable to state. He possesse! priestly f(nctions, always in#erent in t#e office of basile(s, an! exercise! a criminal :(ris!iction in cases of m(r!er; w#et#er to try or to prose? c(te a m(r!erer, I am (nable to state. "#e priestly an! :(!icial f(nctions attac#e! to t#e office of basile(s ten! to explain t#e !ignity it ac5(ire! in t#e legen!ary an! #eroic perio!s. /(t t#e absence of ci;il f(nctions, in t#e strict sense of t#e term, of t#e presence of w#ic# we #a;e no satisfactory e;i!ence, is s(fficient to ren!er t#e term 2ing, so constantly employe! in #istory as t#e e5(i;alent of basile(s, a misnomer. &mong t#e &t#enians we #a;e t#e tribe? basile(s, w#ere t#e term is (se! by t#e 9ree2s t#emsel;es as legitimately as w#en applie! to t#e general military comman!er of t#e fo(r (nite! tribes: w#en eac# is !escribe! as a 2ing it ma2es t#e solecism of fo(r tribes eac# (n!er a 2ing separately, an! t#e fo(r tribes toget#er (n!er anot#er 2ing. "#ere is a larger amo(nt of fictitio(s royalty #ere t#an t#e occasion re5(ires. Moreo;er, w#en we 2now t#at t#e instit(tions of t#e &t#enians at t#e time were essentially !emocratical it becomes a caricat(re of 9recian society. It s#ows t#e propriety of ret(rning to simple an! original lang(age, (sing t#e term basile(s w#ere t#e 9ree2s (se! it, an! re:ecting 2ing as a false e5(i;alent. Monarc#y is incompatible wit# gentilism, for t#e reason t#at gentile instit(tions are essentially !emocratical. ';ery gens, p#ratry an! tribe was a completely organiBe! self? go;erning bo!y; an! w#ere se;eral tribes coalesce! into a nation t#e res(lting go;ernment wo(l! be constit(te! in #armony wit# t#e principles animating its constit(ent parts. "#e fo(rt# an! (ltimate stage of organiBation was t#e nation (nite! in a gentile society. 6#ere se;eral tribes, as t#ose of t#e &t#enians an! t#e %partans, coalesce! into one people, it enlarge! t#e society, b(t t#e aggregate was simply a more complex !(plicate of a tribe. "#e tribes too2 t#e same place in t#e nation w#ic# t#e p#ratries #el! in t#e tribe, an! t#e gentes in t#e p#ratry. "#ere was no name for t#e organism[8] w#ic# was simply a society +societas.$ b(t in its place a name sprang (p for t#e people or nation. In HomerFs !escription of t#e forces gat#ere! against "roy, specific names are gi;en to t#ese nations, w#ere s(c# existe!, as &t#enians, &etolians, ocrians; b(t in ot#er cases t#ey are !escribe! by t#e name of t#e city or co(ntry from w#ic# t#ey came. "#e (ltimate fact is t#(s reac#e!, t#at t#e 9ree2s, prior to t#e times of yc(rg(s an! %olon, #a! but t#e fo(r stages of social organiBation +gens, p#ratry, tribe an! nation., w#ic# was so nearly (ni;ersal in

1G, ancient society, an! w#ic# #as been s#own to exist, in part, in t#e %tat(s of sa;agery, an! complete in t#e ower, in t#e Mi!!le an! in t#e $pper %tat(s of barbarism, an! still s(bsisting after ci;iliBation #a! commence!. "#is organic series expresses t#e extent of t#e growt# of t#e i!ea of go;ernment among man2in! !own to t#e instit(tion of political society. %(c# was t#e 9recian social system. It ga;e a society, ma!e (p of a series of aggregates of persons, wit# w#om t#e go;ernment t#ro(g# t#eir personal relations to a gens, p#ratry or tribe. It was also a gentile society as !isting(is#e! form a political society, from w#ic# it was f(n!amentally !ifferent an! easily !isting(is#able. "#e &t#enian nation of t#e #eroic age presents in its go;ernment t#ree !istinct, an! in some sense co?or!inate, !epartments or powers, namely; first t#e co(ncil of c#iefs, secon!, t#e agora, or assembly of people; an! t#ir!, t#e basile(s, or general military comman!er. &lt#o(g# m(nicipal an! s(bor!inate military offices in large n(mber #a! been create!, from t#e increasing necessities of t#eir con!ition, t#e principal powers of t#e go;ernment were #el! by t#e t#ree instr(mentalities name!. I am (nable to !isc(ss in an a!e5(ate manner t#e f(nctions an! powers of t#e co(ncil, t#e agora or t#e basile(s, b(t will content myself wit# a few s(ggestions (pon s(b:ects gra;e eno(g# to !eser;e re?in;estigation at t#e #an!s of professe! Hellenists. 1. The ?ouncil of ?hiefs. "#e office of basile(s in t#e 9recian tribes #as attracte! far more attention t#an eit#er t#e co(ncil or t#e agora. &s a conse5(ence it #as been (n!(ly magnifie! w#ile t#e co(ncil an! t#e agora #a;e eit#er !epreciate! or ignore!. 6e 2now, #owe;er, t#at t#e co(ncil of c#iefs was a constant p#enomenon in e;ery 9recian nation from t#e earliest perio! to w#ic# o(r 2nowle!ge exten!s !own to t#e instit(tion of political society. Its permanence as a feat(re of t#eir social system is concl(si;e e;i!ence t#at its powers, at least pres(mpti;ely, were (ltimately of t#e arc#aic c#aracter an! f(nctions of #e co(ncil of c#iefs (n!er gentile instit(tions, an! form its ;ocation. How it was constit(te! in t#e #eroic age, an! (n!er w#at ten(re t#e office of c#ief was #el!, we are not clearly in forme!; b(t it is a reasonable inference t#at t#e co(ncil was compose! of c#iefs of t#e gentes. %ince t#e n(mber w#o forme! t#e co(ncil was (s(ally less t#an t#e n(mber of gentes, a selection m(st #a;e been ma!e in some way from t#e bo!y of c#iefs. In w#at manner t#e selection was ma!e we are not informe!. "#e ;ocation of t#e co(ncil as a legislati;e bo!y representing t#e principal gentes, an! its nat(ral growt# (n!er t#e gentile organiBation, ren!ere! it s(preme in t#e first instance, an! ma2es it probable t#at it remaine! so to t#e en! of its existence. "#e increasing importance of t#e office of basile(s, an! t#e new offices create! in t#eir military an! m(nicipal affairs wit# t#eir increase in n(mbers an! in wealt#, wo(l! c#ange somew#at t#e relations of t#e co(ncil to p(blic affairs, an! per#aps !iminis# its importance; b(t it co(l! not be o;ert#rown wit#o(t a ra!ical c#ange of instit(tions. It seems probable, t#erefore, t#at e;ery office of t#e go;ernment, from t#e #ig#est to t#e lowest, remaine! acco(ntable to t#e co(ncil for t#eir official acts. "#e co(ncil was f(n!amental in t#eir social system. [9] an! t#e 9ree2s of t#e perio! were free self?go;erning peoples, (n!er instit(tions essentially !emocratical. & single ill(stration of t#e existence of t#e co(ncil may be gi;en from &esc#yl(s, simply to 2now t#at in t#e 9ree2 conception it was always present an! rea!y to act.

17H In The Seven against$ Thebes$ 'teocles is represente! in comman! of t#e city, an! #is brot#er 3olynices as one of t#e se;en c#iefs w#o #a! in;este! t#e place. "#e assa(lt was repelle!, b(t t#e brot#ers fell in a personal combat at one of t#e gates. &fter t#is occ(rrence a #eral! says: )It is necessary for me to anno(nce t#e !ecree an! goo! pleas(re of t#e co(ncillors of t#e people of t#is city of Ca!m(s. It, is resol;e!, etc. [10] & co(ncil w#ic# can ma2e an! prom(lgate a !egree at any moment, w#ic# t#e people are expecte! to obey, possesses t#e s(preme powers of go;ernment. &esc#yl(s, alt#o(g# !ealing in t#is case wit# e;ents in t#e legen!ary perio!, recogniBes t#e co(ncil of c#iefs as a necessary part of t#e system of go;ernment of e;ery 9recian people. "#e bo(clX of ancient 9recian society was t#e prototype an! pattern of t#e senate (n!er t#e s(bse5(ent political system of t#e state. II. The Agora. &lt#o(g# an assembly of t#e people became establis#e! in t#e legen!ary perio!, wit# a recogniBe! power to a!opt or re:ect p(blic meas(res s(bmitte! by t#e co(ncil, it is not as ancient as t#e co(ncil. "#e latter came in at t#e instit(tion of t#e gentes; b(t it is !o(btf(l w#et#er t#e agora existe!, wit# t#e f(nctions =ame!, bac2 of t#e $pper %tat(s of barbarism. It #as been s#own t#at among t#e Iro5(ois, in t#e ower %tat(s, t#e people presente! t#eir wis#es to t#e co(ncil of c#iefs t#ro(g# orators of t#eir own selection, an! t#at a pop(lar infl(ence was felt in t#e affairs of t#e confe!eracy; b(t an assembly of t#e people, wit# t#e rig#t to a!opt or re:ect p(blic meas(res, wo(l! e;ince an amo(nt of progress in intelligence an! 2nowle!ge beyon! t#e Iro5(ois. 6#en t#e agora first appears, as represente! in Homer, an! in t#e 9ree2 "rage!ies, it #a! t#e same c#aracteristics w#ic# it, afterwar!s maintaine! in t#e ecclesia of t#e &t#enians, an! in t#e comitia curiata of t#e 0omans. It was t#e prerogati;e of t#e co(ncil of c#iefs to mat(re p(blic meas(res, an! t#en s(bmit t#em to t#e assembly of t#e people for acceptance or re:ection, an! t#eir !ecision was final. "#e f(nctions of t#e agora were limite! to t#is single act. It co(l! neit#er originate meas(res, nor interfere in t#e a!ministration of affairs; b(t ne;ert#eless it was a s(bstantial power, eminently a!apte! to t#e protection of t#eir liberties. In t#e #eroic age certainly, an! far bac2 in t#e legen!ary perio!, t#e agora is a constant p#enomenon among t#e 9recian tribes, an!, in connection wit# t#e co(ncil, is concl(si;e e;i!ence of t#e !emocratical constit(tion of gentile society t#ro(g#o(t t#ese perio!s. & p(blic sentiment, as we #a;e reason to s(ppose, was create! among t#e people on all important 5(estions, t#ro(g# t#e exercise of t#eir intelligence, w#ic# t#e co(ncil of c#iefs fo(n! it !esirable as well as necessary to cons(lt, bot# for t#e p(blic goo! an! for t#e maintenance of t#eir own a(t#ority. &fter #earing t#e s(bmitte! 5(estion !isc(sse!, t#e assembly of t#e people, w#ic# was free to all w#o !esire! to spea2 ma!e t#eir !ecision in ancient times (s(ally by a s#ow of #an!s. [12] "#ro(g# participation in p(blic affairs, w#ic# affecte! t#e interests of all, t#e people were constantly learning t#e art of self?go;ernment, an! a portion of t#em, as t#e &t#enians, were preparing t#emsel;es for t#e f(ll !emocracy s(bse5(ently establis#e! by t#e constit(tions of Cleist#enes. "#e assembly of t#e people to !eliberate (pon p(blic 5(estions, not infre5(ently !eri!e! as a mob by writers w#o were (nable to (n!erstan! or appreciate t#e principle of !emocracy, was t#e germ of t#e ecclesia of t#e &t#enians, an! of t#e lower #o(se of mo!ern legislati;e

171 bo!ies. III. The Basileus. "#is officer became a conspic(o(s c#aracter in t#e 9recian society of t#e #eroic age, an! was e5(ally prominent in t#e legen!ary perio!. He #as been place! by #istorians in t#e centre of t#e system. "#e name of t#e office was (se! by t#e best 9recian writers to c#aracteriBe t#e go;ernment, w#ic# was style! a basileia. Mo!ern writers, almost wit#o(t exception, translate basile(s by t#e term +ing$ an! basileia by t#e term +ingdom$ wit#o(t 5(alification, an! as exact e5(i;alents, I wis# to call attention to t#is office of basile(s, as it existe! in t#e 9recian tribes, an! to 5(estion t#e correctness of t#is interpretation. "#ere is no similarity w#ate;er between t#e basileia of t#e ancient &t#enians an! t#e mo!ern 2ing!om or monarc#y; certainly not eno(g# to :(stify t#e (se of t#e same term to !escribe bot#. >(r i!ea of a 2ingly go;ernment is essentially of a type in w#ic# a 2ing, s(rro(n!e! by a pri;ilege! an! title! class in t#e owners#ip an! possession of t#e lan!s, r(les accor!ing to #is own will an! pleas(re by e!icts an! !ecrees; claiming an #ere!itary rig#t to r(le, beca(se #e cannot allege t#e consent of t#e go;erne!. %(c# go;ernments #a;e been self?impose! t#ro(g# t#e principle of #ere!itary rig#t, to w#ic# t#e priest#oo! #a;e so(g#t to s(per?a!! a !i;ine rig#t. "#e "(!or 2ings of 'nglan! an! t#e /o(rbon 2ings of *rance are ill(strations. Constit(tional monarc#y is a mo!ern !e;elopment, an! essentially !ifferent from t#e basileia of t#e 9ree2s. "#e basileia was neit#er an absol(te nor a constit(tional monarc#y; neit#er was it a tyranny or a !espotism. "#e 5(estion t#en is, w#at was it. Mr. 9rote claims t#at )t#e primiti;e 9recian go;ernment is essentially monarc#ical, reposing on personal feeling an! !i;ine rig#t;8 [13] an! to confirm t#is ;iew #e remar2s f(rt#er, t#at t#e memorable !ict(m in t#e Ilia! is borne o(t by all t#at we #ear in act(al practice; )t#e r(le of many is not a goo! t#ing; let (s #a;e one r(ler only ? one 2ing ? #im to w#om Ke(s #as gi;en t#e sceptre, wit# t#e t(telary sanctions.8[14] "#is opinion is not pec(liar to Mr. 9rote, w#ose eminence as a #istorian all !elig#t to recogniBe; b(t it #as been stea!ily an! generally affirme! by #istorical writers on 9recian t#emes, (ntil it #as come to be accepte! as #istorical tr(t#. >(r ;iews (pon 9recian an! 0oman 5(estions #a;e been mo(l!e! by writers acc(stome! to monarc#ical go;ernment an! pri;ilege! classes, w#o were per#aps. gla! to appeal to t#e earliest 2nown go;ernments of t#e 9recian tribes for a sanction of t#is form of go;ernment, as at once nat(ral, essential an! primiti;e. "#e tr(e statement, as it seems to an &merican, is precisely t#e re;erse of Mr. 9roteFs; namely, t#at t#e primiti;e 9recian go;ernment was essentially !emocratical, reposing on gentes, p#ratries an! tribes, organiBe! as selfF? go;erning bo!ies, an! on t#e principles of liberty, e5(ality an! fraternity. "#is is borne o(t by all we 2now of t#e gentile organiBation, w#ic# #as been s#own to rest on principles essentially !emocratical. "#e 5(estion t#en is, w#et#er t#e office of basile(s passe! in reality from fat#er to son by #ere!itary rig#t; w#ic#, if tr(e, wo(l! ten! to s#ow a s(b;ersion of t#ese principles. 6e #a;e seen t#at in t#e ower %tat(s of barbarism t#e office of c#ief was #ere!itary in a gens, by w#ic# is meant t#at t#e ;acancy was fille! from t#e members of t#e gens as often as it occ(rre!. 6#ere !escent was in t#e female line, as among t#e Iro5(ois, an own brot#er was (s(ally selecte! to s(ccee! t#e !ecease! c#ief, an! w#ere !escent was in t#e male line, as

17D among t#e >:ibwas an! >ma#as, t#e ol!est son. In t#e absence of ob:ections to t#e person s(c# became t#e r(le; b(t t#e electi;e principle remaine!, w#ic# was t#e essence of self?go;ernment. It cannot be claime!, on satisfactory proof, t#at t#e ol!est son of t#e basile(s too2 t#e office, (pon t#e !emise of #is fat#er, by absol(te #ere!itary rig#t. "#is is t#e essential fact; an! it re5(ires concl(si;e proof for its establis#ment. "#e fact t#at t#e ol!est, or one of t#e sons, (s(ally s(ccee!e!, w#ic# is a!mitte!, !oes not establis# t#e fact in 5(estion; beca(se by (sage #e was in t#e probable line of s(ccession by a free election from a constit(ency. "#e pres(mption, on t#e face of 9recian instit(tions, is against s(ccession to t#e office of basile(s by #ere!itary rig#t; an! in fa;o(r eit#er of a free election, or of a confirmation of t#e office by t#e people t#ro(g# t#eir recogniBe! organiBations, as in t#e case of t#e 0oman rex. [15] 6it# t#e office of basile(s transmitte! in t#e manner last name!, t#e go;ernment wo(l! remain in t#e #an!s of t#e people. /eca(se wit#o(t an election or confirmation #e co(l! not ass(me t#e office; an! beca(se f(rt#er, t#e power to elect or confirm implies t#e reser;e! rig#t to !epose. "#e ill(stration of Mr. 9rote, !rawn from t#e Ilia!, is wit#o(t significance on t#e 5(estion ma!e. $lysses, from w#ose a!!ress t#e 5(otation is ta2en, was spea2ing of t#e comman! of an army before a besiege! city. He mig#t well say: )&ll t#e 9ree2s cannot by any means r(le #ere. "#e r(le of many is not a goo! t#ing. et (s #a;e one 2oiranos, one basile(s, to w#om Ke(s #as gi;en t#e sceptre, an! t#e !i;ine sanctions in or!er t#at #e may comman! (s.8 7oiranos an! basile(s are (se! as e5(i;alents, beca(se bot# ali2e signifie! a general military comman!er. "#ere was no occasion for $lysses to !isc(ss or en!orse any plan of go;ernment; b(t #e #a! s(fficient reasons for a!;ocating obe!ience to a single comman!er of t#e army before a besiege! city. /asileia may be !efine! as a military !emocracy, t#e people being free, an! t#e spirit of t#e go;ernment, w#ic# is t#e essential t#ing, being !emocratical. "#e basile(s was t#eir general, #ol!ing t#e #ig#est, t#e most infl(ential an! t#e most important office 2nown to t#eir social system. *or t#e want of a better term to !escribe t#e go;ernment, basileia was a!opte! by 9recian writers, beca(se it carrie! t#e i!ea of a general s#ip w#ic# #a! t#en become a conspic(o(s feat(re in t#e go;ernment. 6it# t#e co(ncil an! t#e agora bot# existing wit# t#e basile(s, if a more special !efinition of t#is form of go;ernment is re5(ire!, military !emocracy expresses it wit# at least reasonable correctness; w#ile t#e (se of t#e term 2ing!om, wit# t#e meaning it necessarily con;eys, wo(l! be a misnomer. In t#e #eroic age t#e 9recian tribes were li;ing in walle! cities, an! were becoming n(mero(s an! wealt#y t#ro(g# fiel! agric(lt(re, man(fact(ring in!(stries, an! floc2s an! #er!s. =ew offices were re5(ire!, as well as some !egree of separation of t#eir f(nctions; an! a new m(nicipal system was growing (p apace wit# t#eir increasing intelligence an! necessities. It was also a perio! of incessant military strife for t#e possession of t#e most !esirable areas. &long wit# t#e increase of property t#e aristocratic element in society (n!o(bte!ly increase!, an! was t#e c#ief ca(se of t#ose !ist(rbances w#ic# pre;aile! in &t#enian society from t#e time of "#ese(s to t#e times of %olon an! Cleist#enes. <(ring t#is perio!, an! (ntil t#e final abolition of t#e office some time before t#e first >lympia!, +77G /.C.. t#e

17A basile(s, from t#e c#aracter of #is office an! from t#e state of t#e times, became more prominent an! more powerf(l t#an any single person in t#eir pre;io(s experience. "#e f(nctions of a priest an! of a :(!ge were attac#e! to or in#erent in #is office; an! #e seems to #a;e been e" officio a member of t#e co(ncil of c#iefs. It was a great as well as a necessary office, wit# t#e powers of a general o;er t#e army in t#e fiel!, an! o;er t#e garrison in t#e city, w#ic# ga;e #im t#e means of ac5(iring infl(ence in ci;il affairs as well. /(t it !oes not appear t#at #e possesse! ci;il f(nctions. 3rof. Mason remar2s, t#at )o(r information respecting t#e 9recian 2ings in t#e more #istorical age is not ample or min(te eno(g# to enable (s to !raw o(t a !etaile! sc#eme of t#eir f(nctions.8 "#e military an! priestly f(nctions of t#e basile(s are tolerably well (n!erstoo!, t#e :(!icial imperfectly, an! t#e ci;il f(nctions cannot properly be sai! to #a;e existe!. "#e powers of s(c# an office (n!er gentile instit(tions wo(l! gra!(ally become !efine! by t#e (sage of experience, b(t wit# a constant ten!ency in t#e basile(s to ass(me new ones !angero(s to society. %ince t#e co(ncil of c#iefs remaine! as a constit(ent element of t#e go;ernment, it may be sai! to #a;e represente! t#e !emocratic principles of t#eir social system, as well as t#e gentes, w#ile t#e basile(s soon came to represent t#e aristocratic principle. It is probable t#at a perpet(al str(ggle was maintaine! between t#e co(ncil an! t#e basile(s, to #ol! t#e latter wit#in t#e limits of powers t#e people were willing to conce!e to t#e office. Moreo;er, t#e abolition of t#e office by t#e &t#enians ma2es it probable t#at t#ey fo(n! t#e office (nmanageable, an! incompatible wit# gentile instit(tions, from t#e ten!ency to (s(rp a!!itional powers. &mong t#e %partan tribes t#e ep#oralty was instit(te! at a ;ery early perio! to limit t#e powers of t#e basile(s in conse5(ence of a similar experience. &lt#o(g# t#e f(nctions of t#e co(ncil in t#e Homeric an! t#e legen!ary perio!s are not acc(rately 2nown, its constant presence is e;i!ence s(fficient t#at its powers were real, essential an! permanent. 6it# t#e sim(ltaneo(s existence of t#e agora, an! in t#e absence of proof of a c#ange of instit(tions, we are le! to t#e concl(sion t#at t#e co(ncil, (n!er establis#e! (sages, was s(preme o;er gentes, p#ratries, tribes an! nation, an! t#at t#e basile(s was amenable to t#is co(ncil for #is official acts. "#e free!om of t#e gentes, of w#om t#e members of t#e co(ncil were representati;es, pres(pposes t#e in!epen!ence of t#e co(ncil, as well as its s(premacy. "#(cy!i!es refers inci!entally to t#e go;ernments of t#e tra!itionary perio!, as follows: E=ow w#en t#e 9ree2s were becoming more powerf(l, an! ac5(iring possession of property still more t#an before, many tyrannies were establis#e! in t#e cities, from t#eir re;en(es becoming greater; w#ereas before t#ere #a! been #ere!itary basileia wit# specifie! powers.F[17] "#e office was #ere!itary in t#e sense of perpet(al beca(se it was fille! as often as a ;acancy occ(rre!, b(t probably #ere!itary in a gens, t#e c#oice being by a free election by #is gennetes, or by nomination possibly by t#e co(ncil, an! confirmation by t#e gentes, as in t#e case of t#e rex of t#e 0omans. &ristotle #as gi;en t#e most satisfactory !efinition of t#e basileia an! of t#e basile(s of t#e #eroic perio! of any of t#e 9recian writers. "#ese t#en are t#e fo(r 2in!s of basileia #e remar2s: t#e first is t#at of t#e #eroic times, w#ic# was a

17go;ernment o;er a free people, wit# restricte! rig#ts in some partic(lars; for t#e basile(s was t#eir general, t#eir :(!ge an! t#eir c#ief priest. The second$ t#at of t#e barbarians w#ic# is an #ere!itary !espotic go;ernment; reg(late! by laws; t#e t#ir! is t#at w#ic# t#ey call &esymnetic, w#ic# is an elective tyranny. "#e fo(rt# is t#e ace!aemonian, w#ic# is not#ing more t#an an #ere!itary generals#ip. [18] 6#ate;er may be sai! of t#e last t#ree forms, t#e first !oes not answer to t#e i!ea of a 2ing!om of t#e absol(te type, nor to any recogniBable form of monarc#y &ristotle en(merates wit# stri2ing clearness t#e principal f(nctions of t#e basile(s, neit#er of w#ic# imply ci;il powers, an! all of w#ic# are consistent wit# an office for life, #el! by an electi;e ten(re, "#ey are also consistent wit# #is entire s(bor!ination to t#e co(ncil of c#iefs. "#e Erestricte! rig#ts,F an! t#e Especifie! powersF in t#e !efinitions of t#ese a(t#ors, ten! to s#ow t#at t#e go;ernment #a! grown into t#is form in #armony wit#, as well as (n!er, gentile instit(tions. "#e essential element in t#e !efinition of &ristotle is t#e free!om of t#e people, w#ic# in ancient society implies t#at t#e people #el! t#e powers of t#e go;ernment (n!er t#eir control, t#at t#e office of basile(s was ;ol(ntarily bestowe!, an! t#at it co(l! be recalle! for s(fficient ca(se. %(c# a go;ernment as t#at !escribe! by &ristotle can be (n!erstoo! as a military !emocracy, w#ic#, as a form of go;ernment (n!er free instit(tions, grew nat(rally o(t of t#e gentile organiBation w#ic# t#e military spirit was !ominant, w#en wealt# an! n(mbers appeare!, wit# #abit(al life in fortifie! cities, an! before experience #a! prepare! t#e way for a p(re !emocracy. $n!er gentile instit(tions, wit# a people compose! of gentes, p#ratries an! tribes, eac# organiBe! as in!epen!ent self?go;erning bo!ies, t#e people wo(l! necessarily be free, "#e r(le of a 2ing by #ere!itary rig#t an! wit#o(t !irect acco(ntability in s(c# a society was simply impossible. "#e impossibility arises from t#e fact t#at gentile instit(tions are incompatible wit# a 2ing or wit# a 2ingly go;ernment. It wo(l! re5(ire, w#at I t#in2 cannot be f(rnis#e!, positi;e proof of absol(te #ere!itary rig#t in t#e office of basile(s, wit# t#e presence of ci;il f(nctions, to o;ercome t#e pres(mption w#ic# arises from t#e str(ct(re an! principles of ancient? 9recian society. &n 'nglis#man, (n!er #is constit(tional monarc#y, is as free as an &merican (n!er t#e rep(blic, an! #is rig#ts an! liberties are as well protecte!; b(t #e owes t#at free!om an! protection to a bo!y of written laws, create! by legislation an! enforce! by co(rts of :(stice. In ancient 9recian society, (sages an! c(stoms s(pplie! t#e place of written laws, an! t#e person !epen!e! for #is free!om an! protection (pon t#e instit(tions of #is social system. His safeg(ar! was pre?eminently in s(c# instit(tions as t#e electi;e ten(re of office implies. "#e reges of t#e 0omans were, in li2e manner, military comman!ers, wit# priestly f(nctions attac#e! to t#eir office; an! t#is so?calle! 2ingly go;ernment falls into t#e same category of a military !emocracy. "#e rex, as before state!, was nominate! by t#e senate, an! confirme! by t#e comitia curiata2 an! t#e last of t#e n(mber was !epose!. 6it# #is !eposition t#e office was abolis#e!, as incompatible wit# w#at remaine! of t#e !emocratic principle, after t#e instit(tion of 0oman political society. "#e nearest analog(es of 2ing!oms among t#e 9recian tribes were t#e tyrannies, w#ic# sprang (p #ere an! t#ere, in t#e early perio!, in !ifferent parts of 9reece.

174 "#ey were go;ernments impose! by force, an! t#e power claime! was no greater t#an t#at of t#e fe(!al 2ings of me!iae;al times. & transmission of t#e office from fat#er to son t#ro(g# a few generations in or!er to s(per?a!! #ere!itary rig#t was nee!e! to complete t#e analogy. /(t s(c# go;ernments were so inconsistent wit# 9recian i!eas, an! so alien to t#eir !emocratic instit(tions, t#at none of t#em obtaine! a permanent footing in 9reece. Mr. 9rote remar2s t#at )it any energetic man co(l! by a(!acity or craft brea2 !own t#e constit(tion an! ren!er #imself permanent r(ler accor!ing to #is own will an! pleas(re ? e;en t#o(g# #e mig#t r(le well ? #e could ne;er inspire t#e people wit# any sentiment of !(ty towar!s #im. His sceptre was illegitimate from t#e beginning, an! e;en the ta+ing of #is life, far from being inter!icte! by t#at moral feeling w#ic# con!emne! t#e s#e!!er of bloo! in ot#er cases, was consi!ere! meritorio(s.8 [19] 1t was not so m(c# t#e illegitimate sceptre w#ic# aro(se! t#e #ostility of t#e 9ree2s, as t#e antagonism of !emocratical wit# monarc#ical i!eas, t#e former of w#ic# were in#erite! from t#e gentes. 6#en t#e &t#enians establis#e! t#e new political system, fo(n!e! (pon territory an! (pon property, t#e go;ernment was a p(re !emocracy. It was no new t#eory, or special in;ention of t#e &t#enian min!, b(t an ol! an! familiar system, wit# an anti5(ity as great as t#at of t#e gentes t#emsel;es. <emocratic i!eas #a! existe! in t#e 2nowle!ge an! practice of t#eir forefat#ers from time immemorial, an! now fo(n! expression in a more elaborate, an! in many respects, in an impro;e! go;ernment. "#e false element, t#at of aristocracy, w#ic# #a! penetrate! t#e system an! create! m(c# of t#e strife in t#e transitional perio! connecte! itself wit# t#e office of basile(s, an! remaine! after t#is office was abolis#e!; b(t t#e new system accomplis#e! its o;ert#row. More s(ccessf(lly t#an t#e remaining 9recian tribes, t#e &t#enians were able to carry forwar! t#eir i!eas of go;ernment to t#eir logical res(lt. It is one reason w#y t#ey became, for t#eir n(mbers, t#e most !isting(is#e!, t#e most intellect(al an! t#e most accomplis#e! race of men t#e entire #(man family #as yet pro!(ce!. In p(rely intellect(al ac#ie;ements t#ey are still t#e astonis#ment of man2in!. It was beca(se t#e i!eas w#ic# #a! been germinating t#ro(g# t#e pre;io(s et#nical perio!, an! w#ic# #a! become interwo;en wit# e;ery fibre of t#eir brains, #a! fo(n! a #appy fr(ition in a !emocratically constit(te! state. $n!er its life?gi;ing imp(lses t#eir #ig#est mental !e;elopment occ(rre!. "#e plan of go;ernment instit(te! by Cleist#enes re:ecte! t#e office of a c#ief exec(ti;e magistrate, w#ile it retaine! t#e co(ncil of c#iefs in an electi;e senate, an! t#e agora in t#e pop(lar assembly. It is e;i!ent t#at t#e co(ncil, t#e agora an! t#e basile(s of t#e gentes were t#e germs of t#e senate, t#e pop(lar assembly, an! t#e c#ief exec(ti;e magistrate +2ing, emperor an! presi!ent. of mo!ern political society. "#e latter office sprang from t#e military necessities of organiBe! society, an! its !e;elopment wit# t#e (pwar! progress of man2in! is instr(cti;e. It can be trace! from t#e common war?c#ief, first to t#e 9reat 6ar %ol!ier, as in t#e Iro5(ois Confe!eracy; secon!ly, to t#e same military comman!er in a confe!eracy of tribes more a!;ance!, wit# t#e f(nctions of a priest attac#e! to t#e office, as t#e "e(ctli of t#e &Btec Confe!eracy; t#ir!ly, to t#e same military comman!er in a nation forme! by a coalescence of tribes, wit# t#e f(nctions of a priest an! of a :(!ge

17G attac#e! to t#e office, as in t#e basile(s of t#e 9ree2s; an! finally, to t#e c#ief magistrate in mo!ern political society. "#e electi;e arc#on of t#e &t#enians, w#o s(ccee!e! t#e basile(s, an! t#e presi!ent of mo!ern rep(blics, from t#e electi;e ten(re of t#e office were t#e nat(ral o(tcome of gentilism. 6e are in!ebte! to t#e experience of barbarians for instit(ting an! !e;eloping t#e t#ree principal instr(mentalities of go;ernment now so generally incorporate! in t#e plan of go;ernment in ci;iliBe! states. "#e #(man min!, specifically t#e same in all in!i;i!(als in all t#e tribes an! nations of man2in!, an! limite! in t#e range of its powers, wor2s an! m(st wor2, in t#e same (niform c#annels, an! wit#in narrow limits of ;ariation. Its res(lts in !isconnecte! regions of space, an! in wi!ely separate! ages of time, artic(late in a logically connecte! c#ain of common experiences. In t#e gran! aggregate may still be recogniBe! t#e few primary germs of t#o(g#t, wor2ing (pon primary #(man necessities, w#ic#, t#ro(g# t#e nat(ral process of !e;elopment, #a;e pro!(ce! s(c# ;ast res(lts.

Footnotes
1 )History of 9reece,8 iii, 48. ! 6ac#sm(t#Fs )Historical &nti5(ities of t#e 9ree2s,8 1. c., i, --,, app. for text. " )Ilia!,8 ii, AGD. -?"acit(s, )9ermania,8 cap. ;ii. $ 9roteFs )History of 9reece,8 iii, 44. "#e Co(rt of &reopag(s too2 :(ris!iction o;er #omici!es.? lb., iii, 7,. % )'(m.,8 G4G. & )"#e &ncient City,8 %mallFs "rans., p, 147. /oston, ee & %#epar!. ' &ristot1e, "#(cy!i!es, an! ot#er writers, (se t#e term basileia for t#e go;ernments of t#e #eroic perio!; ( <ionysi(s, D, xii. 1) &esc#yl(s. )"#e %e;en against "#ebes,8 1HH4. 11 '(ripi!es, )>restes,8 88-. 1! &esc#yl(s, )"#e %(ppliants,8 GH7. 1" )History of 9reece,8 ii, G,. 1# )History of 9reece,8 ii, G,, an! )Ilia!,8 ii, DH-. 1$ Mr. 9la!stone, w#o presents to #is rea!ers t#e 9recian c#iefs of t#e #eroic age as 2ings an! princes, wit# t#e s(pera!!e! 5(alities of gentlemen, is force! to a!mit t#at )on t#e w#ole, we seem to #a;e t#e c(stom or law of primogenit(re s(fficiently, b(t not o;er? s#arply !efine!.8 ? )C(;ent(s M(n!i,8 ittle an /rownFs e!, p. -D8. 1% %mit#Fs <ic., &rt. 0ex,F p. ,,1.

177
1& )"#(cy!i!es,8 i, 1A. 1' &ristotle, )3olitics,8 iii, c, x. 1( )History of 9reece,8 ii, G1, an! see G,.

Chapter X THE INSTITUTION OF GRECIAN POLITICAL SOCIETY

"#e se;eral 9recian comm(nities passe! t#ro(g# a s(bstantially similar experience in transferring t#emsel;es from gentile into political society; b(t t#e mo!e of transition can be best ill(strate! from &t#enian #istory, beca(se t#e facts wit# respect to t#e &t#enians are more f(lly preser;e!. & bare o(tline of t#e material e;ents will answer t#e ob:ect in ;iew, as it is not propose! to follow t#e growt# of i!ea of go;ernment beyon! t#e ina(g(ration of t#e new political system. It is e;i!ent t#at t#e fail(re of gentile instit(tions to meet t#e now complicate wants of society originate! t#e mo;ement to wit#!raw all ci;il powers from t#e gentes, p#ratries an! tribes, an! re?in;est, t#em in new constit(ency. "#is mo;ement was gra!(al, exten!ing t#ro(g# a long perio! of time, an! was embo!ie! in a series of s(ccessi;e experiments by means of w#ic# a reme!y was so(g#t for existing e;ils. "#e coming in of t#e new system was as gra!(al as t#e going o(t of t#e ol!, t#e two for a part of t#e time existing si!e by si!e. In t#e c#aracter an! ob:ects of t#e experiments trie! we may !isco;er w#erein t#e gentile organiBation #a! faile! to meet t#e re5(irements of society, t#e necessity for t#e s(b;ersion of t#e gentes, p#ratries an! tribes as so(rces of power, an! t#e means by w#ic# it was accomplis#e!. oo2ing bac2war! (pon t#e line of #(man progress, it may be remar2e! t#at, t#e stoc2a!e! ;illage was t#e (s(al #ome of t#e tribe in t#e ower %tat(s of barbarism. In t#e Mi!!le %tat(s :oint?tenement #o(ses of a!obe?bric2s an! of stone, in t#e nat(re of fortresses, ma2e t#eir appearance. /(t in t#e $pper %tat(s, cities s(rro(n!e! wit# ring emban2ments, an! finally wit# walls of !resse! stone, appear for t#e first time in #(man experience. It was a great step forwar! w#en t#e t#o(g#t fo(n! expression in action of s(rro(n!ing an area ample for a consi!erable pop(lation wit# a !efensi;e wall of !resse! stone, wit# towers, parapets an! gates, !esigne! to protect all ali2e an! to be !efen!e! by t#e common strengt#. Cities of t#is gra!e imply t#e existence of a stable an! !e;elope! fiel! agric(lt(re, t#e possession of !omestic animals in floc2s an! #er!s, of merc#an!ise in masses an! of property in #o(ses an! lan!. "#e city bro(g#t wit# it new !eman!s in t#e art of go;ernment by creating a c#ange! con!ition of society. & necessity gra!(ally arose for magistrates an!, :(!ges, military an! m(nicipal officers of !ifferent gra!es, wit# a mo!e of raising an! s(pporting military le;ies w#ic# wo(l! re5(ire p(blic re;en(es. M(nicipal life an! wants m(st #a;e greatly a(gmente! t#e !(ties an! responsibilities of t#e co(ncil of c#iefs, an! per#aps #a;e o;ertaxe! its capacity to go;ern.

178 It #as been s#own t#at in t#e ower %tat(s of barbarism t#e go;ernment was of one power, t#e co(ncil of c#iefs; t#at in t#e Mi!!le %tat(s it was of two powers, t#e co(ncil of c#iefs an! t#e military comman!er; an! t#at in t#e $pper %tat(s it was of t#ree powers, t#e co(ncil of c#iefs, t#e assembly of t#e people an! t#e military comman!er, /(t after t#e commencement of ci;iliBation, t#e !ifferentiation of t#e powers of t#e go;ernment #a! procee!e! still f(rt#er. "#e military power, first: !e;ol;e! (pon t#e basile(s, was now exercise! by generals an! captains (n!er greater restrictions. /y a f(rt#er !ifferentiation t#e :(!icial power #a! now appeare! among t#e &t#enians. It was exercise! by t#e arc#ons an! !icasts. Magisterial powers were now being !e;ol;e! (pon m(nicipal magistrates. %tep by step, an! wit# t#e progress of experience an! a!;ancement, t#ese se;eral powers #a! been ta2en by !ifferentiation from t#e s(m of t#e powers of t#e original co(ncil of c#iefs, so far as t#ey co(l! be sai! to #a;e passe! from t#e people into t#is co(ncil as a representati;e bo!y. "#e creation of t#ese m(nicipal offices was a necessary conse5(ence of t#e increasing magnit(!e an! complexity of t#eir affairs. $n!er t#e increase! b(r!en gentile instit(tions were brea2ing !own. $nn(mbere! !isor!ers existe!, bot# from t#e conflict, of a(t#ority, an! from t#e ab(se of powers not as yet well !efine!. "#e brief an! masterly s2etc# by "#(cy!i!es of t#e con!ition of t#e 9recian tribes in t#e transitional perio!, an! t#e conc(rrent testimony of ot#er writers to t#e same effect, lea;e no !o(bt t#at t#e ol! system of go;ernment was failing; an! t#at a new one #a! become essential to f(rt#er progress. & wi!er !istrib(tion of t#e powers of t#e go;ernment, a clearer !efinition of t#em, an! a stricter acco(ntability of official persons were nee!e! for t#e welfare as well as safety of society; an! more especially t#e s(bstit(tion of written laws, enacte! by competent a(t#ority, in t#e place of (sages an! c(stoms. It was t#ro(g# t#e experimental 2nowle!ge gaine! in t#is an! t#e pre;io(s et#nical perio! t#at t#e i!ea of political society or a state was gra!(ally forming in t#e 9recian min!. It was a growt# r(nning t#ro(g# cent(ries of time, from t#e first appearance of a necessity for a c#ange in t#e plan of go;ernment, before t#e entire res(lt was realiBe!. "#e first attempt among t#e &t#enians to s(b;ert t#e gentile organiBation an!, establis# a new system is ascribe! to "#ese(s, an! t#erefore rests (pon tra!ition; b(t certain facts remaine! to t#e #istorical perio! w#ic# confirm some part at least of #is s(ppose! legislation. It will be s(fficient to regar! "#ese(s as representing a perio!, or a series of e;ents. *rom t#e time of Cecrops to "#ese(s, accor!ing to "#(cy!i!es, t#e &ttic people #a! always li;e! in cities, #a;ing t#eir own prytane(ms an! arc#ons, an! w#en not in fear of !anger !i! not cons(lt t#eir basile(s, b(t go;erne! t#eir own affairs separately accor!ing to t#eir own co(ncils. /(t w#en "#ese(s was ma!e?basile(s, #e pers(a!e! t#em to brea2 (p t#e co(ncil? #o(ses an! magistracies of t#eir se;eral cities an! come into relation wit# &t#ens, wit# one co(ncil?#o(se +bouleuterios.$ an! one prytane(m, to w#ic# all were consi!ere! as belonging.[2] "#is statement embo!ies or implies a n(mber of important facts, namely, t#at t#e &ttic pop(lation were organiBe! in in!epen!ent tribes, eac# #a;ing its own territory in w#ic# t#e people were localiBe!, wit# its own co(ncil?#o(se an! prytane(m; an! t#at w#ile t#ey were self?go;erning societies t#ey were probably confe!erate! for m(t(al protection, an! electe! t#eir

17, basile(s or general to comman! t#eir common forces. It is a pict(re of comm(nities !emocratically organiBe!, nee!ing a military comman!er as a necessity of t#eir con!ition, b(t not in;este! wit# ci;il f(nctions w#ic# t#eir gentile system excl(!e!. $n!er "#ese(s t#ey were bro(g#t to coalesce into one people, wit# &t#ens as t#eir seat of go;ernment, w#ic# ga;e t#em a #ig#er organiBation t#an before t#ey #a! been able to form. "#e coalescence of tribes into a nation in one territory is later in time t#an confe!erations, w#ere t#e tribes occ(py in!epen!ent territories. It is a #ig#er organic process. 6#ile t#e gentes #a! always been intermingle! by marriage, t#e tribes were now intermingle! by obliterating territorial lines, an! by t#e (se of a common co(ncil?#all an! prytane(m. "#e act ascribe! to "#ese(s explains t#e a!;ancement, of t#eir gentile society from a lower to a #ig#er organic form, w#ic# m(st #a;e occ(rre! at some time, an! probably was effecte! in t#e manner state!. /(t anot#er act is ascribe! to "#ese(s e;incing a more ra!ical plan, as well as an appreciation of t#e necessity for a f(n!amental c#ange in t#e plan of go;ernment. He !i;i!e! t#e people into t#ree classes, irrespecti;e of gentes, calle! respecti;ely t#e Eupatridae Ewell?bornF t#e Geomori or EH(sban!men,F an! t#e 7emiurgi or Eartisans.F "#e principal offices were assigne! to t#e first class bot# in t#e ci;il a!ministration an! in t#e priest#oo!. "#is classification was not only recognition of property an! of t#e aristocratic element in t#e go;ernment of society, b(t it was a !irect mo;ement against t#e go;erning power of t#e gentes. It was t#e e;i!ent intention to (nite t#e c#iefs of t#e gentes wit# t#eir families, an! t#e men of wealt# in t#e se;eral gentes, in a class by t#emsel;es, wit# t#e rig#t to #ol! t#e principal offices in w#ic# t#e powers of society were ;este!. "#e separation of t#e remain!er into two great classes tra;erse! t#e gentes again. Important res(lts mig#t #a;e followe! if t#e ;oting power #a! been ta2en from t#e gentes, p#raties an! tribes, an! gi;en to t#e classes, s(b:ect to t#e rig#t of t#e first to #ol! principal offices. "#is !oes not appear to #a;e been !one alt#o(g# absol(tely necessary to gi;e ;itality to t#e classes. Moreo;er, it !i! not c#ange essentially t#e pre;io(s or!er of t#ings wit# respect to #ol!ing office. "#ose now calle! '(patri!s were probably t#e men of t#e se;eral gentes w#o #a! pre;io(sly been calle! into office. "#is sc#eme of "#ese(s !ie! o(t, beca(se t#ere was in reality no transfer of powers from t#e gentes, p#ratries an! tribes to t#e classes, an! beca(se s(c# classes were inferior to t#e gentes as t#e basis of a system, "#e cent(ries t#at elapse! from t#e (n2nown time of "#ese(s to t#e legislation of %olon +4,- /. C.. forme! one of t#e most important perio!s in &t#enian experience; b(t t#e s(ccession of e;ents is imperfectly 2nown. "#e office of basile(s was abolis#e! prior to t#e first >lympia! +77G /. C.., an! t#e arc#ons#ip establis#e! in its place. "#e latter seems to #a;e been #ere!itary in a gens, an! it is state! to #a;e been #ere!itary in a partic(lar family wit#in t#e gens, t#e first twel;e arc#ons being calle! t#e Me!onti!ae from Me!on, t#e first arc#on, claime! to #a;e been t#e son of Co!r(s, t#e last basile(s. In t#e case of t#ese arc#ons, w#o #el! for life, t#e same 5(estion exists w#ic# #as elsew#ere been raise! wit# respect to t#e basile(s; t#at an election or confirmation by a constit(ency was necessary before t#e office co(l! be ass(me!. "#e pres(mption is against t#e transmission of t#e office by #ere!itary rig#t. In 711 /. C, t#e office of arc#on was limite! to ten years,

18H an! bestowe! by free election (pon t#e person esteeme! most wort#y of t#e position. 6e are now wit#in t#e #istorical perio!, t#o(g# near its t#res#ol!, w#ere we meet t#e electi;e principle wit# respect to t#e #ig#est office in t#e gift of t#e people clearly an! completely establis#e!. It is precisely w#at wo(l! #a;e been expecte! from t#e constit(tion an! principles of t#e gentes, alt#o(g# t#e aristocratical principle, as we m(st s(ppose, #a! increase! in force wit# t#e increase of property, an! was t#e so(rce t#ro(g# w#ic# #ere!itary rig#t was intro!(ce! w#ere;er fo(n!. "#e existence of t#e electi;e principle wit# respect to t#e later arc#ons is not wit#o(t significance in its relation to t#e 5(estion of t#e pre;io(s practice of t#e &t#enians. In G8A /. C. t#e office was ma!e electi;e ann(ally, t#e n(mber was increase! to nine, an! t#eir !(ties were ma!e ministerial an! :(!icial. 6e may notice, in t#ese e;ents, e;i!ence of a gra!(al progress in 2nowle!ge wit# respect to t#e ten(re of office. "#e &t#enian tribes #a! in#erite! from t#eir remote ancestors t#e office of arc#on as c#ief of t#e gens. It was #ere!itary in t#e gens as may fairly be s(ppose!, an! electi;e among its members. &fter !escent was c#ange! to t#e male line t#e sons of t#e !ecease! c#ief were wit#in t#e line of s(ccession, an! one of t#eir n(mber wo(l! be apt to be c#osen in t#e absence of personal ob:ections. /(t now t#ey re;erte! to t#is original office for t#e name of t#eir #ig#est, magistrate, ma!e it electi;e irrespecti;e of any gens, an! limite! its !(ration, first to ten years an! finally to one. 3rior to t#is, t#e ten(re of office to w#ic# t#ey #a! been acc(stome! was for life. In t#e ower an! also in t#e Mi!!le %tat(s of barbarism we #a;e fo(n! t#e office of c#ief, electi;e an! for life; or !(ring goo! be#a;io(r, for t#is limitation follows from t#e rig#t of t#e gens to !epose from office. It is a reasonable inference t#at t#e office of c#ief in a 9recian gens was #el! by a /ee election an! by t#e same ten(re. It m(st be regar!e! as proof of a remar2able a!;ancement in 2nowle!ge at, t#is early perio! t#at t#e &t#enian tribes s(bstit(te! a term of years for t#eir most important office, an! allowe! a competition of can!i!ates. "#ey t#(s wor2e! o(t t#e entire t#eory of an electi;e an! representati;e office, an! place! it (pon its tr(e basis. In t#e time of %olon, it may be f(rt#er notice!, t#e Co(rt of &reopag(s, compose! of ex?arc#ons, #a! come into existence wit# power to try criminals an! wit# a censors#ip o;er morals, toget#er wit# a n(mber of new offices in t#e military, na;al an! a!ministrati;e ser;ices. /(t t#e most important e;ent t#at occ(rre! abo(t t#is time was t#e instit(tion of t#e naucraries$ twel;e in eac# tribe, an! forty? eig#t in all: eac# of w#ic# was a local circ(mscription of #o(se#ol!ers from w#ic# le;ies were !rawn into t#e military an! na;al ser;ice, an! from w#ic# taxes were probably collecte!. "#e na(crary was t#e incipient !eme or towns#ip w#ic#, w#en t#e i!ea of a territorial basis was f(lly !e;elope!, was to become t#e fo(n!ation of t#e secon! great plan of go;ernment. /y w#om t#e na(craries were instit(te! is (n2nown. )"#ey m(st #a;e existe! e;en before t#e time of %olon,8 /oec2# remar2s, )since t#e presi!ing officers of t#e na(craries are mentione! before t#e time of #is legislation; an! w#en &ristotle ascribes t#eir instit(tion to %olon, we may refer t#is acco(nt only to t#eir confirmation by t#e political constit(tion of %olon.8[4] "wel;e na(craries forme! a trittys, a larger territorial circ(mscription, b(t t#ey were not necessarily contig(o(s. It was, in li2e manner, t#e germ of t#e co(nty, t#e next territorial aggregate abo;e t#e towns#ip.

181 =otwit#stan!ing t#e great c#anges t#at #a! occ(rre! in. t#e instr(mentalities by w#ic# t#e go;ernment was a!ministere!, t#e people were still in a gentile society, an! li;ing (n!er gentile instit(tions. "#e gens, p#ratry an! tribe were in f(ll ;itality, an! t#e recogniBe! so(rces of power. /efore t#e time of %olon no person co(l! become a member of t#is society except, t#ro(g# connection wit# a gens an! tribe. &ll ot#er persons were beyon! t#e pale of t#e go;ernment. "#e co(ncil of c#iefs remaine!, t#e ol! an! time? #ono(re! instr(ment of go;ernment; b(t t#e powers of t#e go;ernment were now co?or!inate! between itself, t#e agora or assembly of t#e people, t#e Co(rt of &reopag(s, an! t#e nine arc#ons. It was t#e prerogati;e of t#e co(ncil to originate an! mat(re p(blic meas(res for s(bmission to t#e 3eople, w#ic# enable! it to s#ape t#e policy of t#e go;ernment. It !o(btless #a! t#e general a!ministration of t#e finances, an! it remaine! to t#e en!, as it, #a! been from t#e beginning, t#e central feat(re of t#e go;ernment. "#e assembly of t#e people #a! now come into increase! prominence. Its f(nctions were still limite! to t#e a!option or re:ection of p(blic meas(res s(bmitte! to its !ecision by t#e co(ncil; b(t it began to exercise a powerf(l infl(ence (pon p(blic affairs. "#e rise of t#is assembly as a power in t#e go;ernment is t#e s(rest e;i!ence of t#e progress of t#e &t#enian people in 2nowle!ge an! intelligence. $nfort(nately t#e f(nctions an! powers of t#e co(ncil of c#iefs an! of t#e assembly of t#e people in t#is early perio! #a;e been imperfectly preser;e!, an! b(t partially el(ci!ate!. In GD- /. C. <raco #a! frame! a bo!y of laws for t#e &t#enians w#ic# were c#iefly remar2able for t#eir (nnecessary se;erity; b(t t#is co!e !emonstrate! t#at t#e time was !rawing near in 9recian experience w#en (sages an! c(stoms were to be s(perse!e! by written laws. &s yet t#e &t#enians, #a! not learne! t#e art of enacting laws as t#e necessity tor t#em appeare!, w#ic# re5(ire! a #ig#er 2nowle!ge of t#e f(nctions of legislati;e bo!ies t#an t#ey #a! attaine!. "#ey were in t#at stage in w#ic# lawgi;ers appear, an! legislation is in a sc#eme or in gross, (n!er t#e sanction of a personal name. "#(s slowly t#e great se5(ences of #(man progress (nfol! t#emsel;es. 6#en %olon came into t#e arc#ons#ip +4,- /. C,. t#e e;ils pre;alent in society #a! reac#e! an (nbearable !egree. "#e str(ggle for tlie possession of property, now a comman!ing interest, #a! pro!(ce! sing(lar res(lts. & port?ion of t#e &t#enians #a! fallen into sla;ery, t#ro(g# !ebt,? t#e person of t#e !ebtor being liable to ensla;ement in !efa(lt of payment; ot#ers #a! mortgage! t#eir lan!s an! were (nable to remo;e t#e enc(mbrances; an! as a conse5(ence of t#ese an! ot#er embarrassments society was !e;o(ring itself. In a!!ition to a bo!y of laws, some of t#em no;elF b(t correcti;e of t#e principal financial !iffic(lties, %olon renewe! t#e pro:ect of "#ese(s of organiBing society into classes, not accor!ing to callings as before, b(t accor!ing to t#e amo(nt of t#eir property. It is instr(cti;e to follow t#e co(rse of t#ese experiments to s(perse!e t#e gentes an! s(bstit(te a new system, beca(se we s#all fin! t#e 0oman tribes, in t#e time of %er;i(s "(lli(s, trying t#e same ex? periment for t#e same p(rpose. %olon !i;i!e! t#e people into fo(r classes accor!ing to t#e meas(re of t#eir wealt#, an! going beyon! "#ese(s, #e in;este! t#ese classes wit# certain powers, an! impose! (pon t#em certain obligations. It transferre! a portion of t#e ci;il powers of t#e gentes, p#ratries an! tribes to t#e property classes. In proportion as t#e s(bstance of power was !rawn from t#e

18D former an! in;este! in t#e latter, t#e gentes wo(l! be wea2ene! an! t#eir !eca!ence wo(l! commence. /(t so far as classes compose! of persons were s(bstit(te! for gentes compose! of persons, t#e go;ernment was still fo(n!e! (pon person, an! (pon relations p(rely personal. "#e sc#eme faile! to reac# t#e s(bstance of t#e 5(estion. Moreo;er, in c#anging t#e co(ncil of c#iefs into t#e senate of fo(r #(n!re!, t#e members were ta2en in e5(al n(mbers from t#e fo(r tribes, an! not from t#e classes. /(t it will be notice! t#at t#e i!ea of property, as t#e basis of a system of go;ernment, was now incorporate! by %olon in t#e new plan of property classes. It faile!, #owe;er, to reac# t#e i!ea of political society, w#ic# m(st rest (pon territory as well as property, an! !eal wit# persons t#ro(g# t#eir territorial relations. "#e first class alone were eligible to t#e #ig# offices, t#e secon! performe! military ser;ice on #orsebac2, t#e t#ir! as infantry, an! t#e fo(rt# as lig#t?arme! sol!iers. "#is last class were t#e n(merical ma:ority. "#ey were !is5(alifie! from #ol!ing office, an! pai! no taxes; b(t in t#e pop(lar assembly of w#ic# t#ey were members, t#ey possesse! a ;ote (pon t#e election of all magistrates an! officers, wit# power to bring t#em to an acco(nt. "#ey also #a! power to a!opt or re:ect all p(blic meas(res s(bmitte! by t#e senate to t#eir !ecision. $n!er t#e constit(tion of %olon t#eir powers were real an! !(rable, an! t#eir infl(ence (pon p(blic affairs was permanent an! s(bstantial. &ll freemen, t#o(g# not connecte! wit# a gens an! tribe, were now bro(g#t into t#e go;ernment, to a certain extent, by becoming citiBens an! members of t#e assembly of t#e people wit# t#e powers name!. "#is was one of t#e most important res(lts of t#e legislation of %olon. It will be f(rt#er notice! t#at t#e people were now organiBe! as an army, consisting of t#ree !i;isions; t#e ca;alry, t#e #ea;y?arme! infantry, an! t#e lig#t?arme! infantry, eac# wit# its own officers of !ifferent gra!es. "#e form of t#e statement limits t#e array to t#e last t#ree classes, w#ic# lea;es t#e first class in t#e (npatriotic position of appropriating to t#emsel;es t#e principal offices of t#e go;ernment, an! ta2ing no part in t#e military ser;ice. "#is (n!o(bte!ly re5(ires mo!ification. "#e same plan of organiBation, b(t incl(!ing t#e fi;e classes, will re? appear among: t#e 0omans (n!er %er;i(s "(lli(s, by w#om t#e bo!y of t#e people were organiBe! as an army +e"ercitus. f(lly officere! an! e5(ippe! in eac# s(b!i;ision. "#e i!ea of a military !emocracy, !ifferent in organiBation b(t t#e same t#eoretically as t#at of t#e pre;io(s perio!, re?appears in a new !ress bot# in t#e %olonian an! in t#e %er;ian constit(tion. In a!!ition to t#e property element, w#ic# entere! into t#e basis of t#e new system, t#e territorial element was partially incorporate! t#ro(g# t#e na(craries before a!;erte! to, in w#ic# it is probable t#ere was an enrolment of citiBens an! of t#eir property to form a basis for military le;ies an! for taxation. "#ese pro;isions, wit# t#e senate, t#e pop(lar assembly now calle! t#e ecclesia, t#e nine arc#ons, an! t#e Co(rt, of &reopag(s, ga;e to t#e &t#enians a m(c# more elaborate go;ernment t#an t#ey #a! before 2nown, an! re5(iring a #ig#er !egree of intelligence for its management. It was also essentially !emocratical in #armony wit# t#eir antece!ent i!eas an! instit(tions; in fact a logical conse5(ence of t#em, an! explainable only as s(c#. /(t it fell s#ort of a p(re system in t#ree respects: firstly, it was not fo(n!e! (pon territory; secon!ly, all t#e !ignities of t#e state were not open to

18A e;ery citiBen; an! t#ir!ly, t#e principle of local self?go;ernment in primary organiBations was (n2nown, except, as it may #a;e existe! imperfectly in t#e na(craries. "#e gentes, p#ratries an! tribes still remaine! in f(ll ;itality, b(t wit# !iminis#e! powers. It was a transitional con!ition, re5(iring f(rt#er experience to !e;elop t#e t#eory of a political system towar! w#ic# it was a great a!;ance. "#(s slowly b(t, stea!ily #(man instit(tions are e;ol;e! from lower into #ig#er forms, t#ro(g# t#e logical operations of t#e #(man min! wor2ing in (niform b(t pre!etermine! c#annels. "#ere was one weig#ty reason for t#e o;ert#row of t#e gentes an! t#e s(bstit(tion of a new plan of go;ernment. It was probably recogniBe! by "#ese(s, and (n!o(bte!ly by %olon. *rom t#e !ist(rbe! con!ition of t#e 9recian tribes an! t#e (na;oi!able mo;ements of t#e people in t#e tra!itionary perio! an! in t#e times prior to %olon, many persons transferre! t#emsel;es from one nation to anot#er, an! t#(s lost t#eir connection wit# t#eir own gens wit#o(t ac5(iring a connection wit# anot#er.F "#is wo(l! repeat itself from time to time; t#ro(g# personal a!;ent(re, t#e spirit of tra!e, an! t#e exigencies of warfare, (ntil a consi!erable number wit# t#eir posterity wo(l! be !e;elope! in e;ery tribe (nconnecte! wit# any gens. &ll s(c# persons, as before remar2e!, wo(l! be wit#o(t t#e pale of t#e go;ernment wit# w#ic# t#ere co(l! be no connection excepting t#ro(g# a gens an! tribe. "#e fact is notice! by Mr. 9rote. E"#e p#ratries an! gentesF #e remar2s, Eprobably ne;er at any time incl(!e! t#e w#ole pop(lation of t#e co(ntry ? an! t#e pop(lation not incl(!e! in t#em ten!e! to become larger an! larger in t#e times anterior to 7leist#enes, as well as afterwar!s,F[5] &s early as t#e time of yc(rg(s, t#ere was a consi!erable immigration into 9reece from t#e islan!s of t#e Me!iterranean an! from t#e Ionian cities of its eastern coasts; w#ic# increase! t#e n(mber of persons (nattac#e! to any gens. 6#en t#ey came in families t#ey wo(l! bring a fragment of a new gens wit# t#em; b(t t#ey wo(l! remain aliens (nless t#e new gens was a!mitte! into a tribe. "#is probably occ(rre! in a n(mber of cases, an! it may assist in explaining t#e (n(s(al n(mber of gentes in 9reece. The gentes an! p#ratries were close corporations, bot# of w#ic# wo(l! #a;e been a!(lterate! by t#e absorption of t#ese aliens t#ro(g# a!option into a nati;e gens. 3ersons of !istinction mig#t be a!opte! into some gens, or sec(re t#e a!mission of t#eir own gens into some tribe; b(t t#e poorer class wo(l! be ref(se! eit#er pri;ilege. "#ere can be no !o(bt t#at as far bac2 as t#e time of "#ese(s, an! more especially in t#e time of %olon, t#e n(mber of t#e (nattac#e! class, excl(si;e of t#e sla;es, #a! become large. Ha;ing neit#er gens nor p#ratry t#ey were also wit#o(t !irect religio(s pri;ileges, w#ic# were in#erent an! excl(si;e in t#ese organiBations. It is not !iffic(lt to see in t#is class of persons a growing element of !iscontent !angero(s to t#e sec(rity of society. "#e sc#emes of "#ese(s an! of %olon ma!e imperfect pro;ision for t#eir a!mission to citiBens#ip t#ro(g# t#e classes; b(t as t#e gentes an! p#ratries remaine! from w#ic# t#ey were excl(!e!, t#e reme!y was still incomplete. Mr. 9rote f(rt#er remar2s, t#at Eit is not easy to ma2e o(t !istinctly w#at was t#e political position of t#e ancient 9entes an! 3#ratries, as %olon left t#em. "#e fo(r tribes consiste! altoget#er of gentes an! p#ratries, insom(c# t#at no one co(l! be incl(!e! in any one of t#e tribes w#o was not also a member of some gens an! p#ratry. =ow t#e

18new probo(le(tic or pre?consi!ering senate consiste! of -HH members,? 1HH from eac# of t#e tribes: persons not incl(!e! in any gens an! p#ratry co(l! t#erefore #a;e #a! no access to it. "#e con!itions of eligibility were similar, accor!ing to ancient c(stom, for t#e nine arc#ons ? of co(rse, also, for t#e senate of &reopag(s. %o t#at t#ere remaine! only t#e p(blic assembly, in w#ic# an &t#enian, not a member of t#ese tribes, co(l! ta2e part: yet #e was a citiBen, since #e co(l! gi;e #is ;ote for arc#ons an! senators, an! co(l! ta2e part in t#e ann(al !ecision of t#eir acco(nt? ability, besi!es being entitle! to claim re!ress for wrong from t#e arc#ons in #is own person ? w#ile t#e alien co(l! only !o so t#ro(g# t#e inter;ention of an a;o(c#ing citiBen, or 3rostates. It seems t#erefore t#at all persons not incl(!e! in t#e fo(r tribes, w#ate;er t#eir gra!e or fort(ne mig#t be, were on t#e same le;el in respect to political pri;ilege as t#e fo(rt# an! poorest class of t#e %olonian cens(s. It #as alrea!y been remar2e!, t#at e;en before t#e time of %olon, t#e n(mber of &t#enians not incl(!e! in t#e gentes or p#ratries was probably consi!erable: it ten!e! to become greater an! greater, since t#ese bo!ies were close an! (n? expansi;e, w#ile t#e policy of t#e new lawgi;er ten!e! to in;ite in!(strio(s settlers from ot#er parts of 9reece to &t#ens.F[6] "#e 0oman 3lebeians originate! from ca(ses precisely similar. "#ey were not members of any gens, an! t#erefore forme! no part of t#e !opulus Romanus. 6e may fin! in t#e facts state! one of t#e reasons of t#e fail(re of t#e gentile organiBation to meet t#e re5(irements of society, In t#e time of %olon, society #a! o(tgrown t#eir ability to go;ern, its affairs #a! a!;ance! so far beyon! t#e con!ition in w#ic# t#e gentes originate!. "#ey f(rnis#e! a basis too narrow for a state, (p to t#e meas(re of w#ic# t#e people #a! grown. "#ere was also an increasing !iffic(lty in 2eeping t#e members of a gens, p#ratry an! tribe locally toget#er. &s parts of a go;ernmental organic series, t#is fact of localiBation was #ig#ly necessary. In t#e earlier perio!, t#e gens #el! its lan!s in common, t#e p#ratries #el! certain lan!s in common for religio(s (ses, t#e tribe probably #el! ot#er lan!s in common. 6#en t#ey establis#e! t#emsel;es in co(ntry or city, t#ey settle! locally toget#er by gentes, by p#ratries an! by tribes, as a conse5(ence of t#eir social organiBation. 'ac# gens was in t#e main by itself ? not all of its members, for two gentes were represente! in e;ery family, b(t t#e bo!y w#o propagate! t#e gens. "#ose gentes belonging to t#e same p#ratry nat(rally so(g#t contig(o(s or at least near areas, an! t#e same wit# t#e se;eral p#ratries of t#e tribe. /(t in t#e time of %olon, lan!s an! #o(ses #a! come to be owne! by in!i;i!(als in se;eralty, wit# power of alienation as to lan!s, b(t not of #o(ses o(t of t#e gens. It !o(btless became more an! more impossible to 2eep t#e members of a gens locally toget#er, from t#e s#ifting relations of persons to lan!, an! from t#e creation of new property by its members in ot#er localities. "#e (nit of t#eir social system was becoming (nstable in place, an! also in c#aracter. 6it#o(t stopping to !e;elop t#is fact of t#eir con!ition f(rt#er, it m(st #a;e pro;e! one of t#e reasons of t#e fail(re of t#e ol! plan of go;ernment. "#e towns#ip, wit# its fixe! property an! its in#abitants for t#e time being, yiel!e! t#at element of permanence now wanting in t#e gens. %ociety #a! ma!e immense progress from its former con!ition of extreme simplicity. It was ;ery !ifferent from t#at w#ic# t#e gentile organiBation was instit(te! to go;ern. =ot#ing b(t t#e (nsettle! con!ition an! incessant warfare of t#e &t#enian tribes, from t#eir settlement in &ttica to t#e time of %olon, co(l!

184 #a;e preser;e! t#is organiBation from o;ert#row. &fter t#eir establis#ment in walle! cities, t#at rapi! !e;elopment of wealt# an! n(mbers occ(rre! w#ic# bro(g#t t#e gentes to t#e final test, an! !emonstrate! t#eir inability to go;ern a people now rapi!ly approac#ing ci;iliBation. /(t t#eir !isplacement e;en t#en re5(ire! a long perio! of time. "#e serio(sness of t#e !iffic(lties to be o;ercome in creating a political society are stri2ingly ill(strate! in t#e experience of t#e &t#enians. In t#e time of %olon, &t#ens #a! alrea!y pro!(ce! able men; t#e (sef(l arts #a! attaine! a. ;ery consi!erable !e;elopment; commerce on t#e sea #a! become a national interest; agric(lt(re an! man(fact(res were well a!;ance!; an! written composition in ;erse #a! commence!. "#ey were in fact a ci;iliBe! people, an! #a! been for two cent(ries; b(t t#eir instit(tions of go;ernment were still gentile, an! of t#e type pre;alent t#ro(g#o(t t#e ater 3erio! of barbarism. & great impet(s #a! been gi;en to t#e &t#enian commonwealt# by t#e new system of %olon; ne;ert#eless, nearly a cent(ry elapse!, accompanie! wit# many !isor!ers, before t#e i!ea of a state was f(lly !e;elope! in t#e &t#enian min!. >(t of t#e na(crary, a conception of a towns#ip as t#e (nit of a political system was finally elaborate!; b(t it re5(ire! a man of t#e #ig#est geni(s, as well as great personal infl(ence, to seiBe t#e i!ea in its f(llness, an! gi;e it an organic embo!iment. "#at man finally appeare! in Cleist#enes +4H, /.C.., w#o m(st, #e regar!e! as t#e first of &t#enian legislators ? t#e fo(n!er of t#e secon! great plan of #(man go;ernment, t#at (n!er w#ic# mo!ern ci;iliBe! nations are organiBe!. Cleist#enes went to t#e bottom of t#e 5(estion, an! place! t#e &t#enian political system (pon t#e fo(n!ation on w#ic# it remaine! to t#e close of t#e in!epen!ent existence of t#e commonwealt#. He !i;i!e! &ttica into a #(n!re! !emes, or towns#ips, eac# circ(mscribe! by metes an! bo(n!s, an! !isting(is#e! by a name. ';ery citiBen was re5(ire! to register #imself, an! to ca(se an enrolment of #is property in t#e !eme in w#ic# #e resi!e!. "#is enrolment was t#e e;i!ence as well as t#e fo(n!ation of #is ci;il pri;ileges. "#e !eme !isplace! t#e na(crary. Its in#abitants were an organiBe! bo!y politic wit# powers of local self?go;ernment, li2e t#e mo!ern: &merican towns#ip. "#is is t#e ;ital an! t#e remar2able feat(re of t#e system. It re;eals at once its !emocratic c#aracter. "#e go;ernment was place! in t#e #an!s of t#e people in t#e first of t#e series of territorial organiBations. "#e !emotae electe! a !emarc#, w#o #a! t#e c(sto!y of t#e p(blic register; #e #a! also power to con;ene t#e !emotae for t#e p(rpose of electing? magistrates an! :(!ges, for re;ising t#e registry of citiBens, an! for t#e enrolment of s(c# as became of age !(ring t#e year. "#ey electe! a treas(rer, an! pro;i!e! for t#e assessment an! collection of taxes, an! for f(rnis#ing t#e 5(ota of troops re5(ire! of t#e !eme for t#e ser;ice of t#e state. "#ey also electe! t#irty !icasts or :(!ges, w#o trie! all ca(ses arising in t#e !eme w#ere t#e amo(nt in;ol;e! fell below a certain s(m. /esi!es t#ese powers of local self?go;ernment, w#ic# is t#e essence of a !emocratic system eac# !eme #a! its own temple an! religio(s wors#ip, an! its own priest, also electe! by t#e !emotae. >mitting minor, partic(lars, we fin! t#e instr(cti;e an! remar2able fact t#at t#e towns#ip, as first instit(te!, possesse! all t#e powers of local self?go;ernment, an! e;en (pon a f(ller an! larger scale t#an an &merican towns#ip. *ree!om in religion is also noticeable, w#ic# was place!

18G w#ere it rig#tf(lly belongs, (n!er t#e control of t#e people. &ll registere! citiBens were free, an! e5(al in t#eir rig#ts an! pri;ileges, wit# t#e exception of e5(al eligibility to t#e #ig#er offices. %(c# was t#e new (nit of organiBation in &t#enian political society, at once a mo!el for a free state, an! a mar;el of wis!om an! 2nowle!ge. "#e &t#enians commence! wit# a !emocratic organiBation at t#e point w#ere e;ery people m(st commence w#o !esire to create a free state, an! place t#e control of t#e go;ernment in t#e #an!s of its citiBens. "#e secon! member of t#e organic territorial series consiste! of ten !emes, (nite! in a larger geograp#ical !istrict. It was calle! a local tribe, to preser;e some part of t#e terminology of t#e ol! gentile system. [7] 'ac# !istrict was name! after an &ttic #ero, an! it was t#e analog(e of t#e mo!ern co(nty. "#e !emes in eac# !istrict were (s(ally contig(o(s, w#ic# s#o(l! #a;e been tr(e in e;ery instance to ren!er t#e analogy complete, b(t in a few cases one or more of t#e ten were !etac#e!, probably in conse5(ence of t#e local separation of portions of t#e original consang(ine tribe w#o !esire! to #a;e t#eir !eme incorporate! in t#e !istrict of t#eir imme!iate 2insmen. "#e in#abitants of eac# !istrict or co(nty were also a bo!y politic, wit# certain powers of local self?go;ernment. "#ey electe! a p#ylarc#, w#o comman!e! t#e ca;alry; a taxiarcb, w#o comman!e! t#e foot?sol!iers an! a general, w#o comman!e! bot#; an! as eac# !istrict was re5(ire! to f(rnis# fi;e triremes, t#ey probably electe! as many trierarc#s to comman! t#em. Cleist#enes increase! t#e senate to fi;e #(n!re! an! assigne! fifty to eac# !istrict. "#ey were electe! by its in#abitants. >t#er f(nctions of t#is larger bo!y politic !o(btless existe!, b(t t#ey #a;e been imperfectly explaine!. "#e t#ir! an! last member of t#e territorial series was t#e &t#enian commonwealt# or state, consisting of ten local tribes or !istricts. It was an organise! bo!y politic embracing t#e aggregate of &t#enian citiBens. It was represente! by a senate, an ecclesia, t#e co(rt of &reopag(s, t#e arc#ons, an! :(!ges, an! t#e bo!y of electe! military an! na;al comman!ers. "#(s t#e &t#enians fo(n!e! t#e secon! great plan of go;ernment (pon territory an! (pon property. "#ey s(bstit(te! a series of territorial aggregates in t#e place of an ascen!ing series of aggregates of persons. &s a plan of go;ernment it reste! (pon territory w#ic# was necessarily permanent an! (pon property w#ic# was more or less localise!; an! it !ealt wit# its citiBens, now localiBe! in !emes t#ro(g# t#eir territorial relations. "o be a citiBen of t#e state it was necessary to be a citiBen of a !eme. "#e person ;ote! an! was taxe! in #is !eme, an! #e was calle! into t#e military ser;ice from #is !eme. In li2e manner #e was calle! by election into t#e senate, an! to t#e comman! of a !i;ision of t#e army or na;y from t#e larger !istrict of #is local tribe. His relations to a gens or p#ratry cease! to go;ern #is !(ties as a citiBen. "#e contrast between t#e two systems is as mar2e! as t#eir !ifference was f(n!amental. & coalescence of t#e people into bo!ies politic in territorial areas now became complete. "#e territorial series enters into t#e plan of go;ernment of mo!ern ci;iliBe! nations. &mong o(rsel;es, for example, we #a;e t#e towns#ip, t#e co(nty, t#e state, an! t#e $nite! %tates; t#e in#abitants of eac# of w#ic# are an organiBe! bo!y politic wit# powers of local self?go;ernment. 'ac# organiBation is in f(ll ;itality an! performs

187 its f(nctions wit#in a !efinite sp#ere in w#ic# it is s(preme. *rance #as a similar series in t#e comm(ne, t#e arron!issement, t#e !epartment, an! t#e empire, now t#e rep(blic. In 9reat /ritain t#e series is t#e paris#, t#e s#ire, t#e 2ing!om, an! t#e t#ree 2ing!oms. In t#e %axon perio! t#e #(n!re! seems to #a;e been t#e analog(e of t#e towns#ip[8] b(t alrea!y emasc(late! of t#e powers of local self? go;ernment, wit# t#e exception of t#e #(n!re! co(rt. "#e in#abitants of t#ese se;eral areas were organiBe! as bo!ies politic, b(t t#ose below t#e #ig#est wit# ;ery limite! powers. "#e ten!ency to centraliBation (n!er monarc#ical instit(tions #as atrop#ie!, practically, all t#e lower organiBations. &s a conse5(ence of t#e legislation of Cleist#enes, t#e gentes, p#ratries an! tribes were !i;este! of t#eir infl(ence, beca(se t#eir powers were ta2en from t#em an! ;este! in t#e !eme, t#e local tribe an! t#e state, w#ic# became from t#encefort# t#e so(rces of all political power. "#ey were not !issol;e!, #owe;er, e;en after t#is o;ert#row, b(t remaine! for cent(ries as a pe!igree an! lineage, an! as fo(ntains of religio(s life. In certain orations of <omost#enes, w#ere t#e cases in;ol;e! personal or property rig#ts, !escents or rig#ts of sep(lt(re, bot# t#e gens: an! p#ratry appear as li;ing organiBations in #is time. [9] "#ey were left (n!ist(rbe! by t#e new system so far as t#eir connection wit# religio(s rites, wit# certain criminal procee!ings, an! wit# certain social practices were concerne!, w#ic# arreste! t#eir total !issol(tion. "#e classes, #owe;er, bot# t#ose instit(te! by "#ese(s an! t#ose afterwar!s create! by %olon, !isappeare! after t#e time of Cleist#enes.[10] %olon is (s(ally regar!e! as t#e fo(n!er of &t#enian !emocracy, w#ile some writers attrib(te a portion of t#e wor2 to Cleist#enes an! "#ese(s. 6e s#all !raw nearer t#e tr(t# of t#e matter by regar!ing "#ese(s, %olon an! Cleist#enes as stan!ing connecte! wit# t#ree great mo;ements of t#e &t#enian people, not to fo(n! a !emocracy, for &t#enian !emocracy was ol!er t#an eit#er, b(t to c#ange t#e plan of go;ernment from a gentile into a political organiBation. =eit#er so(g#t to c#ange t#e existing principles of !emocracy w#ic# #a! been in#erite! from t#e gentes. "#ey contrib(te! in t#eir respecti;e times to t#e great mo;ement for t#e formation of a state, w#ic# re5(ire! t#e s(bstit(tion of a political in t#e place of gentile society. "#e in;ention of a towns#ip, an! t#e organiBation of its in#abitants as a bo!y politic, was t#e main feat(re in t#e problem. It may seem to (s a simple matter; b(t it taxe! t#e capacities of t#e &t#enians to t#eir lowest !ept#s before t#e i!ea of a towns#ip fo(n! expression in its act(al creation. It was an inspiration of t#e geni(s of Cleist#enes; an! it stan!s as t#e master wor2 of a master min!. In t#e new political society t#ey realiBe! t#at complete !emocracy w#ic# alrea!y existe! in e;ery essential principle, #(t w#ic# re5(ire! a c#ange in t#e plan of go;ernment to gi;e it a more ample fiel! an! a f(ller expression. It is precisely #ere, as it seems to t#e writer, t#at we #a;e been misle! by t#e erroneo(s ass(mption of t#e great #istorian, Mr, 9rote, w#ose general ;iews of 9recian instit(tions are so so(n! an! perspic(o(s, namely, t#at t#e early go;ernments of t#e 9recian tribes were essentially monarchical.[11] >n t#is ass(mption it re5(ires a re;ol(tion of instit(tions to explain t#e existence of t#at &t#enian !emocracy (n!er w#ic# t#e great mental ac#ie;ements of t#e &t#enians were ma!e. =o s(c# re;ol(tion occ(rre!, an! no ra!ical c#ange of instit(tions was e;er effecte!, for t#e reason t#at

188 t#ey were an! always #a! been essentially democratical. $s(rpations not (nli2ely occ(rre!, followe! by contro;ersies for t#e restoration of t#e: pre;io(s or!er; b(t t#ey ne;er lost t#eir liberties, or t#ose i!eas of free!om an! of t#e rig#t of self? go;ernment w#ic# #a! been t#eir in#eritance in all ages. 0ec(rring for a moment to t#e basile(s, t#e office ten!e! to ma2e t#e man more conspic(o(s t#an any ot#er in t#eir affairs. He was t#e first person to catc# t#e mental eye of t#e #istorian by w#om #e #as been metamorp#ose! into a 2ing; notwit#stan!ing #e was ma!e to reign, an! by !i;ine rig#t, o;er a r(!e !emocracy. &s a general in a military !emocracy, t#e basile(s becomes intelligible, an! wit#o(t ;iolating t#e instit(tions t#at act(ally existe!. "#e intro!(ction of t#is office !i! not c#ange t#e principles of t#e gentes, Ep#ratries an! tribes, w#ic# in t#eir organiBation were essentially !emocratical; an! w#ic# of necessity impresse! t#at c#aracter: on t#eir gentile system. ';i!ence is not wanting t#at t#e pop(lar element was constantly acti;e to resist encroac#ments on personal rig#ts. "#e basile(s belongs to t#e tra!itionary perio!; w#en t#e powers of go;ernment were more or less (n!efine!; b(t t#e co(ncil of c#iefs existe! in t#e centre of t#e system, an! also t#e gentes, p#ratries an! tribes in f(ll ;itality. "#ese are s(fficient to !etermine t#e c#aracter of t#e go;ernment.[12] "#e go;ernment as reconstit(te! by Cleist#enes contraste! strongly wit# t#at pre;io(s to t#e time of %olon. /(t t#e transition was not only nat(ral b(t ine;itable if t#e people followe! t#eir i!eas to t#eir logical res(lts. It was a c#ange of plan, b(t not of principles nor e;en of instr(mentalities. "#e co(ncil of c#iefs remaine! in t#e senate, t#e agora in t#e ecclesia; t#e t#ree #ig#est arc#ons were respecti;ely ministers of state, of religion, an! of :(stice as before, w#ile t#e six interior arc#ons exercise! :(!icial f(nctions in connection wit# t#e co(rts, an! t#e large bo!y of !icasts now: electe! ann(ally for :(!icial ser;ice. =o exec(ti;e officer existe! (n!er t#e system, w#ic# is one of its stri2ing pec(liarities. "#e nearest approac# to it was t#e presi!ent of t#e senate, w#o was electe! by lot for a single !ay, wit#o(t t#is possibility of a re?election !(ring t#e year. *or a single !ay #e presi!e! o;er t#e pop(lar assembly, an! #el! t#e 2eys of t#e cita!el an! of t#e treas(ry. $n!er t#e new go;ernment t#e pop(lar assembly #el! t#e s(bstance of power, an! g(i!e! t#e !estiny of &t#ens. "#e new element w#ic# ga;e stability an! or!er to t#e state: was t#e !eme or towns#ip, wit# its complete a(tonomy, an! local self? go;ernment. & #(n!re! !emes similarly organiBe! wo(l! !etermine t#e general mo;ement of t#e commonwealt#. &s t#e (nit, so t#e compo(n!. It is #ere t#at t#e people, as before remar2e!, m(st begin if t#ey wo(l! learn t#e art of self?go;ernment, an! maintain e5(al laws an! e5(al rig#ts an! pri;ileges. "#ey m(st retain in t#eir #an!s, all t#e powers of society not necessary to t#e state to ins(re an efficient general a!ministration, as well as t#e control of t#e a!ministration itself. &t#ens rose rapi!ly into infl(ence an! !istinction (n!er t#e new political system. "#at remar2able !e;elopment of geni(s an! intelligence, w#ic# raise! t#e &t#enians to t#e #ig#est eminence among t#e #istorical nations of man2in!, occ(rre! (n!er t#e inspiration of !emocratic instit(tions. 6it# t#e instit(tion of political society (n!er Cleist#enes, t#e gentile organiBation was lai! asi!e as a portion of t#e rags of barbarism. "#eir ancestors #a! li;e! for

18, (ntol! cent(ries in gentilism, wit# w#ic# t#ey #a! ac#ie;e! all t#e elements of ci;iliBation, incl(!ing a written lang(age, as well as entere! (pon a ci;iliBe! career. "#e #istory of t#e gentile organiBation will remain as a perpet(al mon(ment of t#e anterior ages, i!entifie! as it #as been wit# t#e most remar2able an! exten!e! experience of man2in!. It m(st e;er be ran2e! as one of t#e most remar2able instit(tions of t#e #(man family. In t#is brief an! ina!e5(ate re;iew t#e !isc(ssion #as been confine! to t#e main co(rse of e;ents in &t#enian #istory, 6#ate;er was tr(e of t#e &t#enian tribes will be fo(n! s(bstantially tr(e of t#e remaining 9recian tribes, t#o(g# not ex#ibite! on so broa! or so gran! a scale. "#e !isc(ssion ten!s to ren!er still more apparent one of t#e main propositions a!;ance! ? t#at t#e i!ea of go;ernment in all t#e tribes of man2in! #as been a growt# t#ro(g# s(ccessi;e stages of !e;elopment.

Footnotes
1 )"#(cy!i!es,8 lib. i, D?1A. ! )"#(cy!.,8 Iib. ii, c. 14. 3l(tarc# spea2s nearly to t#e same effect: )He settle! all t#e in#abitants of &ttica in &t#ens, an! ma!e t#em one people in one city, w#o before were scattere! (p an! !own, an! co(l! wit# !iffic(lty be assemble! on any (rgent occasion for t#e p(blic welfare... <issol;ing t#erefore t#e associations, t#e co(ncils, an! t#e co(rts in eac# partic(lar town, #e b(ilt one common prytane(m an! co(rt #all, w#ere it stan!s to t#is !ay. "#e cita!el wit# its !epen!encies, an! t#e city or t#e ol! an! new town, #e (nite! (n!er t#e common name of &t#ens.8 ? 3l(tarc#. )Iit. "#ese(s,8 cap. D-. " )>f t#e nine arc#ons, w#ose n(mber contin(e! (naltere! from G8A /. C, to t#e en! of t#e !emocracy, t#ree bore special titles ? t#e &rc#on 'ponym(s, from w#ose name t#e !esignation of t#e year was !eri;e!, an! w#o was spo2en of as Et#e &rc#on,F t#e &rc#on /asile(s +7ing., or more fre5(ently, t#e /asile(s; an! t#e 3olemarc#. "#e remaining six passe! by t#e general name of "#esmot#etae..... "#e &rc#on 'ponym(s !etermine! all !isp(tes relati;e to t#e family, t#e gentile, an! t#e p#ratric relations: #e was t#e legal protector of orp#ans an! wi!ows. "#e &rc#on /asile(s +or 7ing &rc#on. en:oye! competence in complaints respecting offences against t#e religio(s sentiment an! respecting #omici!e. "#e 3olemarc# +spea2ing of times anterior to 7leist#enes. was t#e lea!er of military force, an! :(!ge in E!isp(tes between citiBens an! non?citiBens.8 ? )9roteFs EHistory of 9reece,8 1. c,, iii, 7-. # )3(blic 'conomy of &t#ens;8 ambFs "rans., ittle & /rownFs e!., p. A4A. $ )History of 9reece,FF iii G4. % )History of 9reece,8 iii 1AA: & "#e atin Etrib(sFTtribe, signifie! originally Ea t#ir! part,F an! was (se! to !esignate a t#ir! part of t#e people w#en compose! of t#ree tribes; b(t in co(rse of time, after t#e atin tribes were ma!e local instea! of consang(ine, li2e t#e &t#enian local tribes, t#e term tribe lost its n(merical 5(ality an! came, li2e t#e p#ylon of Cleist#enes to be a local !esignation.

1,H
?? MommsenFs )History of 0ome8 1,c, I, 71. ' )&nglo %axon aw,8 by Henry &!ams an! ot#ers, pp. DH, DA. ( %ee partic(larly t#e >rations against '(b(li!es, an! Mareat(s. 1) HermannFs )3olitical &nti5(ities of 9reece,8 1. c. p. 187, ,G. 11 )"#e primiti;e 9recian go;ernment is essentially monarc#ical, reposing on personal feeling an! !i;ine rig#t.8 ? )History of 9reece,8 ii, G,. 1! %parta retaine! t#e office of basile(s in t#e perio! of ci;iliBation. It was a !(al general s#ip, an! #ere!itary in a partic(lar family. "#e powers of go;ernment were co?or!inate! between t#e 9ero(sia or co(ncil, t#e pop(lar assembly, t#e fi;e ep#ors, an! two military comman!ers. "#e ep#ors were electe! ann(ally, wit# powers analogo(s to t#e 0oman trib(nes. 0oyalty at %parta nee!s 5(alification. "#e basileis comman!e! t#e army, an! in t#eir capacity of c#ief priests offere! t#e sacrifices to t#e go!s.

Chapter XI THE ROMAN GENS

6#en t#e atins, an! t#eir congeners t#e %abellians, t#e >scans an! t#e $mbrians, entere! t#e Italian penins(la probably as one people, t#ey were in possession of !omestic animals, an! probably c(lti;ate! cereals an! plants. [1] &t t#e least t#ey were well a!;ance! in t#e Mi!!le %tat(s of barbarism; an! w#en t#ey first came (n!er #istorical notice t#ey were in t#e $pper %tat(s, an! near t#e t#res#ol! of ci;iliBation. "#e tra!itionary #istory of t#e atin tribes, prior to t#e time of 0om(l(s, is m(c# more scanty an! imperfect t#an t#at of t#e 9recian, w#ose earlier relati;e literary c(lt(re an! stronger literary procli;ities enable! t#em to preser;e a larger proportion of t#eir tra!itionary acco(nts. Concerning t#eir anterior experience, tra!ition !i! not reac# beyon! t#eir pre;io(s life on t#e &lban #ills, an! t#e ranges of t#e &ppenines eastwar! from t#e site of 0ome. *or tribes so #r a!;ance! in t#e arts of life it wo(l! #a;e re5(ire! a long occ(pation of Italy to efface all 2nowle!ge of t#e co(ntry from w#ic# t#ey came. In t#e time of 0om(l(s [2] t#ey #a! alrea!y fallen by segmentation into t#irty in!epen!ent tribes, still (nite! in a loose confe!eracy far m(t(al protection. "#ey also occ(pie! contig(o(s territorial areas. "#e %abellians, >scans, an! $mbrians were in t#e same general con!ition; t#eir respecti;e tribes were in t#e same relations; an! t#eir territorial circ(mscriptions, as mig#t #a;e been expecte!, were fo(n!e! (pon !ialect. &ll ali2e, incl(!ing t#eir nort#ern neig#bo(rs t#e 'tr(scans, were organiBe! in gentes, wit# instit(tions similar to t#ose of t#e 9recian tribes. %(c# was t#eir general con!ition w#en t#ey first emerge! from be#in! t#e !ar2 c(rtain of t#eirF pre;io(s obsc(rity, an! t#e lig#t of #istory fell (pon t#em. 0oman #istory #as to(c#e! b(t slig#tly t#e partic(lars of a ;ast experience anterior to t#e fo(n!ing of 0ome +abo(t 74A /. C... "#e Italian tribes #a! t#en become n(mero(s an! pop(lo(s; t#ey #a! become strictly agric(lt(ral in t#eir #abits, possesse! floc2s an! #er!s of !omestic animals,

1,1 an! #a! ma!e great progress in t#e arts of life. "#ey #a! also attaine! t#e monogamian family. &ll t#is is s#own by t#eir con!ition w#en first, ma!e 2nown to (s; b(t t#e partic(lars of t#eir progress from a lower to a #ig#er state #a!, in t#e main; fallen o(t of 2nowle!ge. "#ey were bac2war! in t#e growt# of t#e i!ea of go;ernment; since t#e confe!eracy of tribes was stillt#e f(ll extent of t#eir a!;ancement. &lt#o(g# t#e t#irty tribes were confe!erate!, it was in t#e nat(re of a leag(e for m(t(al !efence, an! neit#er s(fficiently close or intimate to ten! to a nationality. "#e 'tr(scan tribes were confe!erate!; an! t#e same was probably tr(e of t#e %abellian, >scan an! $mbrian tribes. 6#ile t#e atin tribes possesse! n(mero(s fortifie! towns an! co(ntry strong#ol!s, t#ey were sprea! o;er t#e s(rface of t#e co(ntry for agric(lt(ral p(rs(its, an! for t#e maintenance of t#eir floc2s an! #er!s. Concentration an! coalescence #a! not occ(rre! to any mar2e! extentF (ntil t#e great mo;ement ascribe! to 0om(l(s w#ic# res(lte! in t#e fo(n!ation of 0ome. "#ese loosely (nite! atin tribes f(rnis#e! t#e principal materials from w#ic# t#e new city was to !raw its strengt#. "#e acco(nts of t#ese tribes from t#e time of t#e s(premacy of t#e c#iefs of &lba !own to t#e time of %er;i(s "(lli(s, were ma!e (p to a great extent of fables an! tra!itions; b(t certain facts remaine! in t#e instit(tions an! social (sages transmitte! to t#e #istorical perio! w#ic# ten!, in a remar2able manner, to ill(strate t#eir pre;io(s con!ition. "#ey are e;en more important t#an an o(tline #istory of act(al e;ents. &mong t#e instit(tions of t#e atin tribes existing at t#e commencement of t#e #istorical perio! were t#e gentes, c(riae an! tribes (pon w#ic# 0om(l(s an! #is s(ccessors establis#e! t#e 0oman power. "#e new go;ernment was not in all respects a nat(ral growt#; b(t mo!ifie! in t#e (pper members of t#e organic series by legislati;e proc(rement. "#e gentes, #owe;er, w#ic# forme! t#e basis of t#e organiBation, were nat(ral growt#s, an! in t#e main eit#er of common or cognate lineage. "#at is, t#e atin gentes were of t#e same lineage, w#ile t#e %abine an! ot#er gentes, wit# t#e exception of t#e 'tr(scans, were of cognate !escent. In t#e time of "ar5(ini(s 3risc(s, t#e fo(rt# in s(ccession from 0om(l(s, t#e organiBation #a! been bro(g#t to a n(merical scale, namely: ten gentes to a c(ria, ten c(ria to a tribe, an! t#ree tribes of t#e 0omans; gi;ing a total of t#ree #(n!re! gentes integrate! in one gentile society. 0om(l(s #a! t#e sagacity to percei;e t#at a confe!eracy of tribes, compose! of gentes an! occ(pying separate areas, #a! neit#er t#e (nity of p(rpose nor s(fficient strengt# to accomplis# more t#an t#e maintenance of an in!epen!ent, existence. "#e ten!ency to !isintegration co(nteracte! t#e a!;antages of t#e fe!eral principle. Concentration an! coalescence were t#e reme!y propose! by 0om(l(s an! t#e wise men of #is time. It was a remar2able mo;ement for t#e perio!, an! still more remar2able in its progress from t#e epoc# of 0om(l(s to t#e instit(tion of political society (n!er %er;i(s "(lli(s. *ollowing t#e co(rse of t#e &t#enian tribes an! concentrating in one city, t#ey wro(g#t o(t in fi;e generations a similar an! complete c#ange in t#e plan of go;ernment, from a gentile into a political organiBation. It will be s(fficient to remin! t#e rea!er of t#e general facts t#at 0om(l(s (nite!

1,D (pon an! aro(n! t#e 3alatine Hill a #(n!re! atin gentes, organiBe! as a tribe, t#e 0amnes; t#at by a fort(nate conc(rrence of circ(mstances a large bo!y of %abines were a!!e! to t#e new comm(nity w#ose gentes, afterwar!s increase! to one #(n!re!, were organiBe! as a secon! tribe, t#e "ities; an! t#at in t#e time of "ar5(ini(s 3risc(s a t#ir! tribe, t#e (ceres, #a! been forme!, compose! of a #(n!re! gentes !rawn from s(rro(n!ing tribes, incl(!ing t#e 'tr(scans. "#ree #(n!re! gentes, in abo(t t#e space of a #(n!re! years, were t#(s gat#ere! at 0ome, an! completely organiBe! (n!er a co(ncil of c#iefs now calle! t#e 0oman %enate, an assembly of t#e people now calle! t#e comitia curiata$ an! one military comman!er, t#e re"2 an! wit# one p(rpose, t#at of gaining a military ascen!ancy in Italy. $n!er t#e constit(tion of 0om(l(s, an! t#e s(bse5(ent legislation of %er;i(s "(lli(s, t#e go;ernment was essentially a military !emocracy, beca(se t#e military spirit pre!ominate! in t#e go;ernment. /(t it may be remar2e! in passing t#at a new an! antagonistic element; t#e 0oman senate, was now incorporate! in t#e centre of t#e social system, w#ic# conferre! patrician ran2 (pon its members an! t#eir posterity. & pri;ilege! class was t#(s create! at a stro2e, an! intrenc#e! first, in t#e gentile an! afterwar!s in t#e political system, w#ic# (ltimately o;ert#rew t#e !emocratic principles in#erite! from t#e gentes, It was t#e 0oman senate, wit# t#e patrician class it create!, t#at, c#ange! t#e instit(tions an! t#e !estiny of t#e 0oman people, an! t(rne! t#em from a career, analogo(s to t#at of t#e &t#enians, to w#ic# t#eir in#erite! principles nat(rally an! logically ten!e!. In its main feat(res t#e new organiBation was a masterpiece of wis!om for military p(rposes. It soon carrie! t#em entirely beyon! t#e remaining Italian tribes, an! (ltimately into s(premacy o;er t#e entire penins(la. "#e organiBation of t#e atin an! ot#er Italian tribes into gentes #as been in;estigate! by =ieb(#r, Hermann, Mommsen, ong an! ot#ers; b(t t#eir se;eral acco(nts fall s#ort of a clear an! complete exposition of t#e str(ct(re an! principles of t#e Italian gens. "#is is !(e in part to t#e obsc(rity in w#ic# portions of t#e s(b:ect are en;elope!, an! to t#e absence of min(te !etails in t#e atin writers. It is also in part !(e to a misconception, by some of t#e first name! writers, of t#e relations of t#e family to t#e gens. "#ey regar! t#e gens as compose! of families, w#ereas it was compose! of parts of families; so t#at t#e gens an! not t#e family was t#e (nit of t#e social system. It may be !iffic(lt to carry t#e in;estigation m(c# beyon! t#e point w#ere t#ey #a;e left it; b(t information !rawn from t#e arc#aic constit(tion of t#e gens may ser;e to el(ci!ate some of its c#aracteristics w#ic# are now obsc(re. Concerning t#e pre;alence of t#e organiBation into gentes among t#e Italian tribes, =ieb(#r remar2s as follows: E%#o(l! any one still conten! t#at no concl(sion is to be !rawn from t#e c#aracter of t#e &t#enian genetes to t#at of t#e 0oman gentiles, #e will be bo(n! to s#ow #ow an instit(tion w#ic# r(ns t#ro(g# t#e w#ole ancient worl! came to #a;e a completely !ifferent c#aracter in Italy an! in 9reeeeV ';ery bo!y of citiBens was !i;i!e! in t#is manner; t#e 9ep#yraeans an! %alaminians as well as t#e &t#enians, t#e "(sc(lans as well: as t#e 0omans.[3] /esi!es t#e existence of t#e 0oman gens, it is !esirable to 2now t#e nat(re of t#e

1,A organiBation; its rig#ts, pri;ileges an! obligations, an! t#e relations of t#e gentes to eac# ot#er, as members of. a social system. &fter t#ese #a;e been consi!ere!, t#eir relations to t#e c(riae tribes, an! res(lting people of w#ic# t#ey forme! a part, will remain for consi!eration in t#e next ens(ing c#apter. &fter, collecting t#e accessible information from ;ario(s so(rces (pon t#ese s(b:ects it will be fo(n! incomplete in many respects, lea;ing some of t#e attrib(tes an! f(nctions of t#e gens a matter of inference. "#e powers of t#e gentes were wit#!rawn, an! transferre! to new political bo!ies before #istorical composition among t#e 0omans #a! fairly commence!. "#ere was t#erefore, no practical necessity resting (pon t#e 0omans for preser;ing t#e special feat(res of a system s(bstantially set asi!e. 9ai(s, w#o wrote #is %nstitutes in t#e early part of t#e secon! cent(ry of o(r era, too2 occasion to remar2 t#at t#e w#ole 3us gentilicium #a! fallen into !es(et(!e, an! t#at it was t#en s(perfl(o(s to treat t#e s(b:ect. [4] /(t at t#e fo(n!ation of 0ome, an! for se;eral cent(ries t#ereafter, t#e gentile organiBation was in ;igoro(s acti;ity. "#e 0oman !efinition of a gens an! of a gentilis, an! t#e line in w#ic# !escent was trace! s#o(l! be presente! before t#e c#aracteristics of t#e gens are consi!ere!. In t#e Topics of Cicero a gentilis is !efine! as follows: )"#ose are gentiles w#o are of t#e same name among t#emsel;es. "#is is ins(fficient. 6#o were born of free parents. ';en t#at is not s(fficient. =o one of w#ose ancestors #as been a sla;e. %omet#ing still is wanting. 6#o #a;e ne;er s(ffere! capital !imin(tion. "#is per#aps may !o; for I am not aware t#at %cae;ola, t#e 3ontiff, a!!e! anyt#ing to t#is !efinition.8 "#ere is one by *est(s: )& gentilis is !escribe! as one bot# spr(ng from t#e same stoc2, an! w#o is calle! by t#e same name.8 [6] &lso by Iarro: )&s from an &emili(s men are born &emilii, an! gentiles; so from t#e name &emili(s terms are !eri;e! pertaining to gentilism.8[7] Cicero !oes not attempt to !efine a gens, b(t rat#er to f(rnis# certain tests by w#ic# t#e rig#t to t#e gentile connection mig#t be pro;e!, or t#e loss of it be !etecte!. =eit#er of t#ese !efinitions s#ow t#e composition of a gens; t#at is, w#et#er all, or a part only, of t#e !escen!ants of a s(ppose! genarc# were entitle! to bear t#e gentile name; an!, if a part only, w#at part. 6it# !escent in t#e male line t#e gens wo(l! incl(!e t#ose only w#o co(l! trace t#eir !escent t#ro(g# males excl(si;ely; an! if in t#e female line, t#en t#ro(g# females only. If limite! to neit#er, t#en all t#e !escen!ants wo(l! be incl(!e!. "#ese !efinitions m(st #a;e ass(me! t#at !escent in t#e male line was a fact 2nown to all. *rom ot#er so(rces it appears t#at t#ose only belonge! to t#e gens w#o co(l! trace t#eir !escent t#ro(g# its male members. 0oman genealogies s(pply t#is proof. Cicero omitte! t#e material fact t#at, t#ose were gentiles w#o co(l! trace t#eir !escent t#ro(g# males excl(si;ely from an ac2nowle!ge! ancestor wit#in t#e gens. It is in part s(pplie! by *est(s an! Iarro. *rom an &emili(s, t#e latter remar2s, men are born &emilii, an! gentiles; eac# m(st be born of a male bearing t#e gentile name. /(t CiceroFs !efinition also s#ows t#at a gentilis m(st bear t#e gentile name. In t#e a!!ress of t#e 0oman trib(ne Can(lei(s +--4 /. C.., on #is proposition to repeal an existing law forbi!!ing intermarriage between patricians an! plebeians, t#ere is a statement implying !escent in t#e male line. )*or w#at else is t#ere in t#e

1,matter, #e remar2s, if a patrician man s#all we! a plebeian woman, or a plebeian man a patrician womanU 6#at rig#t in t#e en! is t#ereby c#ange!U "#e c#il!ren s(rely follow t#e fat#er.8[8] & practical ill(stration, !eri;e! from transmitte! gentile names, will s#ow concl(si;ely t#at !escent was in t#e male line. C(lia, t#e sister of Cai(s C(li(s Caesar, marrie! Marc(s &tti(s /alb(s. Her name s#ows t#at s#e belonge! to t#e C(lian gens. Her !a(g#ter &ttia, accor!ing to c(stom, too2 t#e gentile name of #er fat#er an! belonge! to t#e &ttian gens. [9] &ttia marrie! Cai(s >cta;i(s, an! became t#e mot#er of Cai(s >cta;i(s; t#e first 0oman emperor. "#e son, as (s(al, too2 t#e gentile name of #is fat#er, an! belonge! to t#e >cta;ian gens.[10] &fter becoming emperor #e a!!e! t#e names Caesar &(g(st(s. In t#e 0oman gens !escent was in t#e male line from &(g(st(s bac2 to 0om(l(s, an! for an (n2nown perio! bac2 of t#e latter. =one were gentiles except s(c# as co(l! trace t#eir !escent t#ro(g# males excl(si;ely from some ac2nowle!ge! ancestor wit#in t#e gens. /(t it was (nnecessary, beca(se impossible, t#at all s#o(l! be able to trace t#eir !escent from t#e same common ancestor; an! m(c# less from t#e eponymo(s ancestor. It will be notice! t#at in eac# of t#e abo;e cases, to w#ic# a large n(mber mig#t be a!!e!, t#e persons marrie! o(t of t#e gens. %(c# was (n!o(bte!ly t#e general (sage by c(stomary law. "#e 0oman gens was in!i;i!(aliBe! by t#e following tig#ts, pri;ileges an! obligations: I. 'utual rights of succession to the property of deceased gentiles. II. The possession of a common burial place. III. ?ommon religious rites2 sacra gentilicia. II. The obligation not to marry in the gens. I. The possession of land in common; II. Reciprocal obligations of help$ defence$ and redress of in3uries. III. The right to bear the gentile name. IIII. The right to adopt strangers into the gens. IL. The right to elect end depose its chiefs2 >uery. "#ese se;eral c#aracteristics will be consi!ere! in t#e or!er name!.

I. Mutual rights of succession to the property of deceased gentiles.

6#en t#e law of t#e "wel;e "ables was prom(lgate! +-41 /. C.., t#e ancient r(le, w#ic# pres(mpti;ely !istrib(te! t#e in#eritance among t#e gentiles, #a! been s(perse!e! by more a!;ance! reg(lations. "#e estate of an intestate now passe!, first, to #is sui heredes$ that is, to #is c#il!ren; an!, in !efa(lt of c#il!ren, to #is lineal !escen!ants t#ro(g# males.[11] "#e li;ing c#il!ren too2 e5(ally, an! t#e c#il!ren of !ecease! sons too2 t#e s#are of t#eir fat#er e5(ally. It will be notice!

1,4 t#at t#e in#eritance remaine! in t#e gens; t#e c#il!ren of t#e female !escen!ants of t#e intestate, w#o belonge! to ot#er gentes, being excl(!e!. %econ!, if t#ere were no sui heredes$ by t#e same law, t#e in#eritance t#en passe! to t#e agnates. [12] "#e agnatic 2in!re! comprise! all t#ose persons w#o co(l! trace t#eir !escent t#ro(g# males from t#e same common ancestor wit# t#e intestate. In ;irt(e of s(c# a !escent t#ey all bore t#e same gentile name, females as well as males, an! were nearer in !egree to t#e !ece!ent t#an t#e remaining gentiles. "#e agnates nearest, in !egree #a! t#e preference; first, t#e brot#ers an! (nmarrie! sisters; secon!, t#e paternal (ncles an! (nmarrie! a(nts of t#e intestate, an! so on (ntil t#e agnatic relati;es were ex#a(ste!. "#ir!, if t#ere were no agnates of t#e intestate, t#e same law calle! t#e gentiles to t#e in#eritance.[13] "#is seems at first sig#t remar2able; beca(se t#e c#il!ren of t#e intestateFs sisters were excl(!e! from t#e in#eritance, an! t#e preference gi;en to gentile 2insmen so remote t#at t#eir relations#ip to t#e intestate co(l! not be trace! at all, an!: only existe! in ;irt(e of an ancient lineage preser;e! by a common gentile name. "#e reason, #ow? e;er, is apparent; t#e c#il!ren of t#e sisters of t#e intestate belonge! to anot#er gens, an! t#e gentile rig#t pre!ominate! o;er greater nearness of consang(inity, beca(se t#e principle w#ic# retaine! t#e property in t#e gens was f(n!amental. It is a plain inference from t#e law of t#e E"wel;e "ablesF t#at in#eritance began in t#e in;erse or!er, an! t#at t#e t#ree classes of #eirs represent t#e t#ree s(ccessi;e r(les of in#eritance; namely, first, t#e gentiles; secon!, t#e agnates, among w#om were t#e c#il!ren of t#e !ece!ent after !escent was c#ange! to t#e male line; an! t#ir!, t#e c#il!ren, to t#e excl(sion of t#e remaining agnates. & female, by #er marriage, s(ffere! w#at was tec#nically calle! a loss of franc#ise or capital !imin(tion +deminutio capitis. by w#ic# s#e forfeite! #er agnatic rig#ts. Here again t#e reason is apparent. If after #er marriage s#e co(l! in#erit as an agnate it wo(l! transfer t#e property in#erite! from #er own gens to t#at of #er #(sban!. &n (nmarrie! sister co(l! in#erit; b(t a marrie! sister co(l! not. 6it# o(r 2nowle!ge of t#e arc#aic principles of t#e gens, we are enable! to glance bac2war! to t#e time w#en !escent in t#e atin gens was in t#e female line, w#en property was inconsi!erable, an! !istrib(te! among t#e gentiles; not necessarily wit#in t#e life?time of t#e atin gens, for its existence reac#e! bac2 of t#e perio! of t#eir occ(pation of Italy. "#at t#e 0oman gens #a! passe! from t#e arc#aic into its #istorical form is partially in!icate! by t#e re;ersion of property in certain cases to t#e gentiles. )"#e rig#t of s(ccee!ing to t#e property of members w#o !ie! wit#o(t 2in an! intestate,8 =ieb(#r remar2s, )was t#at w#ic# laste! t#e longest; so long in!ee!, as to engage t#e attention of t#e :(rists, an! e;en ? t#o(g# ass(re!ly not as anyt#ing more t#an a #istorical 5(estion ? t#at of 9ai(s, t#e man(script of w#om is (nfort(nately illegible in t#is part.8[15]

II. A co

on burial place.

"#e sentiment of gentilism seems to #a;e been stronger in t#e $pper %tat(s of barbarism t#an in earlier con!itions, t#ro(g# a #ig#er organiBation of society, an! t#ro(g# mental an! moral a!;ancement. 'ac# gens (s(ally #a! a b(rial place for

1,G t#e excl(si;e (se of its members as a place of sep(lt(re. & few ill(strations will ex#ibit 0oman (sages wit# respect to b(rial. &ppi(s Cla(!i(s, t#e c#ief of t#e Cla(!ian gens, remo;e! from 0egili, a town of t#e %abines, to 0ome in t#e time of 0om(l(s, w#ere in !(e time #e was ma!e a senator, an! t#(s a patrician. He bro(g#t wit# #im t#e Cla(!ian gens, an! s(c# a n(mber of clients t#at #is accession to 0ome was regar!e! as an important e;ent. %(etoni(s remar2s t#at t#e gens recei;e! from t#e state lan!s (pon t#e &nio for t#eir clients, an! a b(rial place for t#emsel;es near t#e capitol. [16] "#is statement seems to imply t#at a common b(rial place was, at t#at time, consi!ere! in!ispensable to a gens, "#e Cla(!ii, #a;ing aban!one! t#eir %abine connection an! i!entifie! t#emsel;es wit# t#e 0oman people, recei;e! bot# a grant of lan!s an! a b(rial place for t#e gens, to place t#em in e5(ality of con!ition wit# t#e 0oman gentes. "#e transaction re;eals a c(stom of t#e times. "#e family tomb #a! not entirely s(perse!e! t#at of t#e gens in t#e time of C(li(s Caesar, as was ill(strate! by t#e case of J(intili(s Iar(s, w#o, #a;ing lost #is army in 9ermany, !estroye! #imself, an! #is bo!y fell into t#e #an!s of t#e enemy. "#e #alf?b(rne! bo!y of Iar(s, says 3aterc(l(s, was mangle! by t#e sa;age enemy; #is #ea! was c(t off, an! bro(g#t to Marobo!((s, an! by #im #a;ing been sent to Caesar, was at lengt# #ono(re! wit# b(rial in t#e gentile sep(lc#re.[17] In #is treatise on t#e laws, Cicero refers to t#e (sages of #is own times in respect to b(rial in t#e following lang(age: now t#e sacre!ness of b(rial places is so great t#at it is affirme! to be wrong to perform t#e b(rial in!epen!ently of t#e sacre! rites of t#e gens. "#(s in t#e time of o(r ancestors &. "or5(at(s !eci!e! respecting t#e 3oplian gens.[18] "#e p(rport of t#e statement is t#at, it was a religio(s !(ty to b(ry t#e !ea! wit# sacre! rites, an! w#en possible in lan! belonging to t#e gens. It f(rt#er appears t#at cremation an! in#(mation were bot# practice! prior to t#e prom(lgation of t#e "wel;e "ables, w#ic# pro#ibite! t#e b(rying or b(rning of !ea! bo!ies wit#in t#e city. [19] "#e col(mbari(m, w#ic# wo(l! (s(ally accommo!ate se;eral #(n!re! (rns, was eminently a!apte! to t#e (ses of a gens. In t#e time of Cicero t#e gentile organiBation #a! fallen into !eca!ence, b(t certain (sages pec(liar to it #a! remaine!, an! t#at respecting a common b(rial place among t#e n(mber. "#e family tomb began to ta2e t#e place of t#at of t#e gens, as t#e families in t#e ancient gentes rose into complete a(tonomy; ne;ert#eless, remains of ancient gentile (sages wit# respect to b(rial manifeste! t#emsel;es in ;ario(s ways, an! were still fres# in t#e #istory of t#e past.

III. Co

on sacred rites: sacra gentilicia.

"#e 0oman sacra embo!y o(r i!ea of !i;ine wors#ip, an! were eit#er p(blic or pri;ate. 0eligio(s rites performe! by a gens were calle! sacra privata$ or sacra gentlicia. "#ey were performe! reg(larly at state! perio!s by t#e gens. [20] Cases are mentione! in w#ic# t#e expenses of maintaining t#ese rites #a! become a b(r!en in conse5(ence of t#e re!(ce! n(mbers in t#e gens. "#ey were gaine! an! lost by circ(mstances, e.g.$ a!option or marriage.[21] E"#at t#e members of t#e 0oman gens #a! common sacre! rites,F obser;es =eib(#r, Eis well 2nown; t#ere were sacrifices appointe! for state! !ays an! places.F[22] "#e sacre! rites, bot# p(blic an! pri;ate,

1,7 were (n!er pontifical reg(lation excl(si;ely, an! not s(b:ect to ci;il cogniBance.[23] "#e religio(s rites of t#e 0omans seem to #a;e #a! t#eir primary connection wit# t#e gens rat#er t#an t#e family. & college of pontiffs, of c(riones, an! of a(g(rs, wit# an elaborate system of wors#ip (n!er t#ese priest#oo!s, in !(e time grew into form an! became establis#e!; b(t t#e system was tolerant an! free. "#e priest#oo! was in t#e main electi;e. [24] "#e #ea! of e;ery family also was t#e priest of t#e #o(se#ol!. "#e gentes of[25] t#e 9ree2s an! 0omans were t#e fo(ntains from w#ic# flowe! t#e st(pen!o(s myt#ology of t#e classical worl!. In t#e early !ays of 0ome many gentes #a! eac# t#eir own sacell(m for t#e performance of t#eir religio(s rites. %e;eral gentes #a! eac# special sacrifices to perform, w#ic# #a! been transmitte! from generation to generation, an! were regar!e! as obligatory; as t#ose of t#e =a(tii to Miner;a, of t#e *abii to Herc(les, an! of t#e Horatii in expiation of t#e sororici!e committe! by Horati(s. [26] It is s(fficient for my p(rpose to #a;e s#own generally t#at eac# gens #a! its own religio(s rites as one of t#e attrib(tes of t#e organiBation.

I(. !bligation not to

arry in the gens.

9entile reg(lations were c(stoms #a;ing t#e force of law. "#e obligation not to marry in t#e gens was one of t#e n(mber. It !oes not appear to #a;e been t(rne!, at a later !ay, into a legal enactment; b(t e;i!ence t#at s(c# was t#e r(le of t#e gens appears in a n(mber of ways. "#e 0oman genealogies s#ow t#at marriage was o(t of t#e gens, of w#ic# instances #a;e been gi;en. "#is, as we #a;e seen, was t#e arc#aic r(le for reasons of consang(inity. & woman by #er marriage forfeite! #er agnatic rig#ts, to w#ic# r(le t#ere was no exception. It was to pre;ent t#e transfer of property by marriage from one gens to anot#er, from t#e gens of #er birt# to t#e gens of #er #(sban!. "#e excl(sion of t#e c#il!ren of a female from all rig#ts of in#eritance from a maternal (ncle or maternal gran!fat#er, w#ic# followe!, was for t#e same reason. &s t#e female was re5(ire! to marry o(t of #er gens #er c#il!ren wo(l! be of t#e gens of t#eir fat#er, an! t#ere co(l! be no pri;ity of in#eritance between members of !ifferent gentes.

(. %he possession of lands in co

on

"#e owners#ip of lan!s in common was so general among barbaro(s tribes t#at t#e existence of t#e same ten(re among t#e atin tribes is no occasion for s(rprise. & portion of t#eir lan!s seems to #a;e been #el! in se;eralty by in!i;i!(als from a ;ery early perio!. =o time can be assigne! w#en t#is was not t#e case; b(t at first, it was probably t#e possessory rig#t to lan!s in act(al occ(pation, so often before referre! to, w#ic# was recogniBe! as far bac2 as t#e ower %tat(s of barbarism. &mong t#e r(stic atin tribes, lan!s were #el! in common by eac# tribe, ot#er lan!s by t#e gentes, an! still ot#er by #o(se#ol!s. &llotments of lan!s to in!i;i!(al became common at 0ome in t#e time of 0om(l(s, an! afterwar!s 5(ite general, Iarro an! <ionysi(s bot# state t#at 0om(l(s allotte! two :(gera +abo(t two an! a 5(arter acres. to eac# man. [27], %imilar allotments are sai! to #a;e been afterwar!s ma!e by =(ma an! %er;i(s "(lli(s. "#ey were t#e beginnings of absol(te owners#ip in se;eralty, an! pres(ppose a settle! life as well

1,8 as a great a!;ancement in intelligence It was not only a!meas(re! b(t grante! by t#e go;ernment, w#ic# was ;ery !ifferent from a possessory rig#t in lan!s growing o(t of an in!i;i!(al act. "#e i!ea of absol(te in!i;i!(al owners#ip of lan! was a growt# t#ro(g# experience, t#e complete attainment of w#ic#belongs to t#e perio! of ci;iliBation. "#ese lan!s, #owe;er, were ta2en from t#ose #el! in common by t#e 0oman people. 9entes, c(riae an! tribes #el! certain lan!s in common after ci;iliBation #a! commence!, beyon! t#ose #el! by in!i;i!(als in se;eralty. Mommsen remar2s t#at Et#e 0oman territory was !i;i!e! in t#e earliest times into a n(mber of clan?!istricts, w#ic# were s(bse5(ently employe! in t#e formation of t#e earliest r(ral war!s +tribus rasticae........ "#ese names are not li2e t#ose of t#e !istricts a!!e! at a later perio!, !eri;e! from t#e localities, b(t are forme! wit#o(t exception from t#e names of t#e clans.F [28] 'ac# gens#el! an in!epen!ent, !istrict, an! of necessity was localiBe!, (pon it. "#is was a step in a!;ance, alt#o(g# it was t#e pre;ailing practice not only in t#e r(ral !istricts, b(t also in 0ome, for t#e gentes to localiBe in separate areas. Mammsen f(rt#er obser;es: )&s eac# #o(se#ol! #a! its own portion of lan!, so t#e clan? #o(se#ol! or ;illage, #a! clan? lan!s belonging to it, w#ic#, as will afterwar!s be s#own, were manage! (p to a comparati;ely late perio! after t#e analogy of #o(se?lan!s, t#at is, on t#e system of :oint, possessionV.. "#ese clans#ips, #owe;er, were from t#e beginning regar!e! not as in!epen!ent societies, b(t as integral parts of a political comm(nity +ci;itas pop(li.. "#is first presents itself as an aggregate of a n(mber of clan?;illages of t#e same stoc2, lang(age an! manners, bo(n! to obser;ance of law an! m(t(al legal re!ress an! to (nite! action in aggression an! !efence.8 [29] Clan is #ere (se! by Mommsen, or #is translator, in t#e place of gens, an! elsew#ere canton is (se! in t#e place of tribe, w#ic# are t#e more sing(lar since t#e atin lang(age f(rnis#es specific terms for t#ese organiBations w#ic# #a;e become #istorical. Mommsen represents t#e atin tribes anterior to t#e fo(n!ing of 0ome as #ol!ing lan!s by #o(se#ol!s, by gentes an! by tribes; an! #e f(rt#er s#ows t#e ascen!ing series of social organiBations in t#ese tribes; a comparison of w#ic# wit# t#ose of t#e Iro5(ois, !iscloses t#eirF close parallelism, namely, t#e gens, tribe an! confe!eracy. [30] "#e p#ratry is not mentione! alt#o(g# it probably existe!. "#e #o(se#ol! referre! to co(l! scarcely #a;e been a single family. It is not (nli2ely t#at it was compose! of relate! families w#o occ(pie! a :oin tenement #o(se, an! practice! comm(nism in li;ing in t#e #o(se#ol!.

(I. Reciprocal obligations of help+ defence and redress of in4uries.

<(ring t#e perio! of barbarism t#e !epen!ence of t#e gentiles (pon eac# ot#er for t#e protection of personal tig#ts wo(l! be constant; b(t after t#e establis#ment of political society, t#e gentilis, now a citiBen, wo(l! t(rn to t#e law an! to t#e state for t#e protection before a!ministere! by #is gens; "#is feat(re of t#e ancient system wo(l! be one of t#e first to !isappear (n!er t#e new. &ccor!ingly b(t slig#t references to t#ese m(t(al obligations are fo(n! in t#e early a(t#ors. It !oes not follow, #owe;er, t#at t#e gentiles !i! not practice t#ese !(ties to eac# ot#er in t#e pre;io(s perio!; on t#e contrary, t#e inference t#at t#ey !i! is a necessary one from t#e principles of t#e gentile organiBation. 0emains of t#ese special (sages appear,

1,, (n!er special circ(mstances, well !own in t#e #istorical perio!. 6#en &ppi(s Cla(!i(s was cast into prison +abo(t -AD /. C.., Cai(s Cla(!i(s, t#en at enmity wit# #im, p(t on mo(rning, as well as t#e w#ole Cla(!ian gens.[31] & calamity or !isgrace falling (pon one member of t#e bo!y was felt an! s#are! by all. <(ring t#e secon! 3(nic war, =ieb(#r remar2s, )t#e gentiles (nite! to ransom t#eir fellows w#o were in capti;ity, an! were forbi!!en to !o it by t#e senate. "#is obligation is an essential c#aracteristic of t#e gens.8[32] In t#e case of Camill(s, against w#om a trib(ne #a! lo!ge! an acc(sation on acco(nt of t#e Ieientian spoil, #e s(mmone! to #is #o(se before t#e !ay appointe! for #is trial #is tribesmen an! clients to as2 t#eir a!;ice, an! #e recei;e! for an answer t#at t#ey wo(l! collect w#ate;er s(m #e was con!emne! to pay; b(t to clear #im was impossible.8 [33] "#e acti;e principle of gentilism is plainly ill(strate! in t#ese cases. =ieb(#r f(rt#er remar2s t#at t#e obligation to assist t#eir in!igent gentiles reste! on t#e members of t#e 0oman gens.[34]

(II. %he right to bear the gentile na e.

"#is followe! necessarily from t#e nat(re of t#e gens. &ll s(c# persons as were born sons or !a(g#ters of a male member of t#e gens were t#emsel;es members, an! of rig#t entitle! to #ear t#e gentile name. In t#e lapse of time, it was fo(n! impossible for t#e members of a gens to trace t#eir !escent bac2 to t#e fo(n!er, an!, conse5(ently, for !ifferent families wit#in t#e gens to fin! t#eir connection t#ro(g# a later common ancestor. 6#ilst t#is inability pro;e! t#e anti5(ity of t#e lineage, it was no e;i!ence t#at t#ese families #a! not spr(ng from a remote common ancestor. "#e fact t#at persons were born in t#e gens, an! t#at eac# co(l! trace #is !escent t#ro(g# a series of ac2nowle!ge! members of t#e gens, was s(fficient e;i!ence of gentile !escent, an! strong e;i!ence of t#e bloo! connection of all t#e gentiles. /(t some in;estigators, =ieb(#r among t#e n(mber [35] #a;e !enie! t#e existence of any bloo! relations#ip between t#e families in a gens, since t#ey co(l! not s#ow a connection t#ro(g# a common ancestor. "#is treats t#e gens as a p(rely fictitio(s organiBation, an! is t#erefore (ntenable. =ieb(#rFs inference against a bloo! connection from CiceroFs !efinition is not s(stainable. If t#e rig#t of a person to bear t#e gentile name were 5(estione!, proof of t#e rig#t wo(l! consist, not in tracing #is !escent from t#e genarc#, b(t from a n(mber of ac2nowle!ge! ancestors wit#in t#e gens. 6it#o(t written recor!s t#e n(mber of generations t#ro(g# w#ic# a pe!igree mig#t be trace! wo(l! be limite!. *ew families in t#e same gens mig#t not be able to fin! a common ancestor, b(t it wo(l! not follow t#at t#ey were not of common !escent from some remote ancestor wit#in t#e gens.[36] &fter !escent was c#ange! to t#e male line t#e ancient names of t#e gentes, w#ic# not (nli2ely were ta2en from animals,[37] or inanimate ob:ects, ga;e place to personal names. %ome in!i;i!(al, !isting(is#e! in t#e #istory of t#e gens, became its eponymo(s ancestor, an! t#is person, aselsew#ere s(ggeste!, was not (nli2ely s(perse!e! by anot#er at long inter;als of time. 6#en a gens !i;i!e! in conse5(ence of separation in area, one !i;ision wo(l! be apt to ta2e a new name, b(t s(c# a c#ange of name wo(l! not !ist(rb t#e 2ins#ip (pon w#ic# t#e gens was fo(n!e!. 6#en it is consi!ere! t#at t#e lineage of t#e 0oman gentes, (n!er c#anges

DHH of names, ascen!e! to t#e time w#en t#e atins, 9ree2s an! %ans2rit spea2ing people of In!ia were one people, wit#o(t reac#ing its so(rce, some conception of its anti5(ity may be gaine!. "#e loss of t#e gentile name at any time by any in!i;i!(al was t#e most improbable of all occ(rrences; conse5(ently its possession was t#e #ig#est e;i!ence t#at #e s#are! wit# #is gentiles t#e same ancient lineage. "#ere was one way, an! b(t one, of a!(lterating gentile !escent, namely: by t#e a!option of strangers in bloo! into t#e gens. "#is practice pre;aile!, b(t t#e extent of it was small. If =ieb(#r #a! claime! t#at t#e bloo! relations#ip of t#e gentiles #a! become atten(ate! by lapse of time to an in?appreciable 5(antity between some of t#em, no ob:ection co(l! be ta2en to #is position; b(t a !enial of all relations#ip w#ic# t(rns t#e gens into a fictitio(s aggregation of persons, wit#o(t any bon! of (nion, contro;erts: t#e principle (pon w#ic# t#e gens came into existence, an! w#ic# perpet(ate! it t#ro(g# t#ree entire et#nical perio!s. 'lsew#ere I #a;e calle! attention to t#e fact t#at t#e gens came in wit# a system of consang(inity w#ic# re!(ce! all consang(inei to a small n(mber of categories, an! retaine! t#eir !escen!ants in!efinitely in t#e same. "#e relations#ips of persons were easily trace!, no matter #ow remote t#eir act(al common ancestor. In an Iro5(ois gens of fi;e #(n!re! persons, all its members are relate! to eac# ot#er an! eac# person 2nows or can fin! #is relations#ip to e;ery ot#er; so t#at t#e fact of 2in was perpet(ally present in t#e gens of t#e arc#aic perio!. 6it# t#e rise of t#e monogamian family, a new an! totally !ifferent system of consang(inity came in, (n!er w#ic# t#e relations#ips between collaterals soon !isappeare!. %(c# was t#e system of t#e atin an! 9recian tribes at t#e commencement of t#e #istorical perio!. "#at w#ic# prece!e! it was, pres(mpti;ely at least, "(ranian, (n!er w#ic# t#e relations#ips of t#e gentiles to eac# ot#er wo(l! #a;e been 2nown; &fter t#e !eca!ence of t#e gentile organiBation commence!, new gentes cease! to form by t#e ol! process of segmentation, an! some of t#ose existing !ie! o(t. "#is ten!e! to en#ance t#e ;al(e of gentile !escent as a lineage. In t#e times of t#e empire, new families were constantly establis#ing t#emsel;es in 0ome from foreign parts, an! ass(ming gentile names to gain social a!;antages. "#is practice being consi!ere! an ab(se, t#e 'mperor Cla(!i(s +&?.<. -H?4-. pro#ibite! foreigners from ass(ming 0oman names, especially t#ose of t#e ancient gentes.[38] 0oman families, belonging to t#e #istorical gentes, place! t#e #ig#est ;al(e (pon t#eir lineages bot# (n!er t#e rep(blic an! t#e empire. &ll t#e members of a gens were free, an! e5(al in t#eir rig#ts an! pri;ileges, t#e poorest, as well as t#e ric#est; t#e !isting(is#e! as well as t#e obsc(re, an! t#ey s#are! e5(ally in w#ate;er !ignity t#e gentile name conferre! w#ic# t#ey in#erite! as a birt#rig#t. iberty, e5(ality an! fraternity were car!inal principles of t#e 0oman gens, not less certainly t#an of t#e 9recian, an! of t#e &merican In!ian.

(III. %he right of adopting strangers in blood into the gens.

In t#e times of t#e rep(blic; an! also of t#e empire, a!option into t#e family, w#ic# carrie! t#e person: into t#e gens of t#e family, was practice!; b(t it was atten!e! wit# formalities w#ic# ren!ere! it !iffic(lt. & person w#o #a! no c#il!ren, an! w#o was past t#e age to expect t#em, mig#t a!opt a son wit# t#e consent of t#e pontifices, an! of t#e comitia curiata. "#e college of pontiffs were entitle! to be

DH1 cons(lte! lest t#e sacre! rites of t#e family, from w#ic# t#e a!opte! person was ta2en, mig#t t#ereby be impaire!, [39] as also t#e assembly, beca(se t#e a!opte! person wo(l! recei;e t#e gentile name, an! mig#t in#erit t#e estate of #is a!opti;e fat#er. *rom t#e preca(tions w#ic# remaine! in t#e time of Cicero, t#e inference is reasonable t#at (n!er t#e pre;io(s system, w#ic# was p(rely gentile, t#e restrictions m(st #a;e been greater an! t#e instances, rare. It is not probable t#at a!option in t#e early perio! was allowe! wit#o(t, t#e consent of t#e gens, an! of t#e c(ria to w#ic# t#e gens belonge!; an! if so, t#e n(mber a!opte! m(st #a;e been limite!. *ew !etails remain of t#e ancient (sages wit# respect to a!option.

I*. %he right of electing and deposing its chiefs+ &uery.

"#e incompleteness of o(r 2nowle!ge of t#e 0oman gentes is s#own 5(ite plainly by t#e absence of !irect information wit# respect to t#e ten(re of t#e office of c#ief +princeps.. /efore t#e instit(tion of political society eac# gens #a! its c#ief, an! probably more t#an one. 6#en t#e office became ;acant it was necessarily fille!, eit#erF by t#e election of one of t#e gentiles, as among t#e: Iro5(ois, or ta2en by #ere!itary rig#t. /(t t#e absence of any proof of #ere!itary rig#t, an! t#e presence of t#e electi;e principle wit# respect to nearly all offices (n!er t#e rep(blic, an! before t#at, (n!er t#e reges$ lea!s to t#e inference t#at #ere!itary rig#t was alien to t#e instit(tions of t#e atin tribes. "#e #ig#est office, t#at of rex was electi;e, t#e office of senator was electi;e or by appointment, an! t#at of cons(ls an! of inferiorF magistrates. It ;arie! wit# respect to t#e college of pontiffs instit(te! by =(ma. &t first t#e pontiffs t#emsel;es fille! ;acancies by election. i;y spea2s of t#e election of a pontife" ma"imus by t#e comitia abo(t D1D /.C.[40] /y t#e le" 7omitia t#e rig#t to elect, t#e members of t#e se;eral colleges of pontiffs an! of priests was transferre! to t#e people, b(t t#e law was s(bse5(ently mo!ifie! by %(lla.[41] "#e acti;e presence of t#e electi;e principle among t#e atin gentes w#en t#ey first come (n!er #istorical notice, an! from t#at time t#ro(g# t#e perio! of t#e rep(blic, f(rnis#es strong gro(n!s for t#e inference t#at t#e office of c#ief was electi;e in ten(re. "#e !emocratic feat(res of t#eir social system, w#ic# present t#emsel;es at so many points, were in#erite! from t#e gentes. It wo(l! re5(ire positi;e e;i!ence t#at t#e office of c#ief passe! by #ere!itary rig#t to o;ercome t#e pres(mption against it. "#e rig#t to elect carries wit# it t#e rig#t to !epose from office, w#ere t#e ten(re is for life. "#ese c#iefs, or a selection from t#em, compose! t#e co(ncil of t#e se;eral atin tribes before t#e fo(n!ing of 0ome, w#ic# was t?#e principal instr(ment of go;ernment. "races of t#e t#ree powers co?or!inate! in t#e go;ernment appear among t#e atin tribes as t#ey !i! in t#e 9recian, namely, t#e co(ncil of c#iefs, t#e assembly of t#e people, to w#ic# we m(st s(ppose t#e more important p(blic meas(res were s(bmitte! for a!option or re:ection, an! t#e military comman!er. Mommsen remar2s t#at )&ll of t#ese cantons. MtribesN were in primiti;e times politically so;ereign, an! eac# of t#em was go;erne! by its prince, an! t#e co? operation of t#e co(ncil of el!ers, an! t#e assembly of t#e warriors.8 [42] "#e or!er of MommsenFs statement s#o(l! be re;erse!, an! t#e statement 5(alifie!. "#is co(ncil, from its f(nctions an! from its central position in t#e social system, of w#ic# it was a growt#, #el! of necessity t#e s(preme power in ci;il affairs. It was

DHD t#e co(ncil t#at go;erne!, an! not t#e military comman!er. )In all t#e cities belonging to ci;iliBe! nations on t#e coasts of t#e Me!iterranean,8 =ieb(#r obser;es, )a senate was a no less essential an! in!ispensable part of t#e state t#an a pop(lar assembly; it was a select bo!y of el!er citiBens;8 s(c# a co(ncil, says &ristotle, )t#ere always is, w#et#er t#e co(ncil be aristocratical or !emocratical, e;en in oligarc#ies, be t#e n(mber of s#ares in t#e so;ereignty e;er so small, certain co(ncillors are appointe! for preparing p(blic meas(res.8[43] "#e senate of political society s(ccee!e! t#e co(ncil of c#iefs of gentile society. 0om(l(s forme! t#e first 0oman senate of a #(n!re! el!ers; an! as t#ere were t#en b(t a #(n!re! gentes, t#e inference is s(bstantially concl(si;e t#at t#ey were t#e c#iefs of t#ese gentes. "#e office was for life an! non?#ere!itary; w#ence t#e final inference, t#at t#e office of c#ief was at t#e time electi;e. Ha! it been ot#erwise t#ere is e;ery probability t#at t#e 0oman senate wo(l! #a;e been instit(te! as an #ere!itary bo!y. ';i!ence of t#e essentially !emocratic constit(tion of ancient society meets (s at many points; w#ic# fact #as faile! to fin! its way into t#e mo!ern #istorical expositions of 9recian an! 0oman gentile society. 6it# respect to t#e n(mber of persons in a 0oman gens, we are fort(nately not wit#o(t some information. &bo(t -7- /.C, t#e *abian gens propose! to t#e senate to (n!erta2e t#e Ieientian war as a gens, w#ic# t#ey sai! re5(ire! a constant rat#er t#an a large force.[44] "#eir offer was accepte!, an! t#ey marc#e! o(t of 0ome t#ree #(n!re! an! six sol!iers, all patricians, ami! t#e appla(se of t#eir co(ntrymen.[45] &fter a series of s(ccesses t#ey were finally c(t [46] to a man t#ro(g# an amb(sca!e. /(t t#ey left be#in! t#em at 0ome a single male (n!er t#e age of p(berty, w#o alone remaine! to perpet(ate t#e *abian gens. [46] It seems #ar!ly cre!ible t#at t#ree #(n!re! s#o(l! #a;e left in t#eir families b(t a single male c#il!, below t#e age of p(berty, b(t s(c# is t#e statement. "#is n(mber of persons wo(l! in!icate an e5(al n(mber of females, w#o, wit# t#e c#il!ren of t#e males, wo(l! gi;e an aggregate of at least se;en #(n!re! members of t#e *abian gens. &lt#o(g# t#e rig#ts, obligations an! f(nctions of t#e 0oman gens #a;e been ina!e5(ately presente!, eno(g# #as been a!!(ce! to s#ow t#at t#is organiBation was t#e so(rce of t#eir social, go;ernmental an! religio(s acti;ities. &s t#e (nit of t#eir social system it pro:ects its c#aracter (pon t#e #ig#er organiBations into w#ic# it entere! as a constit(ent. & m(c# f(ller 2nowle!ge of t#e 0oman gens t#an we now, possess is essential to a f(ll compre#ension of 0oman instit(tions in t#eir origin an! !e;elopment.

Footnotes
1 )<(ring t#e perio! w#en t#e In!o?9ermanic nations w#ic# are now separate! still forme! one stoc2 spea2ing t#e same lang(age, t#ey attaine! a certain stage of c(lt(re, an! t#ey #a! a ;ocab(lary correspon!ing to it. "#is ;ocab(lary t#e se;eral nations carrie! along wit# t#em, in its con;entionally establis#e! (se, as a common !owry an! a fo(n!ation for f(rt#er str(ct(res of t#eir own..... In t#is way we possess e;i!ence of t#e !e;elopment of pastoral life at t#at remote epoc# in t#e (nalterably fixe! names of

DHA
!omestic animals; t#e %ans2rit Ega(sF is t#e atin Ebos,F t#e 9ree2 Ebo(s,F %ans2rit Ea;is,F is t#e atin Eo;is,F t#e 9ree2 Eois;F %ans2rit Eao;as,F atin Ee5((s,F 9ree2 E#ippos,F %ans2rit E#ansas,F atin Eanser,F 9ree2 Ec#en;F... on t#e ot#er #an!, we #a;e as yet no certain proofs of t#e existence of agric(lt(re at t#is perio!. ang(age rat#er fa;o(rs t#e negati;e ;iew.8 ? MommsenFs )History of 0ome,8 <ic2sonFs "rans., %cribnerF; e!., 1871, i, A7. In a note #e remar2s t#at )barley, w#eat, an! spelt were fo(n! growing toget#er in a wil! state on t#e rig#t #an2 of t#e '(p#rates, nort#west from &na#. "#e growt# of barley an! w#eat in a wil! state in Mesopotamia #a! alrea!y been mentione! by t#e /abylonian #istorian, /eros(s.8 *ic2 remar2s (pon t#e same s(b:ect as follows: )6#ile past(rage e;i!ently forme! t#e fo(n!ation of primiti;e social life we can fin! in it #(t ;ery slig#t beginnings of agric(lt(re. "#ey were ac5(ainte! to be s(re wit# a few of t#e grains, b(t t#e c(lti;ation of t#ese was carrie! on ;ery inci!entally in or!er to gain a s(pply of mil2 an! fles#. "#e material existence of t#e people reste! in no way (pon agric(lt(re. "#is becomes entirely clear from t#e small n(mber of primiti;e wor!s w#ic# #a;e reference to agric(lt(re. "#ese wor!s are Eya;a,F wil! fr(it, E;ar2a,F #oe, or plo(g#, Era;a,F sic2le, toget#er wit# Epio, pinsereF +to ba2e. an! Ema2e,F 92. Emasso,F w#ic# gi;e in!ications of t#res#ing o(t an! grin!ing of grain.8 ? *ic2Fs )3rimiti;e $nity of In!o?'(ropean ang(ages,8 9ottingen, 187A. p. D8H. %ee also )C#ips *rom a 9erman 6or2s#op,8 ii, -D. 6it# reference to t#e possession of agric(lt(re by t#e 9raeco?Italic people, see Mommsen, i, p. -7, et se5. ! "#e (se of t#e wor! Romulus, an! of t#e names of #is s(ccessors, !oes not in;ol;e t#e a!option of t#e ancient 0oman tra!itions. "#ese names personify t#e great mo;ements w#ic# t#en too2 place wit# w#ic# we are c#iefly concerne!. " )History of 0ome,8 1. c., i, D-1, D-4. # )Inst,,8 iii, 17. $ )CiceFro, "opica G.8 % J(ote! in %mit#Fs )<ic. 92. & 0om. &nti5., &rticle, 9ens.8 & Iarro E<e ing(a atina,F Iib. ;iii, cap. -. ' i;y, lib. i;. cap. -.

( )6#en t#ere was only one !a(g#ter in a family, s#e (se! to be calle! from t#e name of t#e gens; t#(s, "(llia, t#e !a(g#ter of Cicero, C(lia, t#e !a(g#ter of Caesar; >cta;ia, t#e sister of &(g(st(s, etc.; an! t#ey retaine! t#e same name after t#ey were marrie!. 6#en t#ere were two !a(g#ters, t#e one was calle! Ma:or an! t#e ot#er Minor. If t#ere were more t#an two, t#ey were !isting(is#e! by t#eir n(mber: t#(s, 3rima, %ec(n!a, "ertia, J(arta, J(inta, etc.; or more softly, "ert(lla, J(artilla, J(intilla, etc.... <(ring t#e

DHflo(ris#ing state of t#e rep(blic, t#e names of t#e gentes, an! s(rnames of t#e families, always remaine! fixe! an! certain. "#ey were common to all t#e c#il!ren of t#e family, an! !escen!e! to t#eir posterity. /(t after t#e s(b;ersion of liberty t#ey were c#ange! an! confo(n!e!.8 ? &!amsFs )0oman &nti5(ities,8 9lasgow e!., 18D4, p. D7. 1) %(etoni(s, )Iit. >cta;ian(s,8 c. A an! -. 11 9ai(s, )Instit(tes,8 Iib. iii, 1 an! K. "#e wife was a co?#eiress wit# t#e c#il!ren. 1! Ib., lib; iii, ,. 1" 9ai(s; )Inst.,8 Iib. iii, 17. 1# & sing(lar 5(estion arose between t#e Marcelli an! Cla(!ii, two families of t#e Cla(!ian gens, wit# respect to t#e estate of t#e son of a free!man of t#e Marcelli; t#e former claiming by rig#t of family, an! t#e latter by rig#t of gens. "#e law of t#e "wel;e "ables ga;e t#e estate of a free!man to #is former master, w#o by t#e act of man(mission became #is patron, pro;i!e! #e !ie! intestate, an! wit#o(t Es(i #ere!esF b(t it !i! not reac# t#e case of t#e son of a free!?man. "#e fact t#at t#e Cla(!ii were a patrician family, an! t#e Marcelli were not co(l! not affect t#e 5(estion. "#e free!man !i! not ac5(ire gentile rig#ts in #is masterFs gens by #is man(mission, alt#o(g# #e was allowe! to a!opt t#e gentile name of #is patron; as CiceroFs free!man, "yro, was calle! M. "(lli(s "yro. It is not 2nown #ow t#e case, w#ic# is mentione! by Cicero +)<e >ratore,8 i, A,., an! commente! (pon by ong +%mit#Fs )<ic. 92. & 0om. &nti5., &rt. 9ens8., an! =ieb(#r, was !eci!e!; b(t t#e latter s(ggests t#at it was probably against t#e Cla(!ii +)Hist. of 0ome,8 i, D-4, EnoteF.. It is !iffic(lt to !isco;er #ow any claim w#ate;er co(l! be (rge! by t#e Cla(!ii; or any by t#e Marcelli, except t#ro(g# an extension of t#e patronal rig#t by :(!icial constr(ction. It is a notewort#y case, beca(se it s#ows #ow strongly t#e m(t(al rig#ts wit# respect to t#e in#eritance of property were intrenc#e! in t#e gens. 1$ )History of 0ome,8 i, D-D. 1% %(et, )Iit. "iberi(s,8 cap. 1. 1& )Iellei(s 3aterc(l(s,8 ii, 11,. 1' )<e eg.,8 ii, DD. 1( Cicero, )<e eg.,8 ii, DA. !) )"#ere were certain sacre! rites +Esacra gentiliciaF. w#ic# belonge! to a gens, to t#e obser;ance of w#ic# all t#e members of a gens, as s(c#, were bo(n!, w#et#er t#ey were members by birt#, a!option or abrogation. & person was free! from t#e obser;ance of s(c# Esacra,F an! lost t#e pri;ileges connecte! wit# #is gentile rig#ts w#en #e lost #is gens.8 ? %mit#Fs )<ic. &nti5., 9ens.8 !1 Cicero, )3ro <omo,8 c. 1A. !! )History of 0ome,8 i, D-1.

DH4
!" Cicero, )<e eg.,8 ii DA, !# )<ionysi(s,8 ii, DD. !$ lb., ii, D1. !% =ieb(#rFs )History of 0ome8, I, D-1. !& Iarro, )<e 0e 0(stica,8 lib; i; cap, 1H. !' )History of 0ome,8 i, GD. He names, t#e Camillii, 9alerii, emonii, 3ollii, 3(pinii, Ioitinii, &emilii, Cornelii, *abii, Horatii, Menenii, 3apirii, 0omilii, %ergii, Iet(rii, Ib., p. GA;: !( )History of 0ome,8 i, GA. ") )& fixe! local centre was 5(ite as necessary in t#e case of s(c# a canton as in t#at of a clans#ip; b(t as t#e members of t#e clan, or, in ot#er wor!s, t#e constit(ent elements of t#e canton !welt in ;illages, t#e centre of t#e canton can? not #a;e been a town or place of :oint settlement in t#e strict sense. It m(st, on t#e contrary, #a;e been simply a place of common assembly, containing t#e seat of :(stice an! t#e common. sanct(ary of t#e canton, w#ere t#e members of t#e canton met e;ery eig#t# !ay for p(rposes of interco(rse an! am(sement, an! w#ere, in case of war, t#ey obtaine! a safer s#elter for t#emsel;es an! t#eir cattle t#an in t#e ;illages; in or!inary circ(mstances t#is place of meeting was not at all or b(t scantily in#abite!.... "#ese cantons accor!ingly, #a;ing t#eir ren!eB;o(s in some strong#ol!; an! incl(!ing a certain n(mber of clans#ips, from t#e primiti;e political (nities wit# w#ic# Italian #istory begins.... &ll of t#ese cantons were in primiti;e times politically so;ereign, an! eac# of t#em was go;erne! by its prince wit# t#e co?operation of t#e co(ncil of el!ers an! t#e assembly of warriors. =e;ert#eless t#e feeling of fellows#ip base! on comm(nity of !escent an! of lang(age not only per;a!e! t#e w#ole of t#em, b(t manifeste! itself in an important religions an! political instit(tion ? t#e perpet(al leag(e of t#e collecti;e atin cantons.8 ?)Hist. of 0ome,8 i, %# GG. "#e statement t#at t#e canton or tribe was go;erne! by its prince wit# t#e co?operation of t#e co(ncil, etc., is a re;ersal of t#e correct statement, an! t#erefore mislea!ing. 6e m(st s(ppose t#at t#e military comman!er #el! an electi;e office, an! t#at #e was !eposable at t#e pleas(re of t#e constit(ency w#o electe! #im. *(rt#er t#an t#is, t#ere is no gro(n! for ass(ming t#at #e possesse! any ci;il f(nctions. It is a reasonable, if not a necessary concl(sion, t#erefore, t#at t#e tribe was go;erne! by a co(ncil compose! of t#e c#iefs of t#e gentes, an! by an assembly of t#e warriors, wit# t#e co?operation of a general military comman!er, w#ose f(nctions were excl(si;ely military. It was a go;ernment of t#ree powers, common in t#e $pper %tat(s of barbarism, an! i!entifie! wit# instit(tions essentially !emocratical. "1 i;i, ;i, DH

"! )History of 0ome,8 i, D-D. "" i;y, ;, AD.

DHG
"# )History of 0ome,8 i, D-D: citing <ionysi(s, ii, 1H. "$ )History of 0ome,8 i, D-H. "% )=e;ert#eless, affinity in bloo! always appeare! to t#e 0omans to lie at t#e root of t#e connection between t#e members of t#e clan, an! still more between t#ose of a family; an! t#e 0oman comm(nity can only #a;e interfere! wit# t#ese gro(ps to a limite! extent consistent wit# t#e retention of t#eir f(n!amental c#aracter of affinity.8 ? MommsenFs )History of 0ome,8 i, 1HA. "& It is a c(rio(s fact t#at Cleist#enes of &rgos c#ange! t#e names of t#e t#ree <orian tribes of %icyon, one to Hyatae, signifying in t#e sing(lar Ea boar;F anot#er to >neatae, signifying Ean assF an! a t#ir! to C#oereatae, signifying Ea little pig.F "#ey were inten!e! as an ins(lt to t#e %icyonians; b(t t#ey remaine! !(ring #is lifetime,F an! for sixty years afterwar!s. <i! t#e i!ea of t#ese animal names come !own t#ro(g# tra!itionU ? %ee 9roteFs )Histary of 9reece,8 iii, AA; AG. "' %(eton, )Iit C1a(!i(s8 cap, D4. "( Cicero, )3ro <omo8 cap.1A. #) i;y, xx;, 4.

#1 %mit#Fs )<ic. &rt. 3ontifex.8 #! EHistory of 0omeF i+ GG. #" Ib., i, D48. ## i;y, ii, -8.

-4?Ib., ii, -,. #% "recentos sex perisse satis con;enit: (n(m prope p(bescem aetate relict(m stirpem gente *abiae, !(biis5(e reb(s pop(li 0omani sepe !omi belli5(e ;e1 maxim(m f(t(r(m a(xili(m.? i;y, ii, 4H2 an! see >;i!:, )*asti,8 ii, 1,A.

Chapter XII THE ROMAN CURIA, TRIBE AND POPULUS

Ha;ing consi!ere! t#e 0oman gens, it remains to ta2e (p t#e c(ria compose! of se;eral gentes, t#e tribe compose! of se;eral c(riae, an! lastly t#e 0oman people com? pose! of se;eral tribes. In p(rs(ing t#e s(b:ect t#e in5(iry will be limite! to t#e constit(tion of society as it appeare! from t#e time of 0om(l(s to t#at, of %er;i(s "(lli(s, wit# some notice of t#e oranges w#ic# occ(rre! in t#e early perio! of t#e rep(blic w#ile t#e gentile system was gi;ing way, an! t#e new political system was being establis#e!.

DH7 It will be fo(n! t#at two go;ernmental organiBations were in existence for a time, si!e by si!e, as among t#e &t#enians, one going o(t an! t#e ot#er coming in. "#e first was a society +societas.$ fo(n!e! (pon t#e gentes; an! t#e ot#er a state +civitas.$ fo(n!e! (pon territory an! (pon property, w#ic# was gra!(ally s(pplanting t#e former. & go;ernment in a transitional stage is necessarily complicate!, an! t#erefore !iffic(lt to be (n!erstoo!. "#ese c#anges were not ;iolent b(t gra!(al, commencing wit# 0om(l(s an! s(bstantially complete!, t#o(g# not perfecte!; by %er;i(s "(lli(s; t#(s embracing a s(ppose! perio! of nearly two #(n!re! years, crow!e! wit# e;ents of great moment to t#e infant commonwealt#. In or!er to follow t#e #istory of t#e gentes to t#e o;ert#row of t#eir infl(ence in t#e state it will be necessary, after consi!ering t#e c(ria, tribe an! nation, to explain: briefly t#e new political system. "#e last will form t#e s(b:ect of t#e ens(ing c#apter. 9entile society among t#e 0omans ex#ibits fo(r stages of organiBation; first, t#e gens, w#ic# was a bo!y of consang(inei an! t#e (nit of t#e social system; secon!, t#e c(ria, analogo(s to t#e 9recian p#ratry, w#ic# consiste! of ten gentes (nite! in a #ig#er corporate bo!y; t#ir!, t#e tribe, consisting of ten c(riae, w#ic# possesse! some of t#e attrib(tes of a nation (n!er gentile instit(tions; an! fo(rt# t#e 0oman people +!opulus Romanus.$ consisting, in t#e time of "(ll(s Hostili(s of t#ree s(c# tribes (nite! by coalescence in one gentile society, embracing t#ree #(n!re! gentes. "#ere are facts warranting t#e concl(sion t#at, all t#e Italian tribes were similarly organiBe! at t#e commencement of t#e #istorical perio!; b(t, wit# t#is !ifference, per#aps, t#at, t#e 0oman c(ria was a more a!;ance! organiBation t#an t#e 9recian p#ratry, or t#e correspon!ing p#ratry of t#e remaining Italian tries; an! t#at t#e 0oman tribe, by constraine! enlargement, became a more compre#ensi;e organiBation t#an in t#e remaining Italian stoc2s. %ome e;i!ence in s(pport of t#ese statements will appear in t#e se5(el. /efore t#e time of 0om(l(s t#e Italians, in t#eir ;ario(s branc#es, #a! become a n(mero(s people. "#e large n(mber of petty tries, into w#ic# t#ey #a! become s(b? !i;i!e!, re;eals t#at state of (na;oi!able !isintegration w#ic# accompanies gentile instit(tions. /(t t#e fe!eral principle #a! asserte! itself among t#e ot#er Italian tribes as well as t#e atin, alt#o(g# it !i! not res(lt in any confe!eracy t#at ac#ie;e! important res(lts. 6#ilst t#is state of t#ings existe!, t#at great mo;ement ascribe! to 0om(l(s occ(rre!, namely: t#e concentration of a #(n!re! atin gentes on t#e ban2s of t#e "iber, w#ic# was followe! by a li2e gat#ering of %abine, atin an! 'tr(scan an! ot#er gentes, to t#e a!!itional n(mber of two #(n!re!, en!ing in t#eir final coalescence into one people. "#e fo(n!ations of 0ome were t#(s lai!, an! 0oman power an! ci;iliBation were to follow. It was t#is consoli!ation of gentes an! tribes (n!er one go;ernment, commence! by 0om(l(s an! complete! by #is s(ccessors, t#at prepare! t#e way for t#e new political system ? for t#e transition from a go;ernment base! (pon persons an! (pon personal relations, into one base! (pon territory an! (pon property. It is immaterial w#et#er eit#er of t#e se;en so calle! 2ings of 0ome were real or myt#ical persons, or. w#et#er t#e legislation ascribe! to eit#er of t#em is fab(lo(s or tr(e, so far as t#is in;estigation is concerne! beca(se t#e facts wit# respect to t#e ancient constit(tion of atin society remaine! incorporate! in 0oman instit(tions, an! t#(s came !own to t#e

DH8 #istorical perio!. It, fort(nately so, #appens t#at t#e e;ents of #(man progress embo!y t#emsel;es, in!epen!ently of partic(lar men, in a material recor!, w#ic# is crystalliBe! in instit(tions, (sages an! c(stom, an! preser;e! in in;entions an! !isco;eries. Historians, from a sort of necessity, gi;e to in!i;i!(als great prominence in t#e pro!(ction of e;ents; t#(s placing persons, w#o are transient, in t#e place of principles, w#ic# are en!(ring. "#e wor2 of society in its totality, by means of w#ic# all progress occ(rs, is ascribe! far too nic#e to in!i;i!(al men, an! far too little to t#e p(blic intelligence. It will be recogniBe! generally t#at t#e s(bstance of #(man #istory is bo(n! (p in t#e growt# of i!eas, w#ic# are wro(g#t o(t by t#e people an! expresse! in t#eir instit(tions, (sages, in;entions an! !isco;eries. "#e n(merical a!:(stment, before a!;erte! to, of ten gentes to a c(ria, ten c(riae to a tribe, an! t#ree tribes of t#e 0oman people, was a res(lt of legislati;e proc(rement not ol!er, in t#e first two tribes, t#an t#e time of 0om(l(s. It was ma!e possible by t#e accessions gaine! from t#e s(rro(n!ing tribes, by solicitation or con5(est; t#e fr(its of w#ic# were c#iefly incorporate! in t#e "ities an! (ceres, as t#ey were s(ccessi;ely forme!. /(t s(c# a precise n(merical a!:(stment co(l! not, be permanently maintaine! t#ro(g# cent(ries, especially wit# respect to t#e n(mber of gentes in eac# c(ria. 6e #a;e seen t#at t#e 9recian p#ratry was rat#er a religio(s an! social t#an a go;ernmental organiBation. Hol!ing an interme!iate position between t#e gens an! t#e tribe, it wo(l! be less important t#an eit#er, (ntil go;ernmental f(nctions were s(pera!!e!. It appears among t#e Iro5(ois in a r(!imentary form, its social as !isting(is#e! from its go;ernmental c#aracter being at t#at early !ay e5(ally well mar2e!. /(t t#e 0oman c(ria, w#ate;er it may #a;e been in t#e pre;io(s perio!, grew into an organiBation more integral an! go;ernmental t#an t#e p#ratry of t#e 9ree2s; more is 2nown, #owe;er, of t#e former t#an of t#e latter. It is probable t#at t#e? gentes comprise! in eac# c(ria were, in t#e main, relate! gentes; an! t#at t#eir re(nion in a #ig#er organiBation was f(rt#er cemente! by inter?marriages, t#e gentes of t#e same c(ria f(rnis#ing eac# ot#er wit# wi;es. "#e early writers gi;e no acco(nt of t#e instit(tion of t#e c(ria; b(t it !oes not follow t#at it was a new creation by 0om(l(s. It is first mentione! as a 0oman instit(tion in connection wit# #is legislation, t#e n(mber of c(riae in two of t#e tribes #a;ing been establis#e! in #is time. "#e organiBation, as a p#ratry, #a! probably existe! among t#e atin tribes from time immemorial. i;y, spea2ing of t#e fa;o(r wit# w#ic# t#e %abine women were regar!e! after t#e establis#ment of peace between t#e %abines an! atins t#ro(g# t#eir inter;ention, remar2s t#at 0om(l(s, for t#is reason, w#en #e #a! !i;i!e! t#e people into t#irty c(riae bestowe! (pon t#em t#eir names.[1] <ionysi(s (ses t#e term p#ratry as t#e e5(i;alent of c(ria, b(t gi;es t#e latter also[2] an! obser;es f(rt#er t#at 0om(l(s !i;i!e! t#e c(ria into !eca!es, t#e ten in eac# being of co(rse gentes. [3] In li2e manner 3l(tarc# refers to t#e fact t#at eac# tribe containe! ten c(riae, w#ic# some say, #e remar2s, were calle! after t#e %abine women. [4] He is more acc(rate in t#e (se of lang(age t#an i;y or <ionysi(s in saying t#at eac# tribe containe! ten c(riae, rat#er t#an t#at eac# was !i;i!e! into ten, beca(se t#e c(riae were ma!e of

DH, gentes as original (nities, an! not t#e gentes o(t of a c(ria by s(b!i;ision. "#e wor2 performe! by 0om(l(s was t#e a!:(stment of t#e n(mber of gentes in eac# c(ria, an! t#e n(mber of c(ria in eac# tribe, w#ic# #e was enable! to accomplis# t#ro(g# t#e accessions gaine! from t#e s(rro(n!ing tribes. "#eoretically eac# c(ria s#o(l! #a;e been compose! of gentes !eri;e! by segmentation from one or more gentes, an! t#e tribe by nat(ral growt# t#ro(g# t#e formation of more t#an one c(ria, eac# compose! of gentes (nite! by t#e bon! of a common !ialect. "#e #(n!re! gentes of t#e 0amnes were atin gentes. In t#eir organiBation into ten c(riae, eac# compose! of ten gentes. 0om(l(s (n!o(bte!ly respecte! t#e bon! of 2in by placing relate! gentes in t#e same c(ria, as far as possible, an! t#en reac#e! n(merical symmetry by arbitrarily ta2ing t#e excess of gentes from one nat(ral c(ria to s(pply t#e !eficiency in anot#er. "#e #(n!re! gentes of t#e tribe "ities were, in t#e main, %abine gentes. "#ese were also arrange! in ten c(riae, an! most li2ely on t#e same principle. "#e t#ir! tribe, t#e (ceres, was forme! later from gra!(al accessions an! con5(ests. It was #eterogeneo(s in its elements, containing, among ot#ers, a n(mber of 'tr(scan gentes. "#ey were bro(g#t into t#e same n(merical scale of ten c(riae eac# compose! of ten gentes. $n!er t#is re? constit(tion, w#ile t#e gens, t#e (nit of organiBation, remaine! p(re an! (nc#ange!, t#e c(ria was raise! abo;e its logical le;el, an! ma!e to incl(!e, in some cases, a foreign element w#ic# !i! not belong to a strict nat(ral p#ratry; an! t#e tribe also was raise! abo;e its nat(ral le;el, an! ma!e to embrace foreign elements t#at !i! not belong to a tribe as t#e tribe nat(rally grew. /y t#is legislati;e constraint t#e tribes, wit# t#eir c(riae an! gentes, were ma!e se;erally e5(al, w#ile t#e t#ir! tribe was in goo! part an artificial creation (n!er t#e press(re of circ(mstances. "#e ling(istic affiliations of t#e 'tr(scans are still a matter of !isc(ssion. "#ere is a pres(mption t#at t#eir !ialect was not w#olly (nintelligible to t#e atin tribes, ot#erwise t#ey wo(l! not #a;e been a!mitte! into t#e 0oman social system; w#ic# at t#e time was p(rely gentile. "#e n(merical proportions t#(s sec(re!, facilitate! t#e go;ernmental action of t#e society as a w#ole. =ieb(#r, w#o was t#e first to gain a tr(e conception of t#e instit(tions of t#e 0omans in t#is perio!, w#o recogniBe! t#e fact t#at t#e people were so;ereign t#at t#e so?calle! 2ings exercise! a !elegate! power, an! t#at t#e senate was base! on t#e principle of representation, eac# gens #a;ing a senator; became at ;ariance wit# t#e facts before #im in stating in connection wit# t#is gra!(ate! scale, t#at Es(c# n(merical proportions are an irrefragable proof t#at t#e 0oman #o(ses MgentesN [5] were not more ancient t#an t#e constit(tion; b(t corporations forme! by a legislator in #armony wit# t#e rest of #is sc#eme.F [6] "#at a small foreign element was force! into t#e c(riae of t#e secon! an! t#ir! tribes, an! partic(larly into t#e t#ir!, is (n!eniable; b(t t#at a gens was c#ange! in its composition or reconstr(cte! or ma!e, was simply impossible. & legislator co(l! not ma2e a gens; neit#er co(l! #e ma2e a c(ria, except by combining existing gentes aro(n! a n(cle(s of relate! gentes; b(t #e mig#t increase or !ecrease by constraint t#e n(mber of gentes in a c(ria, an! increase or !ecrease t#e n(mber of c(riae in a tribe. =ieb(#r #as also s#own t#at t#e gens was an ancient an! (ni;ersal organiBation among t#e 9ree2s an! 0omans, w#ic# ren!ers #is prece!ing !eclaration t#e more incompre#ensible. Moreo;er it appears t#at t#e p#ratry was (ni;ersal, at least among t#e Ionian

D1H 9ree2s, lea;ing it probable t#at t#e c(ria, per#aps (n!er anot#er name, was e5(ally ancient among t#e atin tribes. "#e n(merical proportions referre! to were no !o(bt t#e res(lt of legislati;e proc(rement in t#e time of 0om(l(s, an! we #a;e ab(n!ant e;i!ence of t#e so(rces from w#ic#, t#e new gentes were obtaine! wit#. w#ic# t#ese proportions mig#t #a;e been pro!(ce!. "#e members of t#e ten gentes (nite! in a c(ria were calle! curiales among t#emsel;es. "#ey electe! a priest, curio$ w#o was t#e c#ief officer of t#e fraternity. 'ac# c(ria #a! its sacre! rites, in t#e obser;ance of w#ic# t#e brot#er#oo! participate!, its sacellum$ as a place of wors#ip, an! its place of assembly w#ere t#ey met for t#e transaction of b(siness. /esi!es t#e curio$ w#o #a! t#e principal c#arge of t#eir religio(s affairs, t#e curiales also electe! an assistant priest, flamen curialis$ w#o #a! t#e imme!iate c#arge of t#ese obser;ances. "#e c(ria ga;e its name to t#e assembly of t#e gentes, t#e comitia curiata$ w#ic# was t#e so;ereign power in 0ome to a greater !egree t#an t#e senate (n!er t#e gentile system. %(c#, in general terms, was t#e organiBation of t#e 0oman c(ria or p#ratry. .[7] =ext in t#e ascen!ing scale was t#e 0oman tribe, compose! of ten c(riae an! a #(n!re! gentes. 6#en a nat(ral growt#, (ninfl(ence! externally, a tribe wo(l! be an aggregation of s(c# gentes as were !eri;e! by segmentation from an original gens or pair of gentes; all t#e members of w#ic# wo(l! spea2 t#e same !ialect. $ntil t#e tribe itself !i;i!e!, by processes before pointe! o(t, it wo(l! incl(!e all t#e !escen!ants of t#e members of t#ese gentes. /(t, t#e 0oman tribe, wit# w#ic# alone we are now concerne!, was artificially enlarge! for special ob:ects an! by special means, b(t t#e basis an! bo!y of t#e tribe was a nat(ral growt#. 3rior to t#e time of 0om(l(s eac# tribe electe! a c#ief officer w#ose !(ties were magisterial, military an! religio(s; [8] He performe! in t#e city magisterial !(ties for t#e tribe, as well as a!ministere! its sacra$ an! #e also comman!e! its military forces in t#e fiel!.[9] He was probably electe! by t#e c(riae collecte! in a general assembly; b(t #ere again o(r information is !efecti;e. It was (n!o(bte!ly an ancient office in eac# atin tribe, pec(liar in c#aracter an! #el! by an electi;e ten(re. It was also t#e germ of t#e still #ig#er office of re"$ or general military comman!er, t#e f(nctions of t#e two offices being similar. "#e tribal c#iefs are style! by <ionysi(s lea!ers of t#e tribes.[10] 6#en t#e t#ree 0oman tribes #a! coalesce! into one people, (n!er one senate, one assembly of t#e people, an! one military comman!er, t#e office of tribal c#ief was o;ers#a!owe! an! became less important; b(t t#e contin(e! maintenance of t#e office by an electi;e ten(re confirms t#e inference of its original pop(lar c#aracter. &n assembly of t#e tribe m(st also #a;e existe!, from a remote anti5(ity. /efore t#e fo(n!ing of 0ome eac# Italian tribe was practically in!epen!ent, alt#o(g# t#e tribes were more or less (nite! in confe!erate relations. &s a self?go;erning bo!y eac# of t#ese ancient tribes #a! its co(ncil of c#iefs +w#o were !o(btless t#e c#iefs of t#e gentes. its assembly of t#e people, an! its c#iefs w#o comman!e! its military ban!s. "#ese t#ree elements in t#e organiBation of t#e tribe; namely, t#e co(ncil, t#e tribal c#ief; an! t#e tribal assembly, were t#e types (pon w#ic# were afterwar!s mo!elle! t#e Roman Senate$ t#e Roman re"$ an! t#e comitia curiata. "#e tribal c#ief was in all probability calle! by t#e name of re" before t#e fo(n!ling of 0ome;

D11 an! the same remar2 is applicable to t#e name of senators +sene".$ an! t#e comtia +con*ire.. "#e inference arises, from w#at is 2nown of t#e con!ition an! organiBation of t#ese tribes, t#at t#eir instit(tions were essentially !emocratical. &fter t#e coalescence of t#e t#ree 0oman tribes, t#e national c#aracter of t#e tribe was lost in t#e #ig#er organiBation; b(t it still remaine! as a necessary integer in t#e organic series. "#e fo(rt# an! last stage of organiBation was t#e 0oman nation or people, forme!, as state!, by t#e coalescence of t#ree tribes. 'xternally t#e (ltimate organiBation was manifeste! by a senate +senates., a pop(lar assembly +comitia curiata.$ an! a general military comman!er +rex.. It was f(rt#er manifeste! by a city magistracy, by an army organiBation, an! by a common national priest#oo! of !ifferent or!ers.
[11]

& powerf(l city organiBation was from t#e first t#e central i!ea of t#eir go;ernmental an! military systems, to w#ic# all areas beyon! 0ome remaine! pro;incial. $n!er t#e military !emocracy of 0om(l(s, (n!er t#e mixe! !emocratical an! aristocratical organiBation of t#e rep(blic, an! (n!er t#e later imperialism it was a go;ernment wit# a great city in its centre, a perpet(al n(cle(s, to w#ic# all a!!itions by con5(est were a!!e! as increments, instea! of being ma!e, wit# t#e city, common constit(ents of t#e go;ernment. =ot#ing precisely li2e t#is 0oman organiBation, t#is 0oman power, an! t#e career of t#e 0oman race, #as appeare! in t#e experience of man2in!. It will e;er remain t#e mar;el of t#e ages. &s organiBe! by 0om(l(s t#ey style! t#emsel;es t#e 0oman 3eople +!oulus Romanus.$ w#ic# was perfectly exact. "#ey #a! forme! a gentile society an! not#ing more. /(t t#e rapi! increase of n(mbers in t#e time of 0om(l(s, an! t#e still greater increase between t#is perio! an! t#at of %er;i(s "(lli(s, !emonstrate! t#e necessity for a f(n!amental c#ange in t#e plan of go;ernment. 0om(l(s an! t#e wise men of #is time #a! ma!e t#e most of gentile instit(tions. 6e are in!ebte! to #is legislation for a gran! attempt to establis# (pon t#e gentes a great national an! military power; an! t#(s for some 2nowle!ge of t#e c#aracter an! str(ct(re of instit(tions w#ic# mig#t ot#erwise #a;e fa!e! into obsc(rity, if t#ey #a! not peris#e! from remembrance. "#e rise of t#e 0oman power (pon gentile instit(tions was a remar2able e;ent in #(man experience. It is not sing(lar t#at t#e inci!ents t#at accompanie! t#e mo;ement s#o(l! #a;e come to (s tinct(re! wit# romance, not to say ens#ro(!e! in fable. 0ome came into existence t#ro(g# a #appy conception, ascribe! to 0om(l(s, an! a!opte! by #is s(ccessors, of concentrating t#e largest possible n(mber of gentes in a new city, (n!er one go;ernment, an! wit# t#eir (nite! military forces (n!er one comman!er. Its ob:ects were essentially military; to gain a s(premacy in Italy, an! it is not s(rprising t#at t#e organiBation too2 t#e form of a military !emocracy. %electing a magnificent sit(ation (pon t#e "iber, w#ere after lea;ing t#e mo(ntain range it #a! entere! t#e campagna, 0om(l(s occ(pie! t#e 3alatine Hill, t#e site of an ancient fortress, wit# a tribe of t#e atins of w#ic# #e was t#e c#ief. "ra!ition !eri;e! #is !escent from t#e c#iefs of &lba, w#ic# is a matter of secon!ary importance. "#e new settlement grew wit# mar;ello(s rapi!ity, if t#e statement is reliable t#at at t#e close of #is life t#e military forces n(mbere! -G,HHH foot an!

D1D 1,HHH #orse, w#ic# wo(l! in!icate some DHH,HHH people in t#e city an! in t#e s(rro(n!ing region (n!er its protection. i;y remar2s t#at it was an ancient, !e;ice +vetus consilium. of t#e fo(n!ers of cities to !raw to t#emsel;es an obsc(re an! #(mble m(ltit(!e, an! t#en set (p for t#eir progeny t#e a(toc#t#onic claim. 0om(l(s p(rs(ing t#is ancient policy is sai! to #a;e opene! an asyl(m near t#e 3alatine, an! to #a;e in;ite! all persons in t#e s(rro(n!ing tribes, wit#o(t regar! to. c#aracter or con!ition, to s#are wit# #is tribe t#e a!;antages an! t#e !estiny of t#e new city. & great crow! of people, i;y f(rt#er remar2s, fle! to t#is place from t#e s(rro(n!ing territories, sla;e as well as free, w#ic# was t#e first accession of foreign strengt# to t#e new (n!erta2ing. [13] 3l(tarc#,[14] an! <ionysi(s[15] bot# refer to t#e asyl(m or gro;e, t#e opening of w#ic#, for t#e ob:ect an! wit# t#e s(ccess name!, was an e;ent of probable occ(rrence. It ten!s to s#ow t#at t#e people of Italy #a! t#en become n(mero(s for barbarians, an! t#at !iscontent pre;aile! among t#em in conse5(ence, !o(btless, of t#e imperfect protection of personal rig#ts, t#e existence to !omestic sla;ery, an! t#e appre#ension of ;iolence. >f s(c# a state of t#ings a wise man wo(l! nat(rally a;ail #imself if #e possesse! s(fficient military geni(s to #an!le t#e class of men t#(s bro(g#t toget#er. "#e next important e;ent in t#is romantic narrati;e, of w#ic# t#e rea!er s#o(l! be remin!e!, was t#e assa(lt of t#e %abines to a;enge t#e entrapment of t#e %abine ;irgins, now t#e #ono(re! wi;es of t#eir captors. It res(lte! in a wise accommo!ation (n!er w#ic# t#e atins an! %abines coalesce! into one society, b(t eac# !i;ision retaining its own military lea!er. "#e %abines occ(pie! t#e J(irinal an! Capitoline Hills. "#(s was a!!e! t#e principal part of t#e secon! tribe, t#e "ities, (n!er "iti(s "ati(s t#eir military c#ief. &fter t#e !eat# of t#e latter t#ey all fell (n!er t#e military comman! of 0om(l(s. 3assing o;er =(ma 3ompili(s, t#e s(ccessor of 0om(l(s, w#o establis#e! (pon a broa!er scale t#e religio(s instit(tions of t#e 0omans, #is s(ccessor, "(ll(s Hostili(s, capt(re! t#e atin city of &lba an! remo;e! its entire pop(lation to 0ome. "#ey occ(pie! t#e Coelian Hill, wit# all t#e pri;ileges of 0oman citiBens. "#e n(mber of citiBens was now !o(ble!. i;y remar2s[16] b(t not li2ely from t#is so(rce excl(si;ely, &nc(s Marti(s, t#e s(ccessor of "(ll(s, capt(re! t#e atin city of 3olitori(m, an! following t#e establis#e! policy, transferre! t#e people bo!ily to 0ome.[17] "o t#em was assigne! t#e &;entine Hill, wit# similar pri;ileges. =ot long afterwar!s t#e in#abitants of "ellini an! *icana were s(b!(e! an! remo;e! to 0ome, w#ere t#ey also occ(pie! t#e &;entine.[18] It will be notice! t#at in eac# case t#e gentes bro(g#t to 0ome, as well as t#e original atin an! %abine gentes, remaine! locally !istinct. It was t#e (ni;ersal (sage in gentile society, bot# in t#e Mi!!le an! in t#e $pper %tat(s of barbarism, w#en t#e tribes began to gat#er in fortresses an! in walle! cities, for t#e gentes to settle locally toget#er by gentes an! by p#ratries.[19] %(c# was t#e manner t#e gentes settle! at 0ome. "#e greater portion of t#ese accessions were (nite! in t#e t#ir! tribe, t#e (ceres, w#ic# ga;e it a broa! basis of atin gentes. It was not entirely fille! (ntil t#e time of "ar5(ini(s 3risc(s, t#e fo(rt# military lea!er from 0om(l(s, some of t#e new gentes being 'tr(scan. /y t#ese an! ot#er means t#ree #(n!re! gentes were gat#ere! at 0ome an! t#ere

D1A organiBe! in c(riae an! tribes, !iffering somew#at in tribal lineage; for t#e 0amnes, as before remar2e!, were atins, t#e "ities were in t#e main %abines an! t#e (ceres were probably in t#e main atins wit# large accessions from ot#er so(rces. "#e 0oman people an! organiBation t#(s grew into being by a more or less constraine! aggregation of gentes into c(riae, of c(riae into tribes, an! of tribes into one gentile society. /(t a mo!el for eac# integral organiBation, excepting t#e last, #a! existe! among t#em an! t#eir ancestors from time immemorial; wit# a nat(ral basis for eac# c(ria in t#e 2in!re! gentes act(ally (nite! in eac#, an! a similar basis for eac# tribe in t#e common lineage of a greater part of t#e gentes (nite! in eac#, &ll t#at was new in organiBation: was t#e n(merical proportions of gentes to a c(ria, of c(riae to a tribe, an! t#e coalescence of t#e latter into one people. It may be calle! a growt# (n!er legislati;e constraint, beca(se t#e tribes t#(s forme! were not entirely free from t#e a!mixt(re of foreign elements; w#ence arose t#e new name tribus6a t#ir! part of t#e people, w#ic# now came in to !isting(is# t#is organism. "#e atin lang(age m(st #a;e #a! a term e5(i;alent to t#e 9ree2 p#ylonTtribe, beca(se t#ey #a! t#e same organiBation; b(t if so it #as !isappeare!. "#e in;ention of t#is new term is some e;i!ence t#at t#e 0oman tribes containe! #eterogeneo(s elements, w#ile t#e 9recian were p(re, an! 2in!re! in t#e lineage of t#e gentes t#ey containe!. >(r 2nowle!ge of t#e pre;io(s constit(tion of atin society is mainly !eri;e! from t#e legislation ascribe! to 0om(l(s, since it brings into ;iew t#e anterior organiBation of t#e atin tribes, wit# s(c# impro;ements an! mo!ifications as t#e wis!om of t#e age was able to s(ggest; It is seen in t#e senate as a, co(ncil of c#iefs, in t#e, comitia curiata$ as an assembly of t#e people by c(riae, in t#e office of a general military comman!er, an! in t#e ascen!ing series of organiBations. It is seen more especially in t#e presence of t#e gentes, wit# t#eir recogniBe! rig#ts, pri;ileges an! obligations. Moreo;er, t#e go;ernment instit(te! by 0om(l(s an! perfecte! by #is imme!iate s(ccessors presents gentile society in t#e #ig#est str(ct(ral form it e;er attaine! in any portion of t#e #(man family. "#e time referre! to was imme!iately before t#e instit(tion of political society by %er;i(s "(lli(s. "#e first momento(s act of 0om(l(s, as a legislator, was t#e instit(tion of t#e 0oman senate. It was compose! of a #(n!re! members, one from eac# gens, or ten from eac# c(ria. & co(ncil of c#iefs as t#e primary instr(ment of go;ernment was not a new t#ing among t#e atin tribes. *rom time immemorial t#ey #a! been acc(stome! to its existence an! to its a(t#ority. /(t it is probable t#at prior to t#e time of 0om(l(s it #a! become c#ange!, li2e t#e 9recian co(ncils, into a pre? consi!ering bo!y, obligate! to prepare an! s(bmit to an assembly of t#e people t#e most important p(blic meas(res for a!option or re:ection. "#is was in effect a res(mption by t#e people of powers before ;este! in t#e co(ncil of c#iefs. %ince no p(blic meas(re of essential importance co(l! become operati;e (ntil it recei;e! t#e sanction of t#e pop(lar assembly, t#is fact alone s#ows t#at t#e people were so;ereign, an! not t#e co(ncil, nor t#e military comman!er. It re;eals also t#e extent to w#ic# !emocratic principles #a! penetratecl t#eir social system. "#e senate instit(te! by 0om(l(s, alt#o(g# its f(nctions were !o(btless s(bstantially similar to t#ose of t#e pre;io(s co(ncil of c#iefs, was an a!;ance (pon it in se;eral

D1respect.[20] It was ma!e (p eit#er of t#e c#iefs or of t#e wise men of t#e gentes. 'ac# gens, as =ieb(#r remar2s, Esen!ing its !ec(rion w#o was its al!erman,F to represent it in t#e senate. It was t#(s a representati;e an! an electi;e bo!y in its inception, an! it remaine! electi;e, or selecti;e, !own to t#e empire. "#e senators #el! t#eir office for life, w#ic# was t#e only term of office t#en 2nown among t#em, an! t#erefore not sing(lar. i;y ascribes t#e selection of t#e first, senators to 0om(l(s, w#ic# is probably an erroneo(s statement, for t#e, reason t#at it wo(l! not #a;e been in accor!ance wit# t#e t#eory of t#eir instit(tions. 0om(l(s c#ose a #(n!re! senators, #e remar2s, eit#er beca(se t#at n(mber was s(fficient, or beca(se t#ere were b(t a #(n!re! w#o co(l! be create! *at#ers. *at#ers certainly t#ey were calle! on acco(nt of t#eir official !ignity, an! t#eir !escen!ants were calle! patricians.[21] "#e c#aracter of t#e senate as a representati;e bo!y, t#e title of *at#ers of t#e 3eople bestowe! (pon its members, t#e life ten(re of t#e office, b(t; more t#an all t#ese consi!erations, t#e !istinction of patricians conferre! (pon t#eir c#il!ren an! lineal !escen!ants in perpet(ity, establis#e! at a stro2e an aristocracy of ran2 in t#e centre of t#eir social, system w#ere it became firmly intrenc#e!. "#e 0oman senate, from its #ig# ;ocation, from its composition, an! from t#e patrician ran2 recei;e!, by its members an! transmitte! to t#eir !escen!ants, #el! a powerf(l position in t#e s(bse5(ent state. It was t#is aristocratic element, now for t#e first time plante! in gentilism, w#ic# ga;e to t#e rep(blic its mongrel c#aracter, an! w#ic#, as mig#t #a;e been pre!icte! c(lminate! in imperialism, an! wit# it, in t#e final !issol(tion of t#e race. It may per#aps #a;e increase! t#e military glory an! exten!e! t#e con5(ests of 0ome, w#ose instit(tions, from t#e first, aime! at a military !estiny; b(t it s#ortene! t#e career of t#is great an! extraor!inary people, an! !emonstrate! t#e proposition t#at imperialism of necessity will !estroy any ci;iliBe! race. $n!er t#e rep(blic, #alf aristocratic, #alf !emocratic, t#e 0omans ac#ie;e! t#eir fame w#ic# one can b(t t#in2 wo(l! #a;e been #ig#er in !egree, an! more lasting in its fr(its, #a! liberty an! e5(ality been nationaliBe!, instea! of (ne5(al pri;ileges an! an atrocio(s sla;ery. "#e long protracte! str(ggle of t#e plebeians to era!icate t#e aristocratic element, represente! by t#e senate, an! to reco;er t#e ancient principles of !emocracy m(st be classe! among t#e #eroic labo(rs of man2in!. &fter t#e (nion of t#e %abines t#e senate was increase! to two #(n!re! by t#e a!!ition of a #(n!re! senators[22] from t#e gentes of t#e tribe "ities, an! w#en t#e (ceres #a! increase! to a #(n!re! gentes in t#e time of "ar5(ini(s, 3risc(s, a t#ir! #(n!re! senators were a!!e! from t#e gentes to t#is tribe. [23] Cicero #as left some !o(bt (pon t#is statement of i;y, by saying t#at "ar5(ini(s 3risc(s !o(ble! t#e original n(mber of t#e senators.[24] /(t %c#mitB well s(ggests, as an explanation of t#e !iscrepancy, t#at )at t#e time of t#e final increase t#e senate may #a;e become re!(ce! to a #(n!re! an! fifty members, an! been fille! (p to two #(n!re! from t#e gentes of t#e first two tribes, w#en t#e #(n!re! were a!!e! from t#e t#ir!.8 "#e senators ta2en from t#e tribes 0amnes an! "ities were t#encefort# calle! *at#ers of t#e 9reater 9entes +patres maiorum gentium.$ an! t#ose of t#e (ceres *at#ers of t#e esser 9entes +patres minorum gentium..[25] *rom t#e form of t#e statement t#e inference arises t#at t#e t#ree #(n!re! senators represente! t#e t#ree #(n!re! gentes, eac# senator representing a gens. Moreo;er, as eac# gens !o(btless #a! its

D14 principal c#ief +princeps., it becomes extremely probable t#at t#is person was c#osen for t#e position eit#er by #is gens, or t#e ten were c#osen toget#er by t#e c(ria, from t#e ten gentes of w#ic# it was compose!. %(c# a met#o! of representation an! of c#oice is most, in accor!ance wit# w#at is 2nown of 0oman an! gentile instit(tions.[26] &fter t#e establis#ment of t#e rep(blic, t#e censors fille! t#e ;acancies in t#e senate by t#eir own c#oice, (ntil it was !e;ol;e! (pon t#e cons(ls. "#ey were generally selecte! from t#e ex?magistrates of t#e #ig#er gra!es. "#e powers of t#e senate were real an! s(bstantial. &ll p(blic meas(res originate! in t#is bo!y ? t#ose (pon w#ic# t#ey co(l! act in!epen!ently, as well as t#ose w#ic# m(st be s(bmitte! to t#e pop(lar assembly an! be a!opte! before t#ey co(l! become operati;e. It #a! t#e general g(ar!ians#ip of t#e p(blic welfare, t#e management of t#eir foreign relations, t#e le;ying of taxes an! of military forces, an! t#e general control of re;en(es an! expen!it(res. &lt#o(g# t#e a!ministration of religio(s affairs belonge! to t#e se;eral colleges of priests, t#e senate #a! t#e (ltimate power o;er religion as well. *rom its f(nctions an! ;ocation it was t#e most infl(ential bo!y w#ic# e;er existe! (n!er gentile instit(tions. "#e assembly of t#e people, wit# t#e recogniBe! rig#t of acting (pon important p(blic meas(res to be !isc(sse! by t#em an! a!opte!F or re:ecte!, was (n2nown in t#e ower, an! probably in t#e Mi!!le %tat(s of barbarism; b(t it existe! in t#e $pper %tat(s, in t#e agora of t#e 9recian tribes, an! attaine! its #ig#est form in t#e ecclesia of t#e &t#enians; an! it also existe! in t#e assembly of t#e warriors among t#e atin tribes, attaining its #ig#est form in t#e comitia curiata of t#e 0omans, "#e growt# of property ten!e! to t#e establis#ment of t#e pop(lar assembly, as a t#ir! power in gentile society, for t#e protection of personal rig#ts an! as a s#iel! against t#e encroac#ments of t#e co(ncil of c#iefs, an! of t#e military comman!er. *rom t#e perio! of sa;agery, after t#e instit(tion of t#e gentes, !own to t#e times of %olon an! 0om(l(s, t#e pop(lar element #a! always been acti;e in ancient gentile society. "#e co(ncil of c#iefs was (s(ally open in t#e early con!itions to t#e orators of t#e people, an! p(blic sentiment infl(ence! t#e co(rse of e;ents. /(t w#en t#e 9recian an! atin tribes first, came (n!er #istorical notice t#e assembly of t#e people to !isc(ss an! a!opt or re:ect p(blic meas(res was a p#enomenon 5(ite as constant as t#at of a co(ncil of c#iefs. It was more perfectly systematiBe! among t#e 0omans (n!er t#e constit(tion of 0om(l(s t#an among t#e &t#enians in t#e time of %olon. In t#e rise an! progress of t#is instit(tion may be trace! t#e growt# an! !e;elopment of t#e !emocratic principle. "#is assembly among t#e 0omans was calle! t#e comitia curiata$ beca(se t#e members of t#e gentes of a!(lt age met in one assembly by c(riae, an! ;ote! in t#e same manner. 'ac# c(ria #a! one collecti;e ;ote, t#e ma:ority in eac# was ascertaine! separately, an! !etermine! w#at t#at ;ote s#o(l! be.[27] It was t#e assembly of t#e gentes, w#o alone were members of t#e go;ernment. 3lebeians an! clients, w#o alrea!y forme! a n(mero(s class, were excl(!e!, beca(se t#ere co(l! be no connection wit# t#e !opulus Romanus$ except t#ro(g# a gens an! tribe. "#is assembly, as before state!, co(l! neit#er originate p(blic meas(res, nor amen! s(c# as were s(bmitte! to t#em; b(t none of a certain gra!e co(l! become operati;e (ntil a!opte! by t#e comitia. &ll laws were passe! or repeale! by t#is assembly; all magistrates an! #ig# p(blic f(nctionaries, incl(!ing t#e re" were electe! by it on

D1G t#e nomination of t#e senate. "#e imperium was conferre! (pon t#ese persons by a law of t#e assembly +le" curitae de imperio.$ w#ic# was t#e 0oman met#o! of in;esting wit# office. $ntil t#e imperium was t#(s conferre!, t#e person, alt#o(g# t#e election was complete, co(l! not enter (pon #is office. "#e comitia curiata$ by appeal, #a! t#e (ltimate !ecision in criminal cases in;ol;ing t#e life of a 0oman citiBen. It was by a pop(lar mo;ement t#at t#e office re" was abolis#e!. &lt#o(g# t#e assembly of t#e people ne;er ac5(ire! t#e power of originating meas(res, its powers were real an! infl(ential. &t t#is time t#e people were so;ereign. "#e assembly #a! no power to con;ene itself; b(t it, is sai! to #a;e met on t#e s(mmons of t#e re"$ or, in #is absence, on t#at of t#e praefect +praefectus urbi.. In t#e time of t#e rep(blic it was con;ene! by t#e cons(ls, or in t#eir absence, by t#e praetor; an! in all cases t#e person w#o con;ene! t#e assembly presi!e! o;er its !eliberations. In anot#er connection t#e office of re" #as been consi!ere!. "#e re" was a general an! also a priest, b(t wit#o(t ci;il f(nctions, as some writers #a;e en!ea;o(re! to imply.[29] His powers as a general, t#o(g# not !efine!, were necessarily absol(te o;er t#e military forces in t#e fiel! an! in t#e city. If #e exercise! any ci;il powers in partic(lar cases, it m(st be s(ppose! t#at t#ey were !elegate! for t#e occasion. "o prono(nce #im a 2ing, as t#at term is necessarily (n!erstoo!, is to ;itiate an! mis?!escribe t#e pop(lar go;ernment to w#ic# #e belonge!, an! t#e instit(tions (pon w#ic# it reste!. "#e form of go;ernment (n!er w#ic# t#e rex an! basile(s appeare! is i!entifie! wit# gentile instit(tions an! !isappeare! after gentile society was o;ert#rown. It was a pec(liar organiBation #a;ing no parallel in mo!ern society, an! is (nexplainable in terms a!apte! to monarc#ical instit(tions. & military !emocracy (n!er a senate, an assembly of t#e people, an! a general of t#eir nomination an! election, is a near, t#o(g# it may not be a perfect c#aracteriBation of a go;ernment so pec(liar, w#ic# belongs excl(si;ely to ancient society, an! reste! on instit(tions essentially !emocratical. 0om(l(s, in all probability, embol!ene! by #is great s(ccesses, ass(me! powers w#ic# were regar!e! as !angero(s to t#e senate an! to t#e people, an! #is assassination by t#e 0oman c#iefs is a fair inference from t#e statements concerning #is mysterio(s !isappearance w#ic# #a;e come !own to (s. "#is act, atrocio(s as it m(st be prono(nce!, e;inces t#at spirit of in!epen!ence, in#erite! from t#e gentes, w#ic# wo(l! not s(bmit to arbitrary in!i;i!(al power. 6#en t#e office was abolis#e!, an! t#e cons(late was establis#e! in its place, it is not s(rprising t#at two cons(ls were create! instea! of one. 6#ile t#e powers of t#e office mig#t raise one man to a !angero(s #eig#t, it co(l! not be t#e case wit# two. "#e same s(btlety of reasoning le! t#e Iro5(ois, wit#o(t original experience, to create two war?c#iefs of t#e confe!eracy instea! of one, lest t#e office of comman!er?in?c#ief, bestowe! (pon a single man, s#o(l! raise #im to a position too infl(ential. In #is capacity of c#ief priest t#e re" too2 t#e a(spices on important occasions, w#ic# was one of t#e #ig#est acts of t#e 0oman religio(s system, an! in t#eir estimation 5(ite as necessary in t#e fiel! on t#e e;e of a battle as in t#e city. He performe! ot#er religio(s rites as well. It is not s(rprising t#at in t#ose times priestly f(nctions are fo(n! among t#e 0omans, as among t#e 9ree2s, attac#e! to or in#erent in t#e #ig#est military office. 6#en t#e abolition of t#is office occ(rre!, it was fo(n!

D17 necessary to ;est in some one t#e religio(s f(nctions appertaining to it, w#ic# were e;i!ently special; w#ence t#e creation of t#e new office of re" sacrificulus$ or re" sacrorum$ t#e inc(mbent of w#ic# performe! t#e religio(s !(ties in 5(estion. &mong t#e &t#enians t#e same i!ea reappears in t#e secon! of t#e nine arc#ons, w#o was calle! archon basileus$ an! #a! a general s(per;ision of religio(s affairs. 6#y religio(s f(nctions were attac#e! to t#e office of re" an! basileus$ among t#e 0omans an! 9ree2s, an! to t#e office of Teuctli among t#e &Btecs; an! w#y, after t#e abolition of t#e office in t#e two former cases, t#e or!inary priest#oo!s co(l! not perform t#em, #as not been explaine!. "#(s stoo! 0oman gentile society from t#e time of 0om(l(s to t#e time of %er;i(s "(lli(s, t#ro(g# a perio! of mare t#an two #(n!re! years, !(ring w#ic# t#e fo(n!ations of 0aman power were lai!. "#e go;ernment; as before remar2e!, consiste! of t#ree powers, a senate, an assembly of t#e people, an! a military comman!er. "#ey #a! experience! t#e necessity for !efinite written laws to be enacte! by t#emsel;es, as a s(bstit(te for (sages an! c(stoms. In t#e re" t#ey #a! t#e germinal i!ea of a c#ief exec(ti;e magistrate, w#ic# necessity presse! (pon t#em, an! w#ic# was to a!;ance into a more complete form after t#e instit(tion of political society. /(t t#ey fo(n! it a !angero(s office in t#ose times of limite! experience in t#e #ig#er conceptions of go;ernment; beca(se t#e powers of t#e re" were, in t#e main, (n!efine!, as well as !iffic(lt of !efinition. It is not s(rprising t#at w#en a serio(s contro;ersy arose between t#e people an! "ar5(ini(s %(perb(s, t#ey !epose! t#e man an! abolis#e! t#e office. &s soon as somet#ing li2e t#e irresponsible power of a 2ing met t#em face to face it was fo(n! incompatible wit# liberty an! t#e latter gaine! t#e ;ictory. "#ey were willing, #owe;er, to a!mit into t#e system of go;ernment a limite! exec(ti;e, an! t#ey create! t#e office in a !(al form in t#e two cons(ls. "#is occ(rre! after t#e instit(tion of political society. =o !irect steps were ta2en, prior to t#e time of %er;i(s "(lli(s, to establis# a state fo(n!e! (pon territory an! (pon property; b(t t#e pre;io(s meas(res were a preparation for t#at e;ent. In a!!ition to t#e instit(tions name!, t#ey #a! create! a city magistracy, an! a complete military system, incl(!ing t#e instit(tion of t#e e5(estrian or!er. $n!er instit(tions p(rely gentile 0ome #a! become, in t#e time of %er;i(s "(lli(s, t#e strongest military power in Italy. &mong t#e new magistrates create!, t#at of war!en of t#e city +custos urbis. was t#e most important. "#is officer, w#o was c#ief of t#e senate +princes senatus.$ was, in t#e first instance, accor!ing to <ionysi(s, appointe! by 0om(l(s. [30] "#e senate, w#ic# #a! no power to con;ene itself, was con;ene! by #im. It is also claime! t#at t#e re" #a! power to s(mmon t#e senate. "#at it wo(l! be apt to con;ene (pon #is re5(est, t#ro(g# t#e call of its own officer, is probable; #(t t#at #e co(l! comman! its con;ocation is, improbable, from its in!epen!ence in f(nctions, from its !ignity, an! from its representati;e c#aracter. &fter t#e time of t#e <ecem;irs t#e name of t#e office was c#ange! to praefectus urbi of t#e city, its powers were enlarge!, an! it was ma!e electi;e by t#e new comitia centuraiata. $n!er t#e rep(blic, t#e cons(ls, an! in t#eir absence, t#e praetor, #a! power to con;ene t#e senate; an! also to #ol! t#e comitia. &t a later !ay, t#e office of praetor +praetor urbanus. absorbe! t#e f(nctions of t#is ancient office an! became its

D18 s(ccessor. & :(!icial magistrate, t#e 0oman praetor was t#e prototype of t#e mo!ern :(!ge. "#(s, e;ery essential instit(tion in t#e go;ernment or a!ministration of t#e affairs of society may generally be trace! to a simple germ, w#ic# springs (p in a r(!e, form from #(man wants, an! w#en able to en!(re t#e test of time an! experience, is !e;elope! into a permanent instit(tion. & 2nowle!ge of t#e ten(re of t#e office of c#iefs, an! of t#e f(nctions of t#e co(ncil of c#iefs, before t#e time of 0om(l(s, co(l! t#ey be ascertaine!, wo(l! reflect m(c# lig#t (pon t#e con!ition of 0oman gentile society in t#e time of 0om(l(s: Moreo;er, t#e se;eral perio!s s#o(l! be st(!ie! separately, beca(se t#e facts of t#eir social con!itions were c#anging wit# t#eir a!;ancement in intelligence. "#e Italian perio! prior to 0om(l(s, t#e perio! of t#e se;en reges2 an! t#e s(bse5(ent perio!s of t#e rep(blic an! of t#e empire are mar2e! by great !ifferences in t#e spirit an! c#aracter of t#e go;ernment. /(t t#e instit(tions of t#e first perio! entere! into t#e secon!, an! t#ese again were transmitte! into t#e t#ir!, an! remaine! wit# mo!ifications wit# t#e fo(rt#. "#e growt#, !e;elopment an! fall of t#ese instit(tions embo!y t#e ;ital #istory of t#e 0oman people. It is by: tracing: t#ese instit(tions from t#e germ t#ro(g# t#eir s(ccessi;e stages of growt#; on t#e wi!e scale of t#e tribes an! nations of man2in!, t#at we can follow t#e great mo;ements of t#e #(man min! in its e;ol(tion from its infancy in sa;agery to its present #ig# !e;elopment. >(t of t#e necessities of man2in! for t#e organiBation of society came t#e gens; o(t of t#e gens came t#e c#ief a! t#e tribe wit# its co(ncil of c#iefs; o(t of t#e tribe came by segmentation t#e gro(p of tribes, afterwar!s re? (nite! in a confe!eracy, an! finally consoli!ate! by coalescence into a nation; o(t of t#e experience of t#e co(ncil came t#e necessity of an assembly of t#e people wit# a !i;ision of t#e powers of t#e go;ernment between t#em; an! finally, o(t of t#e military necessities of t#e (nite! tribes came t#e general military comman!er, w#o became in time a t#ir! power in t#e go;ernment, b(t s(bor!inate to t#e two s(perior powers. It was t#e germ of t#e office of t#e s(bse5(ent c#ief magistrate, t#e 2ing an! t#e presi!ent. "#e principal instit(tions of ci;iliBe! nations are simply contin(ations of t#ose w#ic# germinate! in sa;agery, expan!e! in barbarism, an! w#ic# are still s(bsisting an! a!;ancing in ci;iliBation. &s t#e 0oman go;ernment existe! at t#e !eat# of 0om(l(s, it was social, an! not political; it was personal, an! not territorial. "#e t#ree tribes were locate!, it is tr(e, in separate an! !istinct areas wit#in t#e limits of t#e city; b(t t#is was t#e pre;ailing mo!e of settlement (n!er gentile instit(tions. "#eir relations to eac# ot#er an! to t#e res(lting society, as gentes, c(riae an! tribes, were w#olly personal, t#e go;ernment !ealing wit# t#em as gro(ps of persons, an! wit# t#e w#ole as t#e 0oman, people. ocaliBe! in t#is manner wit#in inclosing ramparts, t#e i!ea of a towns#ip or city war! wo(l! s(ggest itself, w#en t#e necessity for a c#ange in t#e plan of go;ernment was force! (pon t#em by t#e growing complexity of affairs. It was a great c#ange t#at was soon to be re5(ire! of t#em, to be wro(g#t o(t t#ro(g# experimental legislation ? precisely t#e same w#ic# t#e &t#enians #a! entere! (pon s#ortly before t#e time of %er;i(s "(lli(s. 0ome was fo(n!e!, an! its first ;ictories were won (n!er instit(tions p(rely gentile, b(t t#e fr(its of t#ese ac#ie;ements by t#eir ;ery magnit(!e !emonstrate! t#e inability of t#e gentes to form t#e basis of a state. /(t it re5(ire! two cent(ries of intense acti;ity in t#e

D1, growing commonwealt# to prepare t#e way for t#e instit(tion of t#e secon! great plan of go;ernment base! (pon territory an! (pon property. & wit#!rawal of go;erning powers from t#e gentes; c(riae an! tribes, an! t#eir bestowal (pon new constit(encies was t#e sacrifice !eman!e!. %(c# a c#ange wo(l! become possible, only t#ro(g# a con;iction t#at t#e gentes co(l! not be ma!e to yiel! s(c# a form of go;ernment as t#eir a!;ance! con!ition !eman!e!. It was practically a 5(estion of contin(ance in barbarism, or progress into ci;iliBation. "#e ina(g(ration of t#e new system will form t#e s(b:ect of t#e next c#apter.

Footnotes
1 i;y, i, 1A. ! <ionys., )&nti5. of 0ome;8 ii, 6. " <ionys; ii, 6. # 3l(tarc#, )Iit. 0om(l(s,8 cap. DH. $ 6#et#er =ieb(#r (se! t#e wor! E#o(seF in t#e place of gens, or it is a conceit of t#e translators, I am (nable to state. "#irlwall, one of t#e translators, applies t#is term fre5(ently to t#e 9recian gens, w#ic# at best is ob:ectionable. % )History of 0ome,8 i, D--. & <ionysi(s #as gi;en a !efinite an! circ(mstantial analysis of t#e organiBation ascribe! to 0om(l(s, alt#o(g# a portion of it seems to belong to a later perio!. It is interesting from t#e parallel #e r(ns between t#e gentile instit(tions of t#e 9ree2s, wit# w#ic# #e was e5(ally familiar, an! t#ose of t#e 0omans. In t#e first place, #e remar2s, I will spea2 of t#e or!er of #is polity w#ic# I consi!er t#e most s(fficient of all political arrangements in peace, an! also in time of war. It was as follows: &fter !i;i!ing t#e w#ole m(ltit(!e into t#ree !i;isions, #e appointe! t#e most prominent man as a lea!er o;er eac# of t#e !i;isions; in t#e next place !i;i!ing eac# of t#e t#ree again into ten, #e appointe! t#e bra;est men lea!ers, #a;ing e5(al ran2; an! #e calle! t#e greater !i;isions tribes, an! t#e less, c(ria as t#ey are also still calle! accor!ing to (sage. &n! t#ese names interprete! in t#e 9ree2 tong(e wo(l! be t#e Etrib(s,F a t#ir! part, a p#yle, t#e Ec(ria,F a p#ratry, an! also a ban!; an! t#ose men w#o exercise! t#e lea!ers#ip of t#e tribes were bot# p#ylarc#s an! trittyarc#s, w#om t#e 0omans calle! trib(nes; an! t#ose w#o #a! t#e comman! of t#e c(riae bot# p#ratriarc#s an! loc#agoi, w#om t#ey call c(riones. &n! t#e p#ratries were also !i;i!e! into !eca!es, an! a lea!er calle! in common parlance a !eca!arc# #a! comman! of eac#. &n! w#en all #a! been arrange! into tribes an! p#ratries, #e !i;i!e! t#e lan! into t#irty e5(al s#ares, an! ga;e one f(ll s#are to eac# p#ratry, selecting a s(fficient portion for religio(s festi;als an! temples, an! lea;ing a certain piece of gro(n! for common (se. ? )&nti5. of 0ome,8 ii, 7. ' <ionysi(s, ii, 6. ( %mit#Fs <ic., 1. c., &rt. "rib(ne.

DDH
1) <ionysi(s, ii, 7. 11 "#e t#irty c(riones, as a bo!y, were organiBe! into a college of priests, one of t#eir n(mber #ol!ing t#e office of Ec(rio maxim(s.F He was electe! by t#e assembly of t#e gentes. /esi!es t#is was t#e college of a(g(rs, consisting (n!er t#e >g(lnian law +AHH /. C.. of nine members, incl(!ing t#eir c#ief officer +Emagister collegiiF.; an! t#e college of pontiffs, compose! (n!er t#e same law of nine members, incl(!ing t#e Epontifex maxim(s.F 1! i;y,. i, 8.

1" 'o ex finitimis pop(lis t(rba omnis sine !iscrimine, liber an ser;(s esset, a;i!a no;ar(m rer(m perf(git; i!5(e prim(m a! coeptam magnit(!inem raboris f(it.? i;y, i, 8. 1# )Iit. 0om(1(s,8 cap. DH. 1$ )&nti5;, of 0ome,8 ii, 14. 1% i;y, i, AH.

1& lb., ip AA. 1' i;y, i,. A8.

1( In t#e p(eblo #o(ses in =ew Mexico all t#e occ(pants of eac# #o(se belonge! to t#e same tribe, an! in some cases a single :oint?tenement #o(se containe! a tribe. In t#e p(eblo of Mexico t#ere were fo(r principal 5(arters, as #as been s#own, eac# occ(pie! by a lineage, probably a p#ratry, w#ile t#e "latel(lcos occ(pie! a fift# !istrict. &t "lascala t#ere were also fo(r 5(arters occ(pie! by fo(r lineages; probably p#ratries. !) )History of 0ome,8 i, D48. !1 Cent(m creat senators: si;e 5(ia is n(mer(s satis erat; si;e: 5(ia soli cent(m errant, 5(i creari 3atres possent, 3atres certe ab #onore, patricii5(e progenies eor(m appellati. ? i;y, I, 8. &n! Cicero: 3rincipes, 5(i appellati s(nt propter caritatem patres. ? <e 0ep., ii, 8. !! <ionysi(s, ii, -7. !" i;y, I, -7.

!# Cicero, )<e 0ep.,8 ii, DH. !$ Cicero,8 <e 0ep.,8 ii, DH. !% "#is was s(bstantially t#e opinion of =ieb(#r. )6e may go f(rt#er an! affirm wit#o(t #esitation t#at originally w#en t#e n(mber of #o(ses +gentes. was complete, t#ey were represente! imme!iately by t#e senate, t#e n(mber of w#ic# was proportionate to t#eirs. "#e t#ree #(n!re! senators answere! to t#e t#ree #(n!re! #o(ses, w#ic# was ass(me! abo;e on goo! gro(n!s to be t#e n(mber of t#em; eac# gens sent its !ec(rion, w#o was its al!erman an! t#e presi!ent of its meetings to represent it in t#e senate...... "#at t#e senate

DD1
s#o(l! be appointe! by t#e 2ings at t#eir !iscretion can ne;er #a;e been t#e original instit(tion. ';en <ionysi(s s(pposes t#at t#ere was an election: #is notion of it, #owe;er, is 5(ite (ntenable, an! t#e !ep(ties m(st #a;e been c#osen, at least originally, by t#e #o(ses an! not by t#e c(riae.8 ? )Hist. of 0ome,8 i. D48. &n election by t#e c(riae is, in principle, most probable, if t#e office !i! not fail to t#e c#ief Eex officio,F beca(se t#e gentes in a c(ria #a! a !irect interest in t#e representation of eac# gens. It was for t#e same reason t#at a sac#em electe! by t#e members of an Iro5(ois gens m(st be accepte! by t#e ot#er gentes of t#e same tribe before #is nomination was complete. !& i;y; i, -A. <ionys., ii, 1-; i;, DH, 8-.

!' =(ma 3ompilli(s +Cicero. )<e 0ep.,8 ii, 11; i;., i, 17. "(ll(s Hostili(s +Cicero, )<e 0ep.,8 ii,. 17.., an! &nc(s Marti(s +Cic., )<e 0ep.,8 ii, 18; i;y, i, AD.; were electe! by t#e Ecomitia. c(riata.F In t#e case of "ar5(ini(s 3risc(s, i;y obser;es t#at t#e people by a great ma:ority electe! #im ErexF +i A4.. It was necessarily by t#e Ecomitia c(riata.F %er;i(s "(lli(s ass(me! t#e office w#ic# was afterwar!s confirme! by t#e EcomitiaF +Cicero, )<e 0ep,8 ii,: D1.; "#e rig#t of election t#(s reser;e! to t#e people, s#ows t#at t#e office of ErexF was a pop(lar one, an! t#at #is powers were !elegate!. !( Mr. eon#ar! %c#mitB, one of t#e ablest !efen!ers of t#e t#eory of 2ingly go;ernment among t#e 9ree2s an! 0omans, wit# great can!o(r remar2s: )It is ;ery !iffic(lt to !etermine t#e extent of t#e 2ingFs powers, as t#e ancient writers nat(rally :(!ge! of t#e 2ingly perio! by t#eir own rep(blican constit(tion; an! fre5(ently assigne! to t#e 2ing, t#e Esenate, an! t#e Ecomitia of t#e Ec(riaeF t#e respecti;e powers an! f(nctions w#ic# were only tr(e in reference to t#e cons(ls, t#e senate an! t#e EcomitiaF of t#eir own time.8 ?.%mit#Fs )<ic. 92. C 0om. &nti5., &rt. 0ex.8 ") <ionys., ii, 1D.

Chapter XIII THE INSTITUTION OF ROMAN POLITICAL SOCIETY

%er;i(s "(lli(s, t#e sixt# c#ief of t#e 0oman military !emocracy, came to t#e s(ccession abo(t one #(n!re! an! t#irty?t#ree years after t#e !eat# of 0om(l(s, as near as t#e !ate can #e ascertaine!. [1] "#is wo(l! place #is accession abo(t 47G /. C. "o t#is remar2able man t#e 0omans were c#iefly in!ebte! for t#e establis#ment of t#eir political system. It will be s(fficient to in!icate its main feat(res, toget#er wit# some of t#e reasons w#ic# le! to its a!option. *rom t#e time of 0om(l(s to t#at of %er;i(s "(lli(s t#e 0omans consiste! of two !istinct, classes, t#e populus an! t#e plebeians. /ot# were personally free, an! bot# entere! t#e ran2s of t#e army; b(t t#e former alone were organiBe! in gentes, c(riae an! tribes, an! #el! t#e powers of t#e go;ernment. "#e plebeians, on t#e ot#er #an!, !i! not belong to any gens, c(ria or tribe, an! conse5(ently were wit#o(t t#e

DDD go;ernment.[2] "#ey were excl(!e! from office, from t#e comitia curiata$ an! from t#e sacre! rites of t#e gentes. In t#e time of %er;i(s t#ey #a! become nearly if not 5(ite as n(mero(s as t#e populus. "#ey were in t#e anomalo(s position of being s(b:ect to t#e military ser;ice, an! of possessing families an! property, w#ic# i!entifie! t#em wit# t#e interests of 0ome, wit#o(t being in any sense connecte! wit# t#e go;ernment. $n!er gentile instit(tions, as we #a;e seen, t#ere co(l! be no connection wit# t#e go;ernment except t#ro(g# a recogniBe! gens, an! t#e plebeians #a! no gentes. %(c# a state of t#ings, affecting so large a portion of t#e people, was !angero(s to t#e commonwealt#. &!mitting of no reme!y (n!er gentile instit(tions, it m(st #a;e f(rnis#e! one of t#e prominent reasons for attempting t#e o;ert#row of gentile society, an! t#e s(bstit(tion of political. "#e 0oman fabric wo(l!, in all probability, #a;e fallen in pieces if a reme!y #a! not been !e;ise!. It was commence! in t#e time of 0om(l(s, renewe! by =(ma 3ompili(s, an! complete! by %er;i(s "(lli(s. "#e origin bot# of t#e plebeians an! of t#e patricians, an! t#eir s(bse5(ent relations to eac# ot#er, #a;e been fr(itf(l t#emes of !isc(ssion an! of !isagreement, & few s(ggestions may be ;ent(re! (pon eac# of t#ese 5(estions. & person was a plebeian beca(se #e was not: a member of a gens, organiBe! wit# ot#er gentes in a c(ria an! tribe. It is easy to (n!erstan! #ow large n(mbers of persons wo(l! #a;e become !etac#e! from t#e gentes of t#eir birt# in t#e (nsettle! times w#ic# prece!e! an! followe! t#e fo(n!ing of 0ome. "#e a!;ent(rers, w#o floc2e! to t#e new city from t#e s(rro(n!ing tribes, t#e capti;es ta2en in t#eir wars an! afterwar!s set free, an! t#e (nattac#e! persons mingle! wit# t#e gentes transplante! to 0ome, wo(l! rapi!ly f(rnis# s(c# a class. It mig#t also well #appen t#at in filling (p t#e #(n!re! gentes of eac# tribe, fragments of gentes, an! gentes #a;ing less t#an a prescribe! n(mber of persons, were excl(!e!. "#ese (nattac#e! persons, wit# t#e fragments of gentes t#(s excl(!e!: from recognition an! organiBation in a c(ria, wo(l! soon become, wit# t#eir c#il!ren an! !escen!ants, a great an! increasing class. %(c# were t#e 0oman plebeians, w#o, as s(c#, were not members of t#e 0oman gentile society; It: seems to be a fair inference from t#e epit#et applie! to t#e senators of t#e (ceres, t#e t#ir! 0oman tribe a!mitte!, w#o were style! E*at#ers of t#e esser 9entes,F t#at t#e ol! gentes were rel(ctant to ac2nowle!ge t#eir entire e5(ality. *or a stronger reason t#ey !ebarre! t#e plebeians from all participation in t#e go;ernment. 6#en t#e t#ir! tribe was fille! (p wit# t#e prescribe! n(mber of gentes, t#e last a;en(e of a!mission was close!, after w#ic# t#e n(mber in t#e plebeian class wo(l! increase wit# greater rapi!ity. =ieb(#r remar2s t#at t#e existence of t#e plebeian class may be trace! to t#e time of &nc(s, t#(s implying t#at t#ey ma!e t#eir first appearance at t#at time. [3] He also !enies t#at t#e clients were a part of t#e plebeian bo!y [4] in bot# of w#ic# positions #e !iffers from <ionysi(s,[5] an! from 3l(tarc#.[6] "#e instit(tion of t#e relation of patron an! client is ascribe! by t#e a(t#ors last name! to 0om(l(s, an! it is recogniBe! by %(etoni(s as existing in t#e time of 0om(l(s.[7] & necessity for s(c# an instit(tion existe! in t#e presence of a class wit#o(t a gentile stat(s, an! wit#o(t religio(s rites, w#o wo(l! a;ail t#emsel;es of t#is relation for t#e protection of t#eir persons an! property, an!. for t#e access it ga;e t#em to religio(s pri;ileges.

DDA Members of a gens wo(l! not be wit#o(t t#is protection or t#ese pri;ileges; neit#er wo(l! it befit t#e !ignity or accor! wit# t#e obligations of a gens to allow one of its members to accept, a patron in anot#er gens. "#e (nattac#e! class, or, in ot#er wor!s, t#e plebeians, were t#e only persons w#o wo(l! nat(rally see2 patrons an! become t#eir clients: "#e clients forme! no part of t#e populus for t#e reasons state!. It seems plain, notwit#stan!ing t#e weig#t of =ieb(#rFs a(t#ority on 0oman 5(estions, t#at t#e clients were a part of t#e plebeian bo!y. "#e next 5(estion is one of extreme !iffic(lty, namely: t#e origin an! extent of t#e patrician class ? w#et#er it, originate! wit# t#e instit(tion of t#e 0oman %enate, an! was limite! to t#e senators, an! to t#eir c#il!ren an! !escen!ants; or incl(!e! t#e entire populus$ as !isting(is#e! from t#e plebeians; It is claime! by t#e most eminent mo!ern a(t#orities t#at t#e entire populus were patricians. =ieb(#r, w#o is certainly t#e first on 0oman 5(estions, a!opts t#is ;iew, [8] to w#ic# ong %c#mitB, an! ot#ers #a;e gi;en t#eir conc(rrence.[9] /(t t#e reasons assigne! are not concl(si;e. "#e existence of t#e patrician class, an! of t#e plebeian class as well, may be trace!, as state!, to t#e time of 0om(l(s. [10] If t#e populus$ w#o were t#e entire bo!y of t#e people organiBe! in gentes, were all patricians at t#is early !ay, t#e !istinction wo(l! #a;e been nominal, as t#e plebeian class was t#en (nimportant. Moreo;er, t#e plain statements of Cicero an! of i;y are not reconcilable wit# t#is concl(sion. <ionysi(s, it is tr(e, spea2s of t#e instit(tion of t#e patrician class as occ(rring before t#at of t#e senate, an! as compose! of a limite! n(mber of persons !isting(is#e! for t#eir birt#, t#eir ;irt(e, an! t#eir wealt#, t#(s excl(!ing t#e poor an! obsc(re in birt#, alt#o(g# t#ey belonge! to t#e #istorical gentes.[11] &!mitting a class of patricians wit#o(t senatorial connection, t#ere was still a large class remaining in t#e se;eral gentes w#o were not patricians. Cicero #as left a plain statement t#at t#e senators an! t#eir c#il!ren were patricians, an! wit#o(t referring to t#e existence of any patrician class beyon! t#eir n(mber. 6#en t#at senate of 0om(l(s, #e remar2s, w#ic# was constit(te! of t#e best men, w#om 0om(l(s #imself respecte! so #ig#ly t#at #e wis#e! t#em to be calle! fat#ers, an! t#eir c#il!ren patricians, attempte!, [12] etc. "#e meaning attac#e! to t#e wor! fat#ers +patres. as #ere (se! was a s(b:ect of !isagreement among t#e 0omans t#emsel;es; b(t t#e wor! pctricii$ for t#e class is forme! (pon patres$ t#(s ten!ing to s#ow t#e necessary connection of t#e patricians wit# t#e senatorial office. %ince eac# senator at t#e o(tset represente!, in all probability, gens, an! t#e t#ree #(n!re! t#(s represente! all t#e recogniBe! gentes, t#is fact co(l! not of itself ma2e all t#e members of t#e gentes patricians, beca(se t#e !ignity was limite! to t#e senators, t#eir c#il!ren, an! t#eir posterity. i;y is e5(ally explicit. "#ey were certainly calle! fat#ers, #e remar2s, on acco(nt of t#eir official !ignity, an! t#eir posterity +progenies. patricians.[13] $n!er t#e reges an! also (n!er t#e rep(blic, in!i;i!(als were create! patricians by t#e go;ernment, b(t apart from t#e senatorial office, an! special creation by t#e go;ernment, t#e ran2 co(l! not be obtaine!. It is not improbable t#at a n(mber of persons, not a!mitte! into t#e senate w#en it was instit(te!, were place! by p(blic act on t#e same le;el wit# t#e senators as to t#e new patrician ran2; b(t t#is wo(l! incl(!e a small n(mber only of t#e: members of t#e t#ree #(n!re! gentes, all of w#om were embrace! in t#e !opulus Romanus.

DDIt is not improbable t#at t#e c#iefs of t#e gentes were calle! fat#ers before t#e time of 0om(l(s, to in!icate t#e paternal c#aracter of t#e office; an! t#at t#e office may #a;e conferre! a species of recogniBe! ran2 (pon t#eir posterity. /(t we #a;e no !irect e;i!ence of t#e fact. &ss(ming it to #a;e been t#e case, an! f(rt#er, t#at t#e senate at its instit(tion !i! not incl(!e all t#e principal c#iefs, an! f(rt#er still, t#at w#en ;acancies in t#e senate were s(bse5(ently fille!, t#e selection was ma!e on acco(nt of merit an! not on acco(nt of gens, a fo(n!ation for a patrician class mig#t #a;e pre;io(sly existe! in!epen!ently of t#e senate. "#ese ass(mptions mig#t be (se! to explain t#e pec(liar lang(age of Cicero, namely; t#at 0om(l(s !esire! t#at t#e senators mig#t be calle! *at#ers, possibly beca(se t#is was alrea!y t#e #ono(re! title of t#e c#iefs of t#e gentes. In t#is way a limite! fo(n!ation for a patrician class may be fo(n! in!epen!ent of t#e senate; b(t it wo(l! not be broa! eno(g# to incl(!e all t#e recogniBe! gentes. It was in connection wit# t#e senators t#at t#e s(ggestion was ma!e t#at t#eir c#il!ren an! !escen!ants s#o(l! be calle! patricians. "#e same statement is repeate! by 3aterc(l(s.[14] It follows t#at t#ere co(l! be no patrician gens an! no plebeian gens, alt#o(g# partic(lar families in one gens mig#t be patricians, an! in anot#er plebeians. "#ere is some conf(sion also (pon t#is point. &ll t#e a!(lt male members of t#e *abian gens, to t#e n(mber of t#ree #(n!re! an! six, were patricians. [15] It m(st be explaine! by t#e s(pposition t#at all t#e families in t#is gens co(l! trace t#eir !escent from senators, or to some p(blic act by w#ic# t#eir ancestors were raise! to t#e patriciate. "#ere were of co(rse patrician families in many gentes, an! at a later !ay patrician an! plebeian families in t#e same gens. "#(s t#e Cla(!ii an! Marcelli, before referre! to +supra p, D,-., were two families of t#e Cla(!ian gens, b(t t#e Cla(!ii alone were patricians. It will be borne in min!, t#at prior to t#e time of %er;i(s "(lli(s t#e 0omans were !i;i!e! into two classes, t#e populus an! t#e plebeians2 b(t t#at after #is time, an! partic(larly after t#e icinian legislation +AG7 /, C.., by w#ic# all t#e !ignities of t#e state were opene! to e;ery citiBen, t#e 0oman people, of t#e !egree of freemen, fell into two political classes, w#ic# may be !isting(is#e! as t#e aristocracy an! t#e commonalty. "#e former class consiste! of t#e senators, an! t#ose !escen!e! from senators, toget#er wit# t#ose w#o #a! #el! eit#er of t#e t#ree c(r(le offices, +cons(l, praetor, an! c(r(le ae!ile. an! t#eir !escen!ants. "#e commonalty were now 0oman citiBens. "#e gentile organiBation #a! fallen into !eca!ence, an! t#e ol! !i;ision co(l! no longer be maintaine!. 3ersons, w#o in t#e first perio! as belonging to t#e populus$ co(l! not be classe! wit# t#e plebeians, wo(l! in t#e s(bse5(ent perio! belong to t#e aristocracy wit#o(t being patricians; "#e Cla(!ii co(l! trace t#eir !escent from &ppi(s Cla(!i(s w#o was ma!e a senator in t#e time of 0om(l(s; b(t t#e Marcelli co(l! not trace t#eir !escent from #im, nor from any ot#er senator, alt#o(g#, as =ieb(#r remar2s, ;e5(al to t#e &pii in t#e splen!o(r of t#e #ono(rs t#ey attaine! to an! incomparably more (sef(l to t#e commonwealt#.8 [16] "#is is a s(fficient explanation of t#e position of t#e Marcelli wit#o(t resorting to t#e fancif(l #ypot#esis of =ieb(#r, t#at t#e Marcelli #a! lost patrician ran2 t#ro(g# a marriage of !isparagement.[17] "#e patrician class were necessarily n(mero(s, beca(se t#e senators, rarely less

DD4 t#an t#ree #(n!re!, were c#osen as often as ;acancies occ(rre!, t#(s constantly incl(!ing new families; an! beca(se it conferre! patrician ran2 on t#eir posterity. >t#ers were from time to time ma!e patricians by act of t#e state. [18] "#is !istinction, at first probably of little ;al(e, became of great importance wit# t#eir increase in wealt#, n(mbers an! power; an! it c#ange! t#e complexion of 0oman society. "#e f(ll effect of intro!(cing a pri;ilege! class in 0oman gentile society was not probably appreciate! at t#e time; an! it is 5(estionable w#et#er t#is instit(tion !i! not exercise a more in:(rio(s t#an beneficial infl(ence (pon t#e s(bse5(ent career of t#e 0oman people. 6#en t#e gentes #a;e cease! to be organiBations for go;ernmental p(rposes (n!er t#e new political system, t#e populus no longer remaine! as !isting(is#e! from t#e plebeians; b(t t#e s#a!ow of t#e ol! organiBation an! of t#e ol! !istinction remaine! far into t#e rep(blic. [19] "#e plebeians (n!er t#e new system were 0oman citiBens, b(t t#ey were now t#e commonalty; t#e 5(estion of t#e connection or non? connection wit# a gens not entering into t#e !istinction. *rom 0om(l(s to %er;i(s "(lli(s t#e 0oman organiBation, as before state!, was simply a gentile society, wit#o(t relation to territory or property. &ll we fin! is a series of aggregates of persons in gentes, c(riae an! tribes, by means of w#ic# t#e people were !ealt wit# by t#e go;ernment as gro(ps of persons forming t#ese se;eral organic (nities. "#eir con!ition was precisely li2e t#at of t#e &t#enians prior to t#e time of %olon. /(t, t#ey #a! instit(te! a senate in t#e place of t#e ol! co(ncil of c#iefs, a comitia curiata in t#e place of t#e ol! assembly of t#e people, an! #a! c#osen a military comman!er, wit# t#e a!!itional f(nctions of a priest an! :(!ge. 6it# a go;ernment of t#ree powers, co?or!inate! wit# reference to t#eir principal necessities, an! wit# a coalescence of t#e t#ree tribes, compose! of an e5(al n(mber of gentes an! c(riae, into one people, t#ey possesse! a #ig#er an! more complete go;ernmental organiBation t#an t#e atin tribes #a! before attaine!. & n(mero(s class #a! gra!(ally !e;elope!, #ow? e;er, w#o were wit#o(t t#e pale of t#e go;ernment, an! wit#o(t religio(s pri;ileges, excepting t#at portion w#o #a! passe! into t#e relation of clients. 1f not a !angero(s class, t#eir excl(sion from citiBens#ip; an! from all participation in t#e go;ernment, was !etrimental to t#e commonwealt#. & m(nicipality was growing (p (pon a scale of magnit(!e (n2nown in t#eir pre;io(s experience, re5(iring a special organiBation to con!(ct its local affairs. & necessity for a c#ange in t#e plan of go;ernment m(st #a;e force! itself more an! more (pon t#e attention of t#o(g#tf(l men. "#e increase of n(mbers an! of wealt#, an! t#e !iffic(lty of managing t#eir affairs, now complex from weig#t of n(mbers an! !i;ersity of interests, began to re;eal t#e fact, it, m(st be s(ppose!, t#at t#ey co(l! not #ol! toget#er (n!er gentile instit(tions. & concl(sion of t#is 2in! is re5(ire! to explain t#e se;eral expe!ients w#ic# were trie!. =(ma, t#e s(ccessor of 0om(l(s, ma!e t#e first significant mo;ement, beca(se it re;eals t#e existence of an impression, t#at a great power co(l! not rest (pon gentes as t#e basis of a system. He attempte! to tra;erse t#e gentes, as "#ese(s !i!, by !i;i!ing t#e people into classes, some eig#t in n(mber, accor!ing to t#eir arts an! tra!es.[20] 3l(tarc#, w#o is t#e c#ief a(t#ority for t#is statement, spea2s of t#is

DDG !i;ision of t#e people accor!ing to t#eir ;ocations as t#e most a!mire! of =(maFs instit(tions; an! remar2s f(rt#er, t#at it was !esigne! to ta2e away t#e !istinction between atin an! %abine, bot# name an! t#ing, by mixing t#em toget#er in a new !istrib(tion. /(t as #e !i! not in;est t#e classes wit# t#e powers exercise! by t#e gentes, t#e meas(re faile!, li2e t#e similar attempt of "#ese(s, an! for t#e same reason. 'ac# g(il!, as we are ass(re! by 3l(tarc#, #a! its separate #all, co(rt an! religio(s obser;ances. "#ese recor!s, t#o(g# tra!itionary, of t#e same experiment in &ttica an! at 0ome, ma!e for t#e same ob:ect, for similar reasons, an! by t#e same instr(mentalities, ren!er t#e inference reasonable t#at t#e experiment as state! was act(ally trie! in eac# case. %er;i(s "(lli(s instit(te! t#e new system, an! place! it (pon a fo(n!ation w#ere it remaine! to t#e close of t#e rep(blic, alt#o(g# c#anges were afterwar!s ma!e in t#e nat(re of impro;ements. His perio! +abo(t 47G ? 0.. /.C.. follows closely t#at of %olon +4,G /.C.., an! prece!es t#at of Cleist#enes +4H, /.C... "#e legislation ascribe! to #im, an! w#ic# was ob;io(sly mo!elle! (pon t#at of %olon, may be accepte! as #a;ing occ(rre! as early as t#e time name!, beca(se t#e system was in practical operation w#en t#e rep(blic was establis#e! 4H, /.C., wit#in t#e #istorical perio!. Moreo;er, t#e new political system may as properly be ascribe! to #im as great meas(res #a;e been attrib(te! to ot#er men, alt#o(g# in bot# cases t#e legislator !oes little more t#an form(late w#at experience #a! alrea!y s(ggeste! an! presse! (pon #is attention. "#e t#ree principal c#anges w#ic# set asi!e t#e gentes an! ina(g(rate! political society, base! (pon territory an! (pon property, were: first, t#e s(bstit(tion of classes, forme! (pon t#e meas(re of in!i;i!(al wealt#, in t#e place of t#e gentes; secon!, t#e instit(tion of t#e comitia centuriata$ as t#e new pop(lar assembly, in t#e place of t#e comitia centuriata$ t#e assembly of t#e gentes, wit# a transfer of t#e s(bstantial powers of t#e latter to t#e former; an! t#ir!, t#e creation of fo(r city war!s in t#e nat(re of towns#ips circ(mscribe! by metes an! bo(n!s an! name! as territorial areas, in w#ic# t#e resi!ents of eac# war! were re5(ire! to enrol t#eir names an! register t#eir property. Imitating %olon, wit# w#ose plan of go;ernment, #e was !o(btless familiar, %er;i(s !i;i!e! t#e people into fi;e classes, accor!ing to t#e ;al(e of t#eir property, t#e effect of w#ic# was to concentrate in one class t#e wealt#iest men of t#e se;eral gentes.[21] 'ac# class was t#en s(b!i;i!e! into cent(ries, t#e n(mber in eac# being establis#e! arbitrarily wit#o(t regar! to t#e act(al n(mber of persons it containe!, an! wit# one ;ote to eac# cent(ry in t#e comitia. "#e amo(nt of political power to be #el! by eac# class was t#(s !etermine! by t#e n(mber of cent(ries gi;en to eac#. "#(s, t#e first class consiste! of eig#ty cent(ries, wit# eig#ty ;otes in t#e comitia centuriata2 t#e secon! class of twenty cent(ries, to w#ic# two cent(ries of artisans were attac#e!, wit# twenty?two ;otes; t#e t#ir! class of twenty cent(ries, wit# twenty ;otes; t#e fo(rt# class of twenty, to w#ic# two cent(ries of #orn? blowers an! tr(mpeters were attac#e!, wit# twenty?two ;otes; an! t#e fift# class of t#irty cent(ries, wit# t#irty ;otes. In a!!ition to t#ese, t#e e5(ites consiste! of eig#teen cent(ries, wit# eig#teen ;otes. "o t#ese classes <ionysi(s a!!s a sixt# class, consisting of one cent(ry, wit# one ;ote. It was compose! of t#ose w#o #a! no property, or less t#an t#e amo(nt re5(ire! for a!mission into t#e fift# class. "#ey neit#er pai! taxes, nor ser;e! in war.[22] "#e w#ole n(mber of cent(ries in t#e

DD7 six classes wit# t#e e5(ites a!!e! ma!e a total of one #(n!re! an! ninety?t#ree, accor!ing to <ionysi(s.[23] i;y, agreeing wit# t#e former as to t#e n(mber of reg(lar cent(ries in t#e fi;e classes, !iffers from #im by excl(!ing t#e sixt# class, t#e persons being forme! into one cent(ry wit# one ;ote, an! incl(!e! in or attac#e! to t#e fift# class. He also ma2es t#ree cent(ries of #orn?blowers instea! of two, an! t#e w#ole n(mber of cent(ries one mare t#an <ionysi(s. [24] Cicero remar2s t#at ninety?six cent(ries were a minority, w#ic# wo(l! #e e5(ally tr(e (n!er eit#er statement.[25] "#e cent(ries of eac# class were !i;i!e! into seniors an! :(niors, of w#ic# t#e senior cent(ries were compose! of s(c# persons as were abo;e t#e age of fifty?fi;e y?ears, an! were c#arge! wit# t#e !(ty, as sol!iers, of !efen!ing t#e city; w#ile t#e :(nior cent(ries consiste! of t#ose persons w#o were below t#is age an! abo;e se;enteen, an! were c#arge! wit# external military enterprises.[26] "#e armat(re of eac# class was prescribe! an! ma!e !ifferent for eac#. It will be notice! t#at t#e control of t#e go;ernment, so far as t#e assembly of t#e people co(l! infl(ence its action, was place! in t#e #an!s of t#e first class, an! t#e e5(ites. "#ey #el! toget#er ninety?eig#t ;otes, a ma:ority of t#e w#ole. 'ac# cent(ry agree! (pon its ;ote separately w#en assemble! in t#e comitia centuriata$ precisely as eac# c(ria #a! been acc(stome! to !o in t#e comitia curiata. In ta2ing a ;ote (pon any p(blic 5(estion, t#e e5(ites were calle! first, an! t#en t#e first class.[28] If t#ey agree! in t#eir ;otes it !eci!e! t#e 5(estion, an! t#e remaining cent(ries were not calle! (pon to ;ote; b(t if t#ey !isagree!, t#e secon! class was calle!, an! so on to t#e last, (nless a ma:ority sooner appeare!. "#e powers formerly exercise! by t#e comitia curiata$ now transferre! to t#e comitia centuriata$ were enlarge! in some slig#t partic(lars in t#e s(bse5(ent perio!. It electe! all officers an! magistrates on t#e nomination of t#e senate; it enacte! or re:ecte! laws propose! by t#e senate, no meas(re becoming a law wit#o(t its sanction; it repeale! existing laws on t#e proposition of t#e same bo!y, if t#ey c#ose to !o so; an! it !eclare! war on t#e same recommen!ation. /(t t#e senate concl(!e! peace wit#o(t cons(lting t#e assembly. &n appeal in all cases in;ol;ing life co(l! be ta2en to t#is assembly as t#e #ig#est :(!icial trib(nal of t#e state. "#ese powers were s(bstantial, b(t limite! ? control o;er t#e finances being excl(!e!. & ma:ority of t#e ;otes, #owe;er, were lo!ge! wit# t#e first class, incl(!ing t#e e5(ites, w#ic# embrace! t#e bo!y of t#e patricians; as m(st be s(ppose!, an! t#e wealt#iest citiBens. 3roperty an! not n(mbers controlle! t#e go;ernment. "#ey were able, #owe;er, to create a bo!y of laws in t#e co(rse of time w#ic# affor!e! e5(al protection to all, an! t#(s ten!e! to re!eem t#e worst effects of t#e ine5(alities of t#e system. "#e meetings of t#e comitia were #el! in t#e Camp(s Marti(s ann(ally for t#e election of magistrates an! officers, an! at ot#er times w#en t#e p(blic necessities re5(ire!. "#e people assemble! by cent(ries, an! by classes (n!er t#eir offices, organiBe! as an army +e"ercitus.2 for t#e cent(ries, an! class were !esigne! to s(bser;e all t#e p(rposes of a military as well as a ci;il organiBation. &t t#e first m(ster (n!er %er;i(s "(lli(s, eig#ty t#o(san! citiBen sol!iers appeare! in t#e Camp(s Marti(s (n!er arms, eac# man in #is proper cent(ry, eac# cent(ry in its class, an! eac# class by itself.[29] ';ery member of a cent(ry was now a citiBen of

DD8 0ome, w#ic# was t#e most important fr(it of t#e new political system. In t#e time of t#e rep(blic t#e cons(ls, an! in t#eir absence; t#e praetor, #a! power to con;ene t#e comitia$ w#ic# was presi!e! o;er by t#e person w#o ca(se! it to assemble. %(c# a go;ernment: appears to (s, in t#e lig#t of o(r more a!;ance! experience, bot# r(!e an! cl(msy; b(t it was a sensible impro;ement (pon t#e pre;io(s gentile go;ernment, !efecti;e an! illiberal as it appears. $n!er it, 0ome became mistress of t#e worl!. "#e element, of property, now rising into comman!ing importance, !etermine! its c#aracter. It #a! bro(g#t aristocracy an! pri;ilege into prominence, w#ic# seiBe! t#e opport(nity to wit#!raw t#e control of t#e go;ernment in a great, meas(re from t#e #an!s of t#e people, an! bestow it (pon t#e men of property. It was a mo;ement in t#e opposite !irection from t#at to w#ic# t#e !emocratic principles in#erite! from t#e gentes nat(rally ten!e!. &gainst t#e new elements of aristocracy an! pri;ilege now incorporate! in t#eir go;ernmental instit(tions, t#e 0oman plebeians conten!e! t#ro(g#o(t t#e perio! of t#e rep(blic, an! at times wit# some meas(re of s(ccess. /(t patrician ran2 an! property, possesse! by t#e #ig#er classes, were too powerf(l for t#e wiser an! gran!er !octrines of e5(al rig#ts an! e5(al pri;ileges represente! by t#e plebeians. It was e;en t#en far too #ea;y a tax (pon 0oman society to carry a pri;ilege! class. Cicero, patriot an! noble 0oman as #e was, appro;e! an! commen!e! t#is gra!ation of t#e people into classes, wit# t#e bestowment of a controlling infl(ence in t#e go;ernment (pon t#e minority of citiBens. %er;i(s "(lli(s, #e remar2s, E#a;ing create! a large n(mber of e5(ites from t#e common mass of t#e people, !i;i!e! t#e remain!er into fi;e classes, !isting(is#ing between t#e seniors an! :(niors, w#ic# #e so constit(te! as to place t#e s(ffrages, not in t#e #an!s of t#e m(ltit(!e, b(t of t#e men of property; ta2ing care to ma2e it, a r(le of o(rs, as it o(g#t to be in e;ery go;ernment,, t#at t#e greatest n(mber s#o(l! not #a;e t#e greatest weig#t.F[30] In t#e lig#t of t#e experience of t#e inter;ening two t#o(san! years, it may well be obser;e! t#at t#e ine5(ality of pri;ileges an! t#e !enial of t#e rig#t of self?go;ernment #ere commen!e!, create! an! !e;elope! t#at mass of ignorance an! corr(ption w#ic# (ltimately !estroye! bot# go;ernment an! people. "#e #(man race is gra!(ally learning t#e simple lesson t#at t#e people as a w#ole are wiser for t#e p(blic goo! an! t#e p(bic prosperity, t#an any pri;ilege! class of men, #owe;er refine! an! c(lti;ate!, #a;e e;er been, or, by any possibility, can e;er become. 9o;ernments o;er societies t#e most a!;ance! are still in a transitional stage; an! t#ey are necessarily an! logically mo;ing, as 3resi!ent 9rant, not wit#o(t reason, intimate! in #is last, ina(g(ral a!!ress, in t#e !irection of !emocracy; t#at form of self?go;ernment w#ic# represents an! expresses t#e a;erage intelligence an! ;irt(e of a free an! e!(cate! people. "#e property classes s(bser;e! t#e (sef(l p(rpose of brea2ing (p t#e gentes, as t#e basis of a go;ernmental system, by transferring t#eir powers to a !ifferent bo!y. It was e;i!ently t#e principal ob:ect of t#e %er;ian legislation to obtain a !eli;erance from t#e gentes, w#ic# were close corporations, an! to gi;e t#e new go;ernment a basis wi!e eno(g# to incl(!e all t#e in#abitants of 0ome, wit# t#e exception of t#e sla;es. &fter t#e classes #a! accomplis#e! t#is wor2, it mig#t #a;e been expecte! t#at t#ey wo(l! #a;e !ie! o(t as t#ey !i! at &t#ens; an! t#at city war!s an! co(ntry

DD, towns#ips, wit# t#eir in#abitants organiBe! as bo!ies politic, wo(l! #a;e become t#e basis of t#e new political system, as t#ey rig#tf(lly an! logically s#o(l!. /(t t#e m(nicipal organiBation of 0ome pre;ente! t#is cons(mmation. It gaine! at t#e o(tset, an! maintaine! to t#e en! t#e central position in t#e go;ernment, to w#ic# all areas wit#o(t were ma!e s(bor!inate. It presents t#e anomaly of a great central m(nicipal go;ernment expan!e!, in effect, first o;er Italy, an! finally o;er t#e con5(ere! pro;inces of t#ree continents. "#e fi;e classes, wit# some mo!ifications of t#e manner of ;oting, remaine! to t#e en! of t#e rep(blic. "#e creation of a new assembly of t#e people to ta2e t#e place of t#e ol!, !iscloses t#e ra!ical c#aracter of t#e %er;ian constit(tion. "#ese classes wo(l! ne;er #a;e ac5(ire! ;itality wit#o(t a newly constit(te! assembly, in;esting t#em wit# political powers. 6it# t#e increase of wealt# an! pop(lation, t#e !(ties an! responsibilities of t#is assembly were m(c# increase!. It was e;i!ently t#e intention of %er;i(s "(lli(s t#at it s#o(l! exting(is# t#e comitia curiata$ an! wit# it t#e power of t#e gentes. "#is legislator is sai! to #a;e instit(te! t#e comitia tributa$ a separate assembly of eac# local tribe or war!, w#ose c#ief !(ties relate! to t#e assessment an! collection of taxes, an! to f(rnis#ing contingents of troops. &t a later !ay t#is assembly electe! t#e trib(nes of t#e people. "#e war! was t#e nat(ral (nit of t#eir political system, an! t#e centre w#ere local self?go;ernment s#o(l! #a;e been establis#e! #a! t#e 0oman people wis#e! to create a !emocratic state. /(t t#e senate an! t#e property classes #a! forestalle! t#em from t#at career. >ne of t#e first acts ascribe! to %er;i(s was t#e instit(tion of t#e cens(s. i;y prono(nces t#e cens(s a most sal(tary meas(re for an empire abo(t to become so great; accor!ing to w#ic# t#e !(ties of peace an! war were to be performe!, not in!i;i!(ally as before, b(t accor!ing to t#e meas(re of personal wealt#. [31] 'ac# person was re5(ire! to enrol #imself in t#e war! of #is resi!ence, wit# a statement, of t#e amo(nt of #is property. It was !one in t#e presence of t#e censor; an! t#e lists w#en complete! f(rnis#e! t#e basis (pon w#ic# t#e classes were forme!. [32] "#is was accompanie! by a ;ery remar2able act of t#e perio!, t#e creation of fo(r city war!s, circ(mscribe! by bo(n!aries, an! !isting(is#e! by appropriate names. In point of time it was earlier t#an t#e instit(tion of t#e &ttic !eme by Cleist#enes; b(t t#e two were 5(ite !ifferent in t#eir relations to t#e go;ernment; "#e &ttic !eme, as #as been s#own, was organiBe! ac, a bo!y politic wit# a similar registry of citiBens an! of t#eir property, an! #a;ing besi!es a complete local self?go;ernment, wit# an electi;e magistracy, :(!iciary an! priest: #oo!. >n t#e ot#er #an!, t#e 0oman war! was a geograp#ical area, wit# a registry of citiBens an! of t#eir property, wit# a local organiBation, a trib(ne an! ot#er electi;e offices, an! wit# an assembly. *or a limite! n(mber of special ob:ects t#e in#abitants of t#e war!s were !ealt wit# by t#e go;ernment t#ro(g# t#eir territorial relations. /(t t#e go;ernment of t#e war! !i! not possess t#e soli! attrib(tes of t#at of t#e &ttic !eme. It was a nearer copy of t#e pre;io(s &t#enian na(crary, w#ic# not (nli2ely f(rnis#e! t#e mo!el, as t#e %olonian classes !i! of t#e %er;ian. <ionysi(s remar2s, t#at after %er;i(s "(lli(s #a! inclose! t#e se;en #ills wit# one wall #e !i;i!e! t#e city into fo(r parts, an! ga;e t#e names of t#e #ills to t#e re?!i;isions: to t#e first, 3alatina, to t#e secon!, %(b(rra, to t#e t#ir!, Collina, an! to t#e fo(rt#, 's5(ilina; an! ma!e t#e city consist of fo(r parts, w#ic# before consiste! of t#ree; an! #e or!ere! t#e

DAH people w#o !welt in eac# of t#e fo(r regions, li2e ;illagers, not to ta2e any ot#er !welling, nor to pay taxes elsew#ere, nor gi;e in t#eir names as sol!iers elsew#ere, nor pay t#eir assessments for military p(rposes an! ot#er nee!s, w#ic# eac# m(st f(rnis# for t#e common welfare; for t#ese t#ings were no longer to be !one accor!ing to t#e t#ree consang(ine tribes, b(t accor!ing to t#e fo(r local tribes, w#ic# last #a! been arrange! by #imself; an! #e appointe! comman!ers o;er eac# tribe, as p#ylarc#s or comarc#s, w#om #e !irecte! to note w#at #o(se eac# in#abite!.[33] Mommsen obser;es t#at )eac# of t#ese fo(r le;y?!istricts #a! to f(rnis# t#e fo(rt# part not only of t#e force as a w#ole, b(t of eac# of its military s(b!i;isions, so t#at eac# legion an! eac# cent(ry n(mbere! an e5(al proportion of conscripts from eac# region; e;i!ently for t#e p(rpose of merging all !istinctions of a gentile an! local nat(re in one common le;y of t#e comm(nity, an! especially of bin!ing, t#ro(g# t#e powerf(l le;elling infl(ence of t#e military spirit, t#e meteoci an! t#e b(rgesses into one people.8[34] In li2e manner, t#e s(rro(n!ing co(ntry (n!er t#e go;ernment of 0ome was organiBe! in towns#ips +tribus rusticae.$ t#e n(mber of w#ic# is state! at, twenty? six by some writers, an! at t#irty?one by ot#ers; ma2ing wit# t#e fo(r city war!s, a total of t#irty?one in one case, an! of t#irty?fi;e in t#e ot#er. [35] "#e total n(mber was ne;er increase! beyon! t#irty?fi;e. "#ese towns#ips !i! not become integral in t#e sense of participating in t#e a!ministration of t#e go;ernment. &s finally establis#e! (n!er t#e %er;ian constit(tion, t#e go;ernment was cast in t#e form in w#ic# it remaine! !(ring t#e existence of t#e rep(blic; t#e cons(ls ta2ing t#e place of t#e pre;io(s military comman!ers. It was not base! (pon territory in t#e excl(si;e sense of t#e &t#enian go;ernment, or in t#e mo!ern sense; ascen!ing from t#e towns#ip or war!, t#e (nit of organiBation, to t#e co(nty or arron!issement, an! from t#e latter to t#e state, eac# organiBe! an! in;este! wit# go;ernmental f(nctions as constit(ents of a w#ole. "#e central go;ernment o;ers#a!owe! an! atrop#ie! t#e parts. It reste! more (pon property t#an (pon territory, t#is being ma!e t#e comman!ing element, as is s#own by t#e lo!gement of t#e controlling power of t#e go;ernment in t#e #ig#est property classes. It #a!, ne;ert#eless, a territorial basis as well, since it recogniBe! an! (se! territorial s(b!i;isions for citiBens#ip, an! for financial an! military ob:ects, in w#ic# t#e citiBen was !ealt wit# t#ro(g# #is territorial relations. "#e 0omans were now carrie! fairly o(t of gentile society into an! (n!er t#e secon! great plan of go;ernment fo(n!e! (pon territory an! (pon property. "#ey #a! felt, gentilism an! barbarism be#in! t#em, an! entere! (pon a new career of ci;iliBation. Hencefort# t#e creation an! protection of property became t#e primary ob:ects of t#e go;ernment, wit# a s(pera!!e! career of con5(est for !omination o;er !istant tribes an! nations. "#is great c#ange of instit(tions, creating political society as !isting(is#e! from gentile society, was simply t#e intro!(ction of t#e new elements of territory an! property, ma2ing t#e latter a power in t#e go;ernment, w#ic# before #a! been simply an infl(ence. Ha! t#e war!s an! r(stic towns#ips been organiBe! wit# f(ll powers of local self?go;ernment, an! t#e senate been ma!e electi;e by t#ese local constit(encies wit#o(t !istinction of classes, t#e res(lting go;ernment wo(l! #a;e been a !emocracy, li2e t#e &t#enian; for t#ese

DA1 local go;ernments wo(l! #a;e mo(l!e! t#e state into t#eir own li2eness. "#e senate, wit# t#e #ere!itary ran2 it conferre!, an! t#e property basis 5(alifying t#e ;oting power in t#e assembly of t#e people, t(rne! t#e scale against !emocratical instit(tions, an! pro!(ce! a mixe! go;ernment, partly aristocratic an! partly !emocratic; eminently calc(late! to engen!er perpet(al animosity between t#e two classes of citiBens t#(s !eliberately an! (nnecessarily create! by affirmati;e legislation. It is plain, I t#in2, t#at t#e people were circ(m;ente! by t#e %er;ian constit(tion an! #a! a go;ernment p(t (pon t#em w#ic# t#e ma:ority wo(l! #a;e re:ecte! #a! t#ey f(lly compre#en!e! its probable res(lts. "#e e;i!ence is concl(si;e of t#e antece!ent !emocratical principles of t#e gentes, w#ic#, #owe;er excl(si;e as against all persons not in t#eir comm(nion, were carrie! o(t f(lly among t#emsel;es. "#e e;i!ence of t#is free spirit an! of t#eir free instit(tions is so !ecisi;e t#at t#e proposition elsew#ere state!, t#at gentilism is incompatible wit# monarc#y, seems to be incontro;ertible. &s a w#ole, t#e 0oman go;ernment was anomalo(s. "#e o;ers#a!owing m(nicipality of 0ome, ma!e t#e centre of t#e state in its plan of go;ernment, was one of t#e pro!(cing ca(ses of its no;el c#aracter. "#e primary organiBation of t#e people into an army wit# t#e military spirit it fostere! create! t#e co#esi;e force w#ic# #el! t#e rep(blic toget#er, an! afterwar!s t#e empire. 6it# a selecti;e senate #ol!ing office for life, an! possessing s(bstantial powers; wit# a personal ran2 passing to t#eir c#il!ren an! !escen!ants; wit# an electi;e magistracy gra!e! to t#e nee!s of a central metropolis; wit# an assembly of t#e people organiBe! into property classes, possessing an (ne5(al s(ffrage, b(t #ol!ing bot# an affirmati;e an! a negati;e (pon all legislation; an! wit# an elaborate military organiBation, no ot#er go;ernment strictly analogo(s #as appeare! among men. It was artificial, illogical, approac#ing a monstrosity; b(t capable of won!erf(l ac#ie;ements, beca(se of its military spirit, an! beca(se t#e 0omans were en!owe! wit# remar2able powers for organiBing an! managing affairs, "#e patc#wor2 in its composition was t#e pro!(ct of t#e s(perior craft of t#e wealt#y classes w#o inten!e! to seiBe t#e s(bstance of power w#ile t#ey preten!e! to respect t#e rig#ts an! interests of all. 6#en t#e new political system became establis#e!, t#e ol! one !i! not imme!iately !isappear. "#e f(nctions of t#e senate an! of t#e military comman!er remaine! as before; b(t t#e property classes too2 t#e place of t#e gentes, an! t#e assembly of t#e classes too2 t#e place of t?#e assembly of t#e gentes. 0a!ical as t#e !amages were, t#ey were limite!, in t#e main, to t#ese partic(lars, an! came in wit#o(t friction or ;iolence. "#e ol! assembly +comitia curiata. was allowe! to retain a portion of its powers, w#ic# 2ept ali;e for a long perio! of time t#e organiBations of t#e gentes, c(riae an! consang(ine tribes. It still conferre! t#e imperium (pon all t#e #ig#er magistrates after t#eir election was complete!, t#o( # in time it became a matter of form merely; it ina(g(rate! certain priests, an! reg(late! t#e religio(s obser;ances of t#e c(ria. "#is state of t#ings contin(e! !own to t#e time of t#e first 3(nic war, after w#ic# t#e comitia curiata lost its importance an! soon fell into obli;ion. /ot# t#e assembly an! t#e c(riae were, s(perse!e! rat#er t#an abolis#e!, an! !ie! o(t from inanition; b(t t#e gentes remaine! far into t#e empire, not as an organiBation, for t#at also !ie! o(t in time, #(t as a pe!igree an! a lineage. "#(s t#e

DAD transition from gentile into political society was gra!(ally b(t effect(ality accomplis#e!, an! t#e secon! great plan of #(man go;ernment was s(bstit(te! by t#e 0omans in t#e place of t#e first w#ic# #a! pre;aile! from time immemorial. &fter an immensely protracte! !(ration, r(nning bac2 of t#e separate existence of t#e &ryan family an! recei;e! by t#e atin tribes from t#eir remote ancestors, t#e gentile ? organiBation finally s(rren!ere! its existence, among t#e 0omans, to t#e !eman!s of ci;ilisation. It #a! #el! excl(si;e possession of society t#ro(g# t#ese se;eral et#nical perio!s, en! (ntil it #a! won by experience all t#e elements of ci;iliBation, w#ic# it t#en pro;e! (nable to manage. Man2in! owe a !ebt of gratit(!e to t#eir sa;age ancestors for !e;ising an instit(tion able to carry t#e a!;ancing portion of t#e #(man race o(t of sa;agery into barbarism, an! t#ro(g# t#e s(ccessi;e stages of t#e latter into ci;iliBation. It also acc(m(late! by experience t#e intelligence an! 2nowle!ge necessary to !e;ise political society w#ile t#e instit(tion yet remaine!. It #ol!s a position on t#e great c#art of #(man progress secon! to none in its infl(ence, in its ac#ie;ements an! in its #istory. &s a plan of go;ernment, t#e gentile organiBation was (ne5(al to t#e wants of ci;iliBe! man; b(t it is somet#ing to, be sai! in its remembrance t#at it !e;elope! from t#e germ t#e principal, go;ernment instit(tions of mo!ern ci;iliBe! states. &mong ot#ers, as before state!, o(t of t#e ancient co(ncil of c#iefs came t#e mo!ern senate; o(t of t#e ancient assembly of t#e people came t#e mo!ern representati;e assembly, t#e two toget#er constit(ting t#e mo!ern legislat(re; o(t of t#e ancient general military comman!er cam t#e mo!ern c#ief magistrate, w#et#er a fe(!al or constit(tional 2ing, an emperor or a presi!ent, t#e latter being t#e nat(ral an! logical res(lts; an! o(t of t#e ancient custos urbis$ by a circ(ito(s !eri;ation, came t#e 0oman praetor an! t#e mo!ern :(!ge. '5(al rig#ts an! pri;ileges, personal free!om an! t#e car!inal principles of !emocracy were also in#erite! from t#e gentes. 6#en property #a! become create! in masses, an! its infl(ence an! power began to be felt in society, sla;ery came in; an instit(tion ;iolati;e of all t#ese principles, b(t s(staine! by t#e selfis# an! !el(si;e consi!eration t#at t#e person ma!e a sla;e was a stranger in bloo! an! a capti;e enemy. 6it# property also came in gra!(ally t#e principle of aristocracy, stri;ing for t#e creation of pri;ilege! classes. "#e element of property, w#ic# #as controlle! society to a great e;ent !(ring t#e comparati;ely s#ort perio! of ci;iliBation, #as gi;en man2in! !espotism, imperialism, monarc#y, pri;ilege! classes, an! finally representati;e !emocracy. It #as also ma!e t#e career of t#e ci;iliBe! nations essentially a property?ma2ing career. /(t w#en t#e intelligence of man2in! rises to t#e #eig#t of t#e great 5(estion of t#e abstract rig#ts of property, ? incl(!ing t#e relations of property to t#e state, as well as t#e rig#ts of persons to property, ? a mo!ification of t#e present or!er of t#ings may be expecte!. "#e nat(re of t#e coming c#anges it may be impossible to concei;e; b(t it seems probable t#at !emocracy, once (ni;ersal in a r(!imentary form an! represse! in many ci;iliBe! states, is !estine! to become again (ni;ersal an! s(preme. &n &merican, e!(cate! in t#e principles of !emocracy, an! profo(n!ly impresse! wit# t#e !ignity an! gran!e(r of t#ose great conceptions w#ic# recogniBe t#e liberty, e5(ality an! fraternity of man2in!, may gi;e free expression to a preference for self?go;ernment an! free instit(tions. &t t#e same time t#e e5(al rig#t of e;ery

DAA ot#er person m(st be recogniBe! to accept an! appro;e any form of go;ernment, w#et#er imperial or monarc#ical, t#at satisfies #is preferences.

Footnotes
1 <ionysi(s, i;; 1. ! =ieb(#r says: )"#e existence of t#e plebs, as ac2nowle!ge!ly a free an! ;ery n(mero(s portion of t#e nation, may be trace! bac2 to t#e reign of &nc(s; b(t before t#e time of %er;i(s it was only an aggregate of (nconnecte! parts; not a (nite! reg(lar w#ole.8 ? )History of 0ome,8 1. c., i, A14. " )History of 0ome.8 i, A14. # )"#at t#e clients were total strangers to t#e plebeian commonalty an! !i! not coalesce wit# it (ntil late, w#en t#e bon! of ser;it(!e #a! been loosene!, partly from t#e #o(ses of t#eir patrons !ying of or sin2ing into !ecay, partly from t#e a!;ance of t#e w#ole nation towar! free!om, will be pro;e! in t#e se5(el of t#is #istory.8 ? )History of 0ome,8 i; A14. $ <ionysi(s; ii; 8. % 3l(tarc#, )Iit, 0om8., xiii, 1G. & )Iit. "iberi(s,8 cap. 1. ' )History of 0ome,8 i. D4G,-4H. ( %mit#Fs )<ic., &rticles, 9ens, 3atricii, an! 31ebs.8 1) <ionysi(s; ii; 8; 3l(tarc#, )Iit. 0om8., xiii. 11?Ib., ii,. 8. 1! )<e 0ep.,8 ii. 1D. 1" i;y, ii 8.

1# Ielle(s 3aterc(l(s, 1, 8. 1$ i;y, ii, -,.

1% )History of 0ome,8 i, D-G. 1& Ib., i, D-4. 1' 1( i;y, i;, -. i;y, i;, 41.

!) 3l(tarc#, )Iit. =(ma,8 x;ii, DH. !1 "#e property 5(alification for t#e first class was 1HH,HHH asses; for t#e secon! class, 74,HHH asses; for t#ir!, 4H,HHH, for t#e fo(rt#, D4,HHH; an! for t#e fift#, 11,HHH asses. ? i;y, i, -A.

DA!! <ionysi(s, i;, DH. !" Ib, i;, 1G, /-$ 18. !# i;y, i, -A.

!$ )<e 0ep.,8 ii, DH. !% <ionysi(s, i;. 1G. !& i;y, i, -A.

!' i;y, i, -A; /(t <ionysi(s places t#e e5(ites in t#e first class, an! remar2s t#at t#is class was first calle! ? ? <ionysi(s, i;, DH. !( i;y, i, --; <ionysi(s states t#e n(mber at 8-,7HH. ? i;, DD.

") Cicero, )<e 0ep.,8 ii, DD. "1 i;y, i, -D.

AD?<ionysi(s, i;, 14. "" <ionyi(s, i;, 1-. "# )History of 0ome,8 1, c., %cribnerFs e!., i, 1AG. "$ <ionysi(s, i;, 14; =ieb(#r #as f(rnis#e! t#e names of sixteen co(ntry towns#ips, as follows: &emilian, Camilian, Cl(entian, Cornelian, *abian, 9alerian, Horatian, emonian, Menenian, 3aperian, 0omilian, %ergian, Iet(rian, Cla(!ian.? )History of 0ome,8 i, ADH, note.

Chapter XIV CHANGE OF DESCENT FROM THE FEMALE TO THE MALE LINE
&n important 5(estion remains to be consi!ere!, namely: w#et#er any e;i!ence exists t#at !escent was anciently in t#e female line in t#e 9recian an! atin gentes. "#eoretically, t#is m(st #a;e been t#e fact at some anterior perio!: among t#eir remote ancestors; b(t we are not compelle! to rest t#e 5(estion (pon t#eory alone. %ince a c#ange to t#e male line in;ol;e! a nearly total alteration of t#e members#ip in a gens, a met#o! by w#ic# it mig#t: #a;e been accomplis#e! s#o(l! be pointe! o(t. More t#an t#is, it s#o(l! be s#own, if possible, t#at an a!e5(ate moti;e re5(iring t#e c#ange was certain to arise, wit# t#e progress of society o(t of t#e con!ition in w#ic# t#is form of !escent originate!. &n! lastly, t#e existing e;i!ence of ancient !escent in t#e female line among t#em s#o(l! be presente!. & gens in t#e arc#aic perio!, as we #a;e seen, consiste! of a s(ppose! female ancestor an! #er c#il!ren toget#er wit# t#e c#il!ren of #er !a(g#ters, an! of #er female !escen!ants t#ro(g# females in perpet(ity. "#e c#il!ren of #er sons, an! of

DA4 #er male !escen!ants, t#ro(g# males, were excl(!e!. >n t#e ot#er #an!, wit# !escent in t#e male line, a gens consiste! of a s(ppose! male ancestor an! #is c#il!ren, toget#er wit# t#e c#il!ren of #is sons an! of #is male !escen!ants t#ro(g# males in perpet(ity. "#e c#il!ren of #is !a(g#ters, an! of #is female !escen!ants t#ro(g# females, were excl(!e!. "#ose excl(!e! in t#e first case wo(l! be members of t#e gens in t#e secon! case, an! ;ice ;ersa. "#e 5(estion t#en arises #ow co(l! !escent be c#ange! from t#e female line to t#e male wit#o(t, t#e !estr(ction of t#e gensU "#e met#o! was simple an! nat(ral, pro;i!e! t#e moti;e to ma2e t#e c#ange was general, (rgent an! comman!ing. 6#en !one at a gi;en time, an! by pre?concerte! !etermination, it was only necessary to agree t#at all t#e present members of t#e gens s#o(l! remain members, b(t t#at in f(t(re all c#il!ren, w#ose fat#ers belonge! to t#e gens, s#o(l! alone remain in it an! bear t#e gentile name, w#ile t#e c#il!ren of its female members s#o(l! be excl(!e!. "#is wo(l! not brea2 or c#ange t#e 2ins#ip or relations of t#e existing gentiles; b(t t#ereafter it wo(l! retain in t#e gens t#e c#il!ren it before excl(!e! an! excl(!e t#ose it before retaine!. &lt#o(g# it may seem a #ar! problem to sol;e, t#e press(re of an a!e5(ate moti;e wo(l! ren!er it easy, an! t#e lapse of a few generations wo(l! ma2e it complete. &s a practical 5(estion, it #as been c#ange! from t#e female line to t#e male among t#e &merican aborigines in a n(mber of instances. "#(s, among t#e >:ibwas !escent is now in t#e male line, w#ile among t#eir congeners, t#e <elawares an! Mo#egans, it is still in t#e female line. >riginally, wit#o(t a !o(bt, !escent was in t#e female line in t#e entire &lgon2in stoc2. %ince !escent in t#e female line is arc#aic, an! more in accor!ance wit# t#e early con!ition of ancient society t#an !escent in t#e male line, t#ere is a pres(mption in fa;o(r of its ancient, pre;alence in t#e 9recian an! atin gentes. Moreo;er, w#en t#e arc#aic form of any transmitte! organiBation #as been !isco;ere! an! ;erifie!, it is impossible to concei;e of its origination in t#e later more a!;ance! form. &ss(ming a c#ange of !escent among t#em from t#e female line to t#e male, it m(st #a;e occ(rre! ;ery remotely from t#e #istorical perio!. "#eir #istory in t#e Mi!!le stat(s of barbarism is entirely lost; except it #as been in some meas(re preser;e! in t#eir arts, instit(tions an! in;entions, an! in impro;ements in lang(age. "#e $pper %tat(s #as t#e s(pera!!e! lig#t of tra!ition an! of t#e Homeric poems to ac5(aint (s wit# its experience an! t#e meas(re of, progress t#en ma!e. /(t :(!ging from t#e con!ition in w#ic# t#eir tra!itions place t#em, it seems probable t#at !escent, in t#e female line #a! not entirely !isappeare!, at least among t#e 3elasgian an! 9recian tribes, w#en t#ey entere! t#e $pper %tat(s of barbarism. 6#en !escent was in t#e female line in t#e 9recian an! atin gentes, t#e gens possesse! t#e following among ot#er c#aracteristics: 1. Marriage in t#e gens was pro#ibite!; t#(s placing c#il!ren in a !ifferent gens from t#at of t#eir rep(te! fat#er. D. 3roperty an! t#e office of c#ief were #ere!itary in t#e gens; t#(s excl(!ing c#il!ren from in#eriting t#e property or s(ccee!ing to t#e office of t#eir rep(te! fat#er. "#is state of t#ings wo(l! contin(e (ntil a moti;e arose s(fficiently general an! comman!ing to establis# t#e in:(stice of t#is excl(sion in t#e face of

DAG t#eir c#ange! con!ition. "#e nat(ral reme!y was a c#ange of !escent from t#e female line to t#e male. &ll t#at was nee!e! to effect, t#e c#ange was an a!e5(ate moti;e. &fter !omestic animals began to #e reare! in floc2s an! #er!s, becoming t#ereby a so(rce of s(bsistence as well as ob:ects of in!i;i!(al property, an! after tillage #a! le! to t#e owners#ip of #o(ses an! lan!s in se;eralty, an antagonism wo(l! #e certain to arise against t#e pre;ailing form of gentile in#eritance, beca(se it excl(!e! t#e ownerFs c#il!ren, w#ose paternity was becoming more ass(re!, an! ga;e #is property to #is gentile 2in!re!. & contest for a new r(le of in#eritance, s#are! in by fat#ers an! t#eir c#il!ren, wo(l! f(rnis# a moti;e s(fficiently powerf(l to effect t#e c#ange. 6it# property acc(m(lating in masses an! ass(ming permanent forms, an! wit# an increase! proportion of it #el! by in!i;i!(al owners#ip, !escent in t#e female line was certain of o;ert#row, an! t#e s(bstit(tion of t#e male line e5(ally ass(re!. %(c# a c#ange wo(l! lea;e t#e in#eritance in t#e gens as before, b(t it wo(l! place c#il!ren in t#e gens of t#eir fat#er, an! at t#e #ea! of t#e agnatic 2in!re!. *or a time, in all probability, t#ey wo(l! s#are in t#e !istrib(tion of t#e estate wit# t#e remaining agnates; b(t an extension of t#e principle by w#ic# t#e agnates c(t off t#e remaining gentiles, wo(l! in time res(lt in t#e excl(sion of t#e agnates beyon! t#e c#il!ren an! an excl(si;e in#eritance in t#e c#il!ren. *art#er t#an t#is, t#e son wo(l! now be bro(g#t in t#e line of s(ccession to t#e office of #is fat#er. %(c# #a! t#e law of in#eritance become in t#e &t#enian gens in t#e time of %olon or s#ortly after; w#en t#e property passe! to t#e sonFs e5(ally, s(b:ect to t#e obligation of maintaining t#e !a(g#ters, an! of apportioning t#em in marriage; an! in !efa(lt of sons, to t#e !a(g#ters e5(ally. It t#ere were no c#il!ren, t#en t#e in#eritance passe! to t#e agnatic 2in!re!, an! in !efa(lt of t#e latter, to t#e gentiles. "#e 0oman law of t#e "wel;e "ables was s(bstantially t#e same. It seems probable f(rt#er, t#at w#en !escent was c#ange! to t#e male or still earlier, animal names for t#e gentes were lai! asi!e an! personal names s(bstit(te! in t#eir place. "#e in!i;i!(ality of persons wo(l! assert itself more an! more wit# t#e progress of society, an! wit# t#e increase an! in!i;i!(al owners#ip of property, lea!ing to t#e naming of t#e gens after some ancestral #ero. &lt#o(g# new gentes were being forme! from time to time by t#e process of segmentation, an! ot#ers were !ying o(t, t#e lineage of a gens reac#e! bac2 t#ro(g# #(n!re!s not to say t#o(san!s of years. &fter t#e s(ppose! s(bstit(tion, t#e eponymo(s ancestor wo(l! #a;e been a s#ifting person, at long inter;als of time, some later person !isting(is#e! in t#e #istory of t#e gens being p(t in #is place, w#en t#e 2nowle!ge of t#e former person became obsc(re!, an! fa!e! from ;iew in t#e misty past. "#at t#e more celebrate! 9recian gentes ma!e t#e c#ange of names, an! ma!e it gracef(lly, is s#own by t#e fact, t#at t#ey retaine! the name of t#e mot#er of t#eir gentile fat#er, an! ascribe! #is birt# to #er embracement by some partic(lar god. "#(s '(molp(s, t#e eponymo(s ancestor of t#e &ttic '(molpi!ae, was t#e rep(te! son of =ept(ne an! C#ione; b(t e;en t#e 9recian gens was ol!er t#an t#e conception of =ept(ne. 0ec(rring now to t#e main 5(estion, t#e absence of !irect proof of ancient !escent in t#e female line in t#e 9recian an! atin gentes wo(l! not silence t#e

DA7 pres(mption in its fa;o(r; b(t it so #appens t#at t#is form of !escent remaine! in some tribes: nearly relate! to t#e 9ree2s wit# traces of it in a n(mber of 9recian tribes. "#e in5(isiti;e an! obser;ing Hero!ot(s fo(n! one nation, t#e ycians, 3elasgian in lineage, b(t 9recian in affiliation, among w#om in #is time +--H /.C.., !escent was in t#e female line. &fter remar2ing t#at t#e ycians were spr(ng from Crete, an! stating some partic(lars of t#eir migration to ycia (n!er %arpe!on, #e procee!s as follows: E"#eir c(stoms are partly Cretan an! partly Carian. "#ey #a;e, #owe;er, one sing(lar c(stom in w#ic# t#ey !iffer from e;ery ot#er nation in t#e worl!. &s2 a ycian w#o #e is, an! #e answers by gi;ing #is own name, t#at of #is mot#er, an! so on in t#e female line. Moreo;er, if a free woman marry a man w#o is a sla;e, t#eir c#il!ren are free citiBens; b(t if a free man marry a foreign woman, or co#abit wit# a conc(bine e;en t#o(g# #e be t#e first person in t#e state, t#e c#il!ren forfeit all t#e rig#ts of citiBens#ip. [1] 1t follows necessarily from t#is circ(mstantial statement t#at t#e ycians were organiBe! in gentes, wit# a pro#ibition against intermarriage in t#e gens; an! t#at t#e c#il!ren belonge! to t#e gens of t#eir mot#er. It presents a clear exemplification of a gens in t#e arc#aic form, wit# confirmatory tests of t#e conse5(ences of a marriage of a ycian man wit# a foreign woman, an! of a ycian woman wit# a sla;e. [2] "#e aborigines of Crete were 3elasgian, Hellenic an! %emitic tribes, li;ing locally apart. Minos, t#e brot#er of %arpe!on, is (s(ally regar!e! as t#e #ea! of t#e 3elasgians in Crete; b(t t#e ycians were alrea!y HelleniBe! in t#e time of Hero!ot(s an! 5(ite conspic(o(s among t#e &siatic 9ree2s for t#eir a!;ancement. "#e ins(lation of t#eir ancestors (pon t#e islan! of Crete, prior to t#eir migration in t#e legen!ary perio! to ycia, may affor! an explanation of t#eir retention of !escent in t#e female line to t#is late perio!. &mong t#e 'tr(scans also t#e same r(le of !escent pre;aile!. EIt is sing(lar eno(g#,F obser;es Cramer, Et#at two c(stoms pec(liar to t#e 'tr(scans, as we !isco;er from t#eir mon(ments, s#o(l! #a;e been notice! by Hero!ot(s as c#aracteristic of t#e ycians an! Ca(nians of &sia Minor. "#e first is, t#at t#e 'tr(scans in;ariably !escribe t#eir parentage an! family wit# reference to t#e mot#er, an! not t#e fat#er. "#e ot#er, t#at t#ey a!mitte! t#eir wi;es to t#eir feasts an! ban5(ets.[3] C(rti(s comments on ycian, 'tr(scan an! Cretan !escent, in t#e female line in t#e following lang(age. EIt wo(l! be an error to (n!erstan! t#e (sage in 5(estion as an #omage to t#e female sex. It is rat#er roote! in primiti;e con!itions of society, in w#ic# monogamy was not yet establis#e! wit# s(fficient, certainty to enable !escent (pon t#e fat#erFs si!e to be affirme! wit# ass(rance. &ccor!ingly t#e (sage exten!s far beyon! t#e territory comman!e! by t#e ycian nationality. It occ(rs, e;en to t#is !ay in In!ia; it may be !emonstrate! to #a;e existe! among t#e ancient 'gyptians; it is mentione! by %anc#oniat#on +p 1G; >rell., w#ere t#e reasons for its existence are state! wit# great free!om; an! beyon! t#e confines of t#e 'ast it appears among t#e 'tr(scans, among t#e Cretan, w#o were so closely connecte! wit# t#e ycians, an! w#o calle! t#eir fat#erlan! mot#erlan!; an! among t#e &t#enians, cons(lt /ac#ofen, etc. &ccor!ingly, if Hero!ot(s regar!s t#e (sage in

DA8 5(estion as t#oro(g#ly pec(liar to t#e ycians, it m(st #a;e maintaine! itself longest among t#em of all t#e nations relate! to t#e 9ree2s, as is also pro;e! by t#e ycian inscriptions. Hence we m(st in general regar! t#e employment of t#e maternal name for a !esignation of !escent as t#e remains of an imperfect con!ition of social life an! family law, w#ic#, as life becomes more reg(late!, was relin5(is#e! in fa;o(r of (sages, afterwar!s (ni;ersal in 9reece, of naming c#il!ren after t#e fat#er. "#is !i;ersity of (sages, w#ic# is extremely important for t#e #istory of ancient ci;iliBation, #as been recently !isc(sse! by /ac#ofen in #is a!!ress abo;e name!.[4] In a wor2 of ;ast researc#, /ac#ofen #as collecte! an! !isc(sse! t#e e;i!ence of female a(t#ority +mot#er? rig#t. an! of female r(le +gyneocracy. among t#e ycians, Cretans, &t#enians, emnians, 'gyptians, >rc#omenians, ocrians, esbians, Mantineans, an! among eastern &siatic nations.[5] "#e con!ition of ancient society, t#(s bro(g#t (n!er re;iew, re5(ires for its f(ll explanation t#e existence of t#e gens in its arc#aic form as t#e so(rce of t#e p#enomena. "#is wo(l! bring t#e mot#er an! #er c#il!ren into t#e same gens, an! in t#e composition of t#e comm(nal #o(se#ol!, on t#e basis of gens, wo(l! gi;e t#e gens of t#e mot#ers t#e ascen!ancy in t#e #o(se#ol!. "#e family, w#ic# #a! probably attaine! t#e syn!yasmian form, was still en;irone! wit# t#e remains of t#at con:(gal system w#ic# belonge! to a still earlier con!ition. %(c# a family, consisting of a marrie! pair wit# t#eir c#il!ren, wo(l! nat(rally #a;e so(g#t s#elter wit# 2in!re! families in a comm(nal #o(se#ol!, in w#ic# t#e se;eral mot#ers an! t#eir c#il!ren wo(l! be of t#e same gens; an! t#e rep(te! fat#ers of t#ese c#il!ren wo(l! be of ot#er gentes. Common lan!s an! :oint tillage wo(l! lea! to :oint?tenement #o(ses an! comm(nism in li;ing; so t#at gyneocracy seems to re5(ire for its creation, !escent in t#e female line. 6omen t#(s entrenc#e! in large #o(se#ol!s, s(pplie! from common stores, in w#ic# t#eir own gens so largely pre!ominate! in n(mbers, wo(l! pro!(ce t#e p#enomena of mot#er rig#t an! gyneocracy, w#ic# /ac#ofen #as !etecte! an! trace! wit# t#e ai! of fragments of #istory an! of tra!ition. 'lsew#ere I #a;e referre! to t#e (nfa;o(rable infl(ence (pon t#e position of women w#ic# was pro!(ce! by a c#ange of !escent from t#e female line to t#e male, an! by t#e rise of t#e monogamian family, w#ic# !isplace! t#e :oint? tenement #o(se, an! in t#e mi!st of a society p(rely gentile, place! t#e wife an! mot#er in a. single #o(se an! separate! #er from #er gentile 2in!re!.[6] Monogamy was not probably establis#e! among t#e 9recian tribes (ntil after t#ey #a! attaine! t#e $pper %tat(s of barbarism; an! we seem to arri;e at c#aos in t#e marriage relation wit#in t#is perio!, especially in t#e &t#enian tribes. Concerning t#e latter, /ac#ofen remar2s: E*or before t#e time of Cecrops t#e c#il!ren, as we #a;e seen, #a! only a mot#er, no fat#er; t#ey were of one line. /o(n! to no man excl(si;ely, t#e woman bro(g#t only sp(rio(s c#il!ren into t#e worl!. Cecrops first ma!e an en! of t#is con!ition of t#ings; le! t#e lawless (nion of t#e sexes bac2 to t#e excl(si;eness of marriage; ga;e to t#e c#il!ren a fat#er an! mot#er, an! t#(s from being of one line +unilateres. ma!e t#em of two lines +bilateres..[7] 6#at is #ere !escribe! as t#e lawless (nion of t#e sexes m(st be recei;e! wit# mo!ifications. 6e s#o(l! expect at t#at comparati;ely late !ay to fin! t#e

DA, syn!yasmian family, b(t atten!e! by t#e remains of an anterior con:(gal system w#ic# sprang from marriages in t#e gro(p. "#e p(nal(an family, w#ic# t#e statement fairly implies, m(st #a;e !isappeare! before t#ey reac#e! t#e et#nical perio! name!. "#is s(b:ect will be consi!ere! in s(bse5(ent c#apters in connection wit# t#e growt# of t#e family. "#ere is an interesting reference by 3olybi(s to t#e #(n!re! families of t#e ocrians of Italy. E"#e ocrians t#emsel;es,F #e remar2s, E#a;e ass(re! me t#at t#eir own tra!itions are more conformable to t#e acco(nt of &ristotle t#an to t#at of "imae(s. >f t#is t#ey mention t#e following proofs. "#e first is t#at all nobility of ancestry among t#em is !eri;e! from women, an! not from men. "#at t#ose, for example, alone are noble, w#o !eri;e t#eir origin from t#e #(n!re! families. "#at t#ese families were noble among t#e ocrians before t#ey migrate!; an! were t#e same, in!ee!, from w#ic# a #(n!re! ;irgins were ta2en by lot, as t#e oracle #a! comman!e!, an! were sent to "roy.[8] It is at least, a reasonable s(pposition t#at t#e ran2 #ere referre! to was connecte! wit# t#e office of c#ief of t#e gens, w#ic# ennoble! t#e partic(lar family wit#in t#e gens, (pon one of t#e members of w#ic# it was conferre!. If t#is s(pposition is tenable, it implies !escent in t#e female line bot# as to persons an! to office. "#e office of c#ief was #ere!itary in t#e gens, an! electi;e among its male members in arc#aic times; an! wit# !escent in t#e female line, it wo(l! pass from brot#er to brot#er, an! from (ncle to nep#ew. /(t t#e office in eac# case passe! t#ro(g# females, t#e eligibility of t#e person !epen!ing (pon t#e gens of #is brot#er, w#o ga;e #im #is connection wit# t#e gens, an! wit# t#e !ecease! c#ief w#ose place was to be fille!. 6#ere;er office or ran2 r(ns t#ro(g# females it re5(ires !escent in t#e female line for its explanation. ';i!ence of ancient !escent in t#e female line among t#e 9recian tribes is fo(n! in partic(lar marriages w#ic# occ(rre! in t#e tra!itionary perio!. "#(s %almone(s an! 7ret#e(s were own brot#ers, t#e sons of &eol(s. "#e former ga;e #is !a(g#ter "yro in marriage to #er (ncle. 7it# !escent: in t#e male line, 7ret#e(s an! "yro wo(l! #a;e been of t#e same gens, an! co(l! not #a;e marrie! for t#at reason; b(t wit# !escent in t#e female line, t#ey wo(l! #a;e been of !ifferent gentes, an! t#erefore not of gentile 2in. "#eir marriage in t#at case wo(l! not #a;e ;iolate! strict gentile (sages. It is immaterial t#at t#e persons name! are myt#ical, beca(se t#e legen! wo(l! apply gentile (sages correctly. "#is marriage is explainable on t#e #ypot#esis of !escent in t#e female line, w#ic# in t(rn raises a pres(mption of its existence at t#e time, or as :(stifie! by t#eir ancient (sages w#ic# #a! not w#olly !ie! o(t. "#e same fact is re;eale! by marriages wit#in t#e #istorical perio!, w#en an ancient practice seems to #a;e s(r;i;e! t#e c#ange of !escent to t#e male line, e;ery t#o(g# it ;iolate! t#e gentile obligations of t#e parties. &fter t#e time of %olon a brot#er mig#t marry #is #alf?sister, pro;i!e! t#ey were born of !ifferent mot#er, b(t not, con;ersely. 6it# !escent in t#e female line, t#ey wo(l! be of !ifferent gentes, an!, t#erefore, not of gentile 2in. "#eir marriage wo(l! interfere wit# no gentile obligation, /(t wit# !escent in t#e male line, w#ic# was t#e fact w#en t#e cases abo(t to be cite! occ(rre! t#ey wo(l! be of t#e same gens, an! conse5(ently (n!er pro#ibition. Cimon marrie! #is #alf?sister, 'lpinice, t#eir fat#er

D-H being t#e same, b(t t#eir mot#ers !ifferent. 1n t#e Eubulides of <emost#enes we fin! a similar case. EMy gran!fat#er,F says '(xit#i(s, Emarrie! #is sister, s#e not being #is sister by t#e same mot#er. [9] %(c# marriages, against w#ic# a strong pre:(!ice #a! arisen among t#e &t#enians as early as t#e time of %olon, are explainable as a s(r;i;al of an ancient c(stom wit# respect to marriage, w#ic# pre;aile! w#en !escent was in t#e female line, an! w#ic# #a! not been entirely era!icate! in t#e time of <emost#enes. <escent in t#e female line pres(pposes t#e gens to !isting(is# t#e lineage. 6it# o(r present 2nowle!ge of t#e ancient an! mo!ern pre;alence of t#e gentile organiBation (pon fi;e continents, incl(!ing t#e &(stralian, an! of t#e arc#aic constit(tion of t#e gens, traces of !escent in t#e female line mig#t be expecte! to exist in tra!itions, if not in (sages coming !own to #istorical times. It is not s(pposable, t#erefore, t#at t#e ycians, t#e Cretans, t#e &t#enians an! t#e ocrians, if t#e e;i!ence is s(fficient to incl(!e t#e last two, in;ente! a (sage as remar2able as !escent in t#e female line. "#e #ypot#esis t#at it was t#e ancient law of t#e atin, 9recian, an! ot#er 9reco? Italian gentes affor!s a more rational as well as satisfactory explanation of t#e facts. "#e infl(ence of property an! t#e !esire to transmit it to c#il!ren f(rnis#e! a!e5(ate moti;es for t#e c#ange to t#e male line. It may be inferre! t#at marrying o(t of t#e gens was t#e r(le among t#e &t#enians, before as well as after t#e time of %olon, from t#e c(stom of registering t#e wife, (pon #er marriage, in t#e p#ratry of #er #(sban!, an! t#e c#il!ren, !a(g#ters as well as sons, in t#e gens an! p#ratry of t#eir fat#er. [10] "#e f(n!amental principle on w#ic# t#e gens was fo(n!e! was t#e pro#ibition of intermarriage among its members as consang(inei. In eac# gens t#e n(mber of members was not large. &ss(ming sixty t#o(san! as t#e n(mber of registere! &t#enians in t#e time of %olon, an! !i;i!ing t#em e5(ally among t#e t#ree #(n!re! an! sixty &ttic gentes, it wo(l! gi;e b(t one #(n!re! an! sixty persons to eac# gens. "#e gens was a great family of 2in!re! persons, wit# common religio(s rites, a common b(rial place, an!, in general, common lan!s. *rom t#e t#eory of its constit(tion, intermarriage wo(l! be !isallowe!. 6it# t#e c#ange of !escent to t#e male line, wit# t#e rise of monogamy an! an excl(si;e in#eritance in t#e c#il!ren, an! wit# t#e appearance of #eiresses, t#e way was being gra!(ally prepare! for free marriage regar!less of gens, b(t wit# a pro#ibition limite! to certain !egrees of near consang(inity. Marriages in t#e #(man family began in t#e gro(p, all t#e males an! females of w#ic#, excl(!ing t#e c#il!ren,, were :oint #(sban!s an! wi;es; b(t t#e #(sban!s an! wi;es were of !ifferent gentes; an! it, en!e! in marriages between single pairs, wit# an excl(si;e co#abitation. In s(bse5(ent c#apters an attempt will be ma!e to trace t#e se;eral forms of marriage an! of t#e family from t#e first stage to t#e last. & system of consang(inity came in wit# t#e gens, !isting(is#e! as t#e "(ranian in &sia, an! as t#e 9anowanian in &merica, w#ic# exten!e! t#e pro#ibition of intermarriage as far as t#e relations#ip of brot#er an! sister exten!e! among collaterals. "#is system still pre;ails among t#e &merican aborigines, in portions of &sia an! &frica, an! in &(stralia. It (n5(estionably pre;aile! among t#e 9recian an! atin tribes in t#e same anterior perio!, an! traces of it remaine! !own to t#e tra!itionary perio!. >ne feat(re of t#e "(ranian system may be restate! as follows: t#e c#il!ren of brot#ers are t#emsel;es brot#ers an! sisters, an! as s(c# co(l! not

D-1 intermarry; t#e c#il!ren of sisters stoo! in t#e same relations#ip, an! were (n!er t#e same pro#ibition. It may ser;e to explain t#e celebrate! legen! of t#e <anai!ae, one ;ersion of w#ic# f(rnis#e! to &esc#yl(s #is s(b:ect for t#e trage!y of t#e Suppliants. "#e rea!er will remember t#at <ana(s an! &egypt(s were brot#ers, an! !escen!ants of &rgi;e Io. "#e former by !ifferent wi;es #a! fifty !a(g#ters, an! t#e latter by !ifferent wi;es #a! fifty sons; an! in !(e time t#e sons of &egypt(s so(g#t t#e !a(g#ters of <ana(s in marriage. $n!er t#e system of consang(inity appertaining to t#e gens in its arc#aic form, an! w#ic# remaine! (ntil s(perse!e! by t#e system intro!(ce! by monogamy, t#ey were brot#ers an! sisters, an! for t#at reason co(l! not marry. If !escent, at t#e time was in t#e male line, t#e c#il!ren of <ana(s an! &egypt(s wo(l! #a;e been of t#e same gens, w#ic# wo(l! #a;e interpose! an a!!itional ob:ection to t#eir marriage, an! of e5(al weig#t. =e;ert#eless t#e sons of &egypt(s so(g#t to o;erstep t#ese barriers an! enforce we!loc2 (pon t#e <anai!ae; w#ilst t#e latter, crossing t#e sea, fle! from 'gypt, to &rgos to escape w#at t#ey prono(nce! an (nlawf(l an! incest(o(s (nion. In t#e !rometheus of t#e same a(t#or, t#is e;ent is foretol! to lo by 3romet#e(s, namely: t#at in t#e fift# generation from #er f(t(re son 'pap#(s, a ban! of fifty ;irgins s#o(l! come to &rgos, not ;ol(ntarily, b(t fleeing from incest(o(s we!loc2 wit# t#e sons of &egypt(s.[11] "#eir flig#t wit# ab#orrence from t#e propose! n(ptials fin!s its explanation in t#e ancient system of consang(inity, in!epen!ently of gentile law. &part from t#is explanation t#e e;ent #as no significance, an! t#eir a;ersion to t#e marriages wo(l! #a;e been mere pr(!ery. "#e trage!y of t#e Suppliants is fo(n!e! (pon t#e inci!ent of t#eir flig#t o;er t#e sea to &rgos, to claim t#e protection of t#eir &rgi;e 2in!re! against t#e propose! ;iolence of t#e sons of &egypt(s, w#o p(rs(e! t#em. &t &rgos t#e <anai!ae !eclare t#at t#ey !i! not !epart from 'gypt (n!er t#e sentence of banis#ment, b(t fle! from men of common !escent wit# t#emsel;es, scorning (n#oly marriage wit# t#e sons of &egypt(s.[12] "#eir rel(ctance is place! excl(si;ely (pon t#e fact of 2in, t#(s implying an existing pro#ibition against s(c# marriages, w#ic# t#ey #a! been traine! to respect. &fter #earing t#e case of t#e %(ppliants, t#e &rgi;es in co(ncil resol;e! to affor! t#em protection, w#ic# of itself implies t#e existence of t#e pro#ibition of t#e marriages an! t#e ;ali!ity of t#eir ob:ection. &t t#e time t#is trage!y was pro!(ce!, &t#enian, law permitte! an! e;en re5(ire! marriage between t#e c#il!ren of brot#ers in t#e case of #eiresses an! female orp#ans, alt#o(g# t#e r(le seems to #a;e been confine! to t#ese exceptional cases; s(c# marriages, t#erefore, wo(l! not seem to t#e &t#enians eit#er incest(o(s or (nlawf(l b(t t#is tra!ition of t#e <anai!ae #a! come !own from a remote anti5(ity, an! its w#ole significance !epen!e! (pon t#e force of t#e c(stom forbi!!ing t#e n(ptials. "#e t(rning?point of t#e tra!ition an! its inci!ents was t#eir in;eterate rep(gnance to t#e propose! marriages as forbi!!en by law an! c(stom. =o ot#er reasonF is assigne!, an! no ot#er is nee!e!. &t t#e same time t#eir con!(ct is intelligible on t#e ass(mption t#at s(c# marriages were as (npermissible t#en, as marriage between a brot#er an! sister wo(l! be at t#e present time. "#e attempt of t#e sons of &egypt(s to brea2 t#ro(g# t#e barrier interpose! by t#e "(ranian system of consang(inity may mar2 t#e time w#en t#is system was beginning to gi;e way, an! t#e present system, w#ic# came in wit# monogamy, was beginning to assert itself,

D-D an! w#ic# was !estine! to set asi!e gentile (sages an! "(ranian consang(inity by t#e s(bstit(tion of fixe! !egrees as t#e limits of pro#ibition. $pon t#e e;i!ence a!!(ce! it seems probable t#at among t#e 3elasgian, Hellenic an! Italian tribes !escent was originally in t#e female line, from w#ic#, (n!er t#e infl(ence of property an! in#eritance, it, was c#ange! to t#e male line. 6#et#er or not t#ese tribes anciently possesse! t#e "(ranian system of consang(inity, t#e rea!er will be better able to :(!ge after t#at system #as been presente!, wit# t#e e;i!ence of its wi!e pre;alence in ancient society. "#e lengt# of t#e tra!itionary perio! of t#ese tribes is of co(rse (n2nown in t#e years of its !(ration, b(t it m(st be meas(re! by t#o(san!s of years. It probably reac#e! bac2 of t#e in;ention of t#e process of smelting iron ore, an! if so, passe! t#ro(g# t#e ater 3erio! of barbarism an! entere! t#e Mi!!le 3erio!. "#eir con!ition of a!;ancement in t#e Mi!!le 3erio! m(st #a;e at least e5(alle! t#at of t#e &Btecs, Mayas an! 3er(;ians, w#o were fo(n! in t#e stat(s of t#e Mi!!le 3erio!; an! t#eir con!ition in t#e ater 3erio! m(st #a;e s(rpasse! immensely t#at, of t#e In!ian tribes name!. "#e ;ast an! ;arie! experience of t#ese '(ropean tribes in t#e two great et#nical perio!s name!, !(ring w#ic# t#ey ac#ie;e! t#e remaining elements of ci;iliBation, is entirely lost, excepting as it is imperfectly !isclose! in t#eir tra!itions, an! more f(lly by t#eir arts of life, t#eir c(stoms, lang(age an! instit(tions, as re;eale! to (s by t#e poems of Homer. 'mpires an! 2ing!oms were necessarily (n2nown in t#ese perio!s; b(t tribes an! inconsi!erable nations, city an! ;illage life, t#e growt# an! !e;elopment of t#e arts of life, an! p#ysical, mental an! moral impro;ement, were among t#e partic(lars of t#at progress. "#e loss of t#e e;ents of t#ese great perio!s to #(man 2nowle!ge was m(c# greater t#an can easily be imagine!.

Footnotes
1 0awlinsonFs )Hero!ot(s,8 i, 17A. ! If a %eneca?Iro5(ois man marries a foreign woman, t#eir c#il!ren are aliens b(t if a %eneca?Iro5(ois woman marries an alien, or an >non!aga, t#eir c#il!ren are Iro5(ois of t#e %eneca tribe; an! of t#e gens an! p#ratry of t#eir mot#er. "#e woman confers #er nationality an! #er gens (pon #er c#il!ren, w#oe;er may be t#eir fat#er. " )<escription of &ncient Italy,8 i, 14A; citing ) anBi,8 ii, A1-. # )History of 9reece,8 %cribner &. &rmstrongFs e!., 6ar!Fs "rans., i, ,-, note. "#e 'tiocretes, of w#om Minos was t#e #ero, were !o(btless 3elasgians. "#ey occ(pie! t#e east en! of t#e Islan! of Crete, %arpe!on, a brot#er of Minos, le! t#e emigrant to ycia w#ere t#ey !isplace! t#e %olymi, a %emitic tribe probably; b(t t#e ycians #a! become HelleniBe!, li2e many ot#er 3elasgian tribes, before t#e time of Hero!ot(s, a circ(mstance 5(ite material in conse5(ence of t#e !eri;ation of t#e 9recian an! 3elasgian tribes from a common original stoc2. In t#e time of Hero!ot(s t#e ycians were as far a!;ance! in t#e arts of life as t#e '(ropean 9ree2s +C(rti(s, I, ,A; 9rote, i, DD-.. It seems probable t#at !escent in t#e female line was !eri;e! from t#eir 3elasgian ancestors.

D-A
$ )<as M(tterrec#t,8 %t(ttgrat, 18G1. % /ac#ofen, spea2ing of t#e +Cretan city of y2tos remar2s t#at )t#is city was consi!ere! a ace!aemonian colony, an! as also relate! to t#e &t#enians. 1t was in bot# cases only on t#e mot#erFs si!e, for only t#e mot#ers were %partan; t#e &t#enian relations#ip, #owe;er, goes bac2 to t#ose &t#enian women w#om t#e 3elasgian "yrr#enians are sai! to #a;e entice! away from t#e /ra(ron promontory. )<as M(tterrec#t;8 c#. 1A, p. A1. 6it# !escent in t#e male line t#e lineage of t#e women wo(l! #a;e remaine! (nnotice!; b(t wit# !escent in t#e female line t#e colonists wo(l! #a;e gi;en t#eir pe!igrees t#ro(g# females only. & )<as M(tterrec#t,8 c#. A8, p. 7A. ' )3olybins,8 xii, extract t#e secon!, HamptonFs "rans., iii, D-D. ( )<emost#enes contra '(b(li!es,8 DH. 1) <emost#., )'(b(l.,8 D-: In #is time t#e registration was in t#e <eme; b(t it wo(l! s#ow w#o were t#e p#rators, bloo! relati;es, fellow !emots an! gennetes of t#e person registere!; as '(xit#e(s says; see also HermannFs )3olit. &nti5. of 9reece,8 par. 1HH 11 )3romet#e(s,8 84A. 1! &esc#yl(s, )%(pp.,8 ,.

Chapter XV GENTES IN OTHER TRIBES OF THE HUMAN FAMILY

Ha;ing consi!ere! t#e organiBation into 9entes, p#ratries an! tribes in t#eir arc#aic as 6ell as later form, it remains to trace t#e extent of its pre;alence in t#e #(man family, an! partic(larly wit# respect to t#e gens, t#e basis of t#e system. "#e Celtic branc# of t#e &ryan family retaine!, in t#e %cottis# clan an! Iris# sept, t#e organiBation into gentes to a later perio! of time t#an any ot#er branc# of t#e family, (nless t#e &ryans of In!ia are an exception. "#e %cottis# clan in partic(lar was existing in remar2able ;itality in t#e Hig#lan!s of %cotlan! in t#e mi!!le of t#e last cent(ry. It was an excellent type of t#e gens in organiBation an! in spirit, an! an extraor!inary ill(stration of t#e power of t#e gentile life o;er its members. "#e ill(strio(s a(t#or of 6a;erley #as perpet(ate! a n(mber of stri2ing c#aracters !e;elope! (n!er clan life, an! stampe! wit# its pec(liarities. ';an <#(, "or5(il, 0ob 0oy an! many ot#ers rise before t#e min! as ill(strations of t#e infl(ence of t#e gens in mo(l!ing t#e c#aracter of in!i;i!(als. If %ir 6alter exaggerate! t#ese c#aracters in some respects to s(it t#e emergencies of a tale, t#ey #a! a real fo(n!ation. "#e same clans, a few cent(ries earlier, w#en clan life was stronger an! external infl(ences were wea2er, wo(l! probably #a;e ;erifie! t#e pict(res. 6e fin! in t#eir fe(!s an! bloo! re;enge, in t#eir localiBation by gentes, in t#eir (se of

D-lan!s in common, in t#e fi!elity of t#e clansman to #is c#ief an! of t#e members of t#e clan to eac# ot#er, t#e (s(al an! persistent feat(res of gentile society. &s portraye! by %cott, it was a more intense an! c#i;alro(s gentile life t#an we are able to fin! in t#e gentes of t#e 9ree2s an! 0omans, or, at t#e ot#er extreme, in t#ose of t#e &merican aborigines. 6#et#er t#e p#ratric organiBation existe! among t#em !oes not appear, b(t at some anterior perio! bot# t#e p#ratry an! t#e tribe !o(btless !i! exist. It is well 2nown t#at t#e /ritis# go;ernment were compelle! to brea2 (p t#e Hig#lan! clans, as organiBations, in or!er to bring t#e people (n!er t#e a(t#ority of law an! t#e (sages of political society. <escent was in t#e male line, t#e c#il!ren of t#e males remaining members of t#e clan, w#ile t#e c#il!ren of its female members belonge! to t#e clans of t#eir respecti;e fat#ers. 6e s#all pass o;er t#e Iris# sept$ t#e phis or phrara of t#e &lbanians, w#ic# embo!y t#e remains of a prior gentile organiBation, an! t#e traces of a similar organiBation in <almatia an! Croatia; an! also t#e %ans2rit gamas$ t#e existence of w#ic# term in t#e lang(age implies t#at t#is branc# of t#e &ryan family formerly possesse! t#e same instit(tion. "#e comm(nities of Iilleins on *renc# estates in former times, notice! by %ir Henry Maine in #is recent wor2, may pro;e to be, as #e intimates, remains of ancient Celtic gentes. E=ow t#at t#e explanation #as once been gi;en,F #e remar2s, Et#ere can be no !o(bt t#at t#ese associations were not really ;ol(ntary partners#ips, b(t gro(ps of 2insmen; not, #owe;er, so often organiBe! on t#e or!inary type of t#e Iillage?Comm(nity as on t#at of t#e Ho(se? Comm(nity, w#ic# #as recently been examine! in <almatia an! Croatia. 'ac# of t#em was w#at t#e Hin!(s call a Coint?$n!i;i!e! family, a collection of ass(me! !escen!ants from a common ancestor, preser;ing a common #eart# an! common meals !(ring se;eral generations. [1] & brief reference s#o(l! be ma!e to t#e 5(estion w#et#er any traces of t#e gentile organiBation remaine! among t#e 9erman tribes w#en t#ey first came (n!er #istorical notice. "#at t#ey in#erite! t#is instit(tion, wit# ot#er &ryan tribes, from t#e common ancestors of t#e &ryan family, is probable. 6#en first 2nown to t#e 0omans, t#ey were in t#e $pper %tat(s of barbarism. "#ey co(l! scarcely #a;e !e;elope! t#e i!ea of go;ernment f(rt#er t#an t#e 9recian an! atin tribes, w#o were in a!;ance of t#em, w#en eac# respecti;ely became 2nown. 6#ile t#e 9ermans may #a;e ac5(ire! an imperfect conception of a state, fo(n!e! (pon territory an! (pon property, it is not probable t#at t#ey #a! any 2nowle!ge of t#e secon! great plan of go;ernment w#ic# t#e &t#enians were first among &ryan tribes to establis#. "#e con!ition an! mo!e of life of t#e 9erman tribes, as !escribe! by Caesar an! "acit(s, ten! to t#e concl(sion t#at t#eir se;eral societies were #el! toget#er t#ro(g# personal relations, an! wit# b(t slig#t reference to territory; an! t#at t#eir go;ernment was t#ro(g# t#ese relations. Ci;il c#iefs an! military comman!ers ac5(ire! an! #el! office t#ro(g# t#e electi;e principle, an! constit(te! t#e co(ncil w#ic# was t#e c#ief instr(ment of go;ernment. >n lesser affairs, "acit(s remar2s, t#e c#iefs cons(lt, b(t on t#ose of greater importance t#e w#ole comm(nity. 6#ile t#e final !ecision of all important 5(estions belonge! to t#e people, t#ey were first mat(rely consi!ere! by t#e c#iefs. [2] "#e close resemblance of t#ese to 9recian an! atin (sages will be percei;e!. "#e go;ernment consiste! of t#ree powers, t#e co(ncil of c#iefs, t#e assembly of t#e

D-4 people, an! t#e military comman!er. Caesar remar2s t#at t#e 9ermans were not st(!io(s of agric(lt(re, t#e greater part of t#eir foo! consisting of mil2, c#eese an! meat; nor #a! any one a fixe! 5(antity of lan!, or #is own in!i;i!(al bo(n!aries, #(t t#e magistrates an! c#iefs eac# year assigne! to t#e gentes an! 2insmen w#o #a! (nite! in one bo!y +gentibus congnationibus>ue hominum >ui una coerint. as m(c# lan!, an! in s(c# places as seeme! best, compelling t#em t#e next year to remo;e to anot#er place. [3] "o gi;e effect to t#e expression in parent#esis, it m(st be s(ppose! t#at #e fo(n! among t#em gro(ps of persons, larger t#an a family, (nite! on t#e basis of 2in, to w#om, as gro(ps of persons, lan!s were allotte!. It excl(!es in!i;i!(als, an! e;en t#e family, bot# of w#om were merge! in t#e gro(p t#(s (nite! for c(lti;ation an! s(bsistence. It seems probable, from t#e form of t#e statement, t#at t#e 9erman family at t#is time was syn!yasmian; an! t#at se;eral relate! families were (nite! in #o(se#ol!s an! practice! comm(nism in li;ing. "acit(s refers to a (sage of t#e 9erman tribes in t#e arrangement of t#eir forces in battle, by w#ic# 2insmen were place! si!e by si!e. It wo(l! #a;e no significance, if 2ins#ip were limite! to near consang(inei. &n! w#at is an especial excitement of t#eir co(rage, #e remar2s, neit#er c#ance nor a fort(ito(s gat#ering of t#e forces ma2e (p t#e s5(a!ron of #orse, or t#e infantry we!ge; b(t t#ey were forme! accor!ing to families an! 2ins#ips +familiae et propin>uitates..[4] "#is expression, an! t#at pre;io(sly 5(ote! from Caesar, seem to in!icate t#e remains at least of a prior gentile organiBation, w#ic# at t#is time was gi;ing place to t#e mar2 or local !istrict as t#e basis of a still imperfect political system. "#e 9erman tribes, for t#e p(rpose of military le;ies, #a! t#e mar2 +mar+genossenshchaft.$ w#ic# also existe! among t#e 'nglis# %axons, an! a larger gro(p, t#e gau$ to w#ic# Caesar an! "acit(s ga;e t#e name of pagus.[5] It is !o(btf(l w#et#er t#e mar2 an! t#e gau were t#en strictly geograp#ical !istricts, stan!ing to eac# ot#er in t#e relations of towns#ip an! co(nty, eac# circ(mscribe! by bo(n!s, wit# t#e people in eac# politically organiBe!. It seems more probable t#at t#e gau was a gro(p of settlements associate! wit# reference to military le;ies. &s s(c#, t#e mar2 an! t#e gau were t#e germs of t#e f(t(re towns#ip an! co(nty, precisely as t#e &t#enian na(crary an! trittys were t#e r(!iments of t#e Cleist#enean !eme an! local tribe. "#ese organiBations seeme! transitional stages between a gentile an! a political system, t#e gro(ping of t#e people still resting on consang(inity.[6] 6e nat(rally t(rn to t#e &siatic continent, w#ere t#e types of man2in! are t#e most n(mero(s, an! w#ere, conse5(ently, t#e perio! of #(man occ(pation #as been longest, to fin! t#e earliest traces of t#e gentile organiBation. /(t #ere t#e transformations of society #a;e been t#e most exten!e!, an! t#e infl(ence of tribes an! nations (pon eac# ot#er t#e most constant. "#e early !e;elopment of C#inese an! In!ian ci;iliBation an! t#e o;ermastering infl(ence of mo!ern ci;iliBation #a;e wro(g#t s(c# c#anges in t#e con!ition of &siatic stoc2s t#at t#eir ancient instit(tions are not easily ascertainable. =e;ert#eless, t#e w#ole experience of man2in! from sa;agery to ci;iliBation was wor2e! o(t (pon t#e &siatic continent, an! among its fragmentary tribes t#e remains of t#eir ancient instit(tions m(st now

D-G be so(g#t. <escent in t#e female line is still ;ery common in t#e r(!er &siatic tribes; b(t t#ere are n(mero(s tribes among w#om it is trace! in t#e male line. It is t#e limitation of !escent to one line or t#e ot#er, followe! by t#e organiBation of t#e bo!y of consang(inei, t#(s separate! (n!er a common name w#ic# in!icates a gens. In t#e Magar tribe of =epa(l, at#am remar2s, )t#ere are twel;e t#(ms. &ll in!i;i!(als belonging to t#e same t#(m are s(ppose! to be !escen!e! from t#e same male ancestor; !escent from t#e same mot#er being by no means necessary. %o #(sban! an! wife m(st belong to !ifferent t#(ms. 6it#in one an! t#e same t#ere is no marriage. <o yo( wis# for a wifeU If so, loo2 to t#e t#(m of yo(r neig#bo(r; at any rate loo2 beyon! yo(r own. "#is is t#e first time I #a;e fo(n! occasion to mention t#is practice. It will not be t#e last; on t#e contrary, t#e principle it s(ggests is so common as to be almost (ni;ersal. 6e s#all fin! it in &(stralia; we s#all fin! it in =ort# an! %o(t# &merica; we s#all fin! it in &frica; we s#all fin! it in '(rope; we s#all s(spect an! infer it in many places w#ere t#e act(al e;i!ence of its existence is incomplete.8[7] In t#is case we #a;e in t#e thum$ clear e;i!ence of t#e existence of a gens, wit# !escent in t#e male line. "#e M(nnieporees, an! t#e following tribes in#abiting t#e #ills ro(n! M(nniepore ? t#e 7o(pooes, t#e Mows, t#e M(rams, an! t#e M(rring ? are eac# an! all !i;i!e! into fo(r families ? 7oom(l, ooang, &ngom, an! =ingt#a:a. & member of any of t#ese families may marry a member of any ot#er; b(t t#e intermarriage of members of t#e same family is strictly pro#ibite!.[8] In t#ese families may be recogniBe! fo(r gentes in eac# of t#ese tribes. /ell, spea2ing of t#e Telsuh of t#e Circassians, remar2s t#at )t#e tra!ition in regar! to t#em is, t#at t#e members of eac# an! all sprang from t#e same stoc2 or ancestry; an! t#(s t#ey may be consi!ere! as so many septs or clansV. "#ese co(sins 9erman, or members of t#e same fraternity, are not only t#emsel;es inter!icte! from intermarrying, b(t t#eir serfs, too, m(st we! wit# serfs of anot#er fraternity.8 [9] It is probable t#at t#e telush is a gens. &mong t#e /engalese t#e fo(r castes are s(b!i;i!e! into many !ifferent sects or classes, an! eac# of t#ese is again s(b!i;i!e!; for instance, I am of =(n!y tribe MgensUN, an! if % were a #eat#en I co(l! not marry a woman of t#e same tribe, alt#o(g# t#e caste m(st be t#e same. "#e c#il!ren are of t#e tribe of t#eir fat#er. 3roperty !escen!s to t#e sons. In case t#e person #as no sons, to #is !a(g#ters; an! if #e lea;es neit#er, to #is nearest relati;es. Castes are s(b!i;i!e!, s(c# as Shuro$ w#ic# is one of t#e first !i;isions; b(t it is again s(b? !i;i!e!, s(c# as 4hayrl$ Tilly$ Tamally$ Tanty$ ?homor$ 4ari$ etc. & man belonging to one of t#ese last name! s(b!i;isions cannot marry a woman of t#e same. [10] "#ese smallest gro(ps n(mber (s(ally abo(t a #(n!re! persons, an! still retain se;eral of t#e c#aracteristics of a gens. Mr. "yler remar2s, t#at )in In!ia it is (nlawf(l for a /ra#man to marry a wife w#ose clan?name or ghotra. +literally Ecow?stallF. is t#e same as #is own, a pro#ibition w#ic# bars marriage among relati;es in t#e male line in!efinitely. "#is law appears in t#e co!e of Man( as applying to t#e first, t#ree castes, an! connexions on t#e female si!e are also forbi!!en to marry wit#in certain wi!e

D-7 limits.8[11] &n! again: )&mong t#e 7ols of C#ota? =agp(r, we fin! many of t#e >raon an! M(n!a clans name! after animals, as eel, #aw2, crow, #eron, an! t#ey m(st not 2ill or eat w#at t#ey are name! after.8 [12] "#e Mongolians approac# t#e &merican aborigines 5(ite nearly in p#ysical c#aracteristics. "#ey are !i;i!e! into n(mero(s tribes. )"#e connection,8 says at#am, )between t#e members of a tribe is t#at of bloo! pe!igree, or !escent; t#e tribe being, in some cases, name! after a real or s(ppose! patriarc#. "#e tribe, by w#ic# we translate t#e nati;e name aimau+$ or aima+$ is a large !i;ision falling into so many +o+hums$ or banners.[13] "#e statement, is not f(ll eno(g# to s#ow t#e existence of gentes. "#eir neig#bo(rs, t#e "(ng(sians are compose! of s(b!i;isions name! after animals, as t#e #orse, t#e !og, t#e rein!eer, w#ic# imply t#e gentile organiBations, b(t it cannot be asserte!, wit#o(t f(rt#er partic(lars. %ir Co#n (bboc2 remar2s of t#e 7alm(c2s t#at accor!ing to <e Hell, t#ey are !i;i!e! into #or!es, an! no man can marry a woman of t#e same #or!e; an! of t#e >stia2s, t#at t#ey )regar! it as a crime to marry a woman of t#e same family or e;en of t#e same name; an! t#at )w#en a Ca2(t +%iberia. wis#es to marry, #e m(st c#oose a girl from anot#er clan.8[14] 6e #a;e in eac# of t#ese cases e;i!ence of t#e existence of a gens, one of t#e r(les of w#ic#, as #as been s#own, is t#e pro#ibition of intermarriage among its members. "#e 1(ra2 %amoye!s are organiBe! in gente. 7laprot#, 5(ote! by at#am, remar2s t#at, )t#is !i;ision of t#e 2insmans#ip is so rigi!ly obser;e! t#at no %amoye! ta2es a wife from t#e 2insmans#ip to w#ic# #e #imself belongs. >n t#e contrary, #e see2s #er in one of t#e ot#er two.8[15] & pec(liar family system pre;ails among t#e C#inese w#ic# seems to embo!y t#e remains of an ancient gentile organiBation. Mr. 0obert Hart, of Canton, in a letter to t#e a(t#or remar2s, )t#at t#e C#inese expression for t#e people is !ih*sing$ w#ic# means the Hundred amily Aames2 b(t w#et#er t#is is mere wor!?painting, or #a! its origin at a time w#en t#e C#inese general family consiste! of one #(n!re! s(bfamilies or tribes MgentesUN I am (nable to !etermine. &t t#e present !ay t#ere are abo(t fo(r #(n!re! family names in t#is co(ntry, among w#ic# I fin! some t#at #a;e reference to animals, fr(its, metals, nat(ral ob:ects, etc; an! w#ic# may be translate! as Horse, %#eep, >x, *is#, /ir!, 3#oenix, 3l(m, *lower, eaf, 0ice, *orest, 0i;er, Hill, 6ater, Clo(!, 9ol!, Hi!e, /ristles, etc., etc. In some parts of t#e co(ntry large ;illages are met wit#, in eac# of w#ic# t#ere exists b(t one family name; t#(s in one !istrict will be fo(n!, say, t#ree ;illages, eac# containing two or t#ree t#o(san! people, t#e one of t#e Horse, t#e secon! of t#e %#eep, an! t#e t#ir! of t#e >x family name.... C(st as among t#e =ort# &merican In!ians #(sban!s an! wi;es are of !ifferent tribes MgentesN, so in C#ina #(sban! an! wife are always of !ifferent families, i.e., of !ifferent s(rnames. C(stom an! law ali2e pro#ibit intermarriage on t#e part of people #a;ing t#e same family s(rname. "#e c#il!ren are of t#e fat#erFs family, t#at is, t#ey ta2e #is family s(rname.... 6#ere t#e fat#er !ies intestate t#e property generally remains (n!i;i!e!, b(t (n!er t#e control of t#e ol!est son !(ring t#e life of t#e wi!ow. >n #er !eat# #e !i;i!es t#e property between #imself an! #is brot#ers, t#e s#ares of t#e :(niors !epen!ing entirely (pon t#e will of t#e el!er brot#er. "#e family #ere !escribe! appears to be a gens, analogo(s to t#e 0oman in t#e time

D-8 of 0om(l(s; b(t w#et#er it was reintegrate!, wit# ot#er gentes of common !escent, in a p#ratry !oes not, appear. Moreo;er, t#e gentiles are still locate! as an in!epen!ent consang(ine bo!y in one area, as t#e 0oman gentes were localiBe! in t#e early perio!, an! t#e names of t#e gentes are till of t#e arc#aic type. "#eir increase to fo(r #(n!re! by segmentation mig#t #a;e been expecte!: b(t t#eir maintenance to t#e present time, after t#e perio! of barbarism #as long passe! away, is t#e remar2able fact, an! an a!!itional proof of t#eir immobility as a people. It may be s(specte! also t#at t#e monogamian family in t#ese ;illages #as not attaine! its f(ll !e;elopment, an! t#at comm(nism in li;ing, an! in wi;es as well, may not be (n2nown among t#em. &mong t#e wil! aboriginal tribes, w#o still in#abit t#e mo(ntain regions of C#ina an! w#o spea2 !ialects !ifferent from t#e Man!arin, t#e gens in its arc#aic form may yet be !isco;ere!. "o t#ese isolate! tribes, we s#o(l! nat(rally loo2 for t#e ancient instit(tions of t#e C#inese. In li2e manner t#e tribes of &fg#anistan are sai! to be s(b!i;i!e! into clans; b(t w#et#er t#ese clans are tr(e gentes #as not been ascertaine!. =ot to weary t#e rea!er wit# f(rt#er !etails of a similar c#aracter, a s(fficient n(mber of cases #a;e been a!!(ce! to create a pres(mption t#at t#e gentile organiBation pre;aile! ;ery generally an! wi!ely among t#e remote ancestors of t#e present &siatic tribes an! nations. "#e twel;e tribes of t#e Hebrews, as t#ey appear in t#e /oo2 of =(mbers, represent a reconstr(ction of Hebrew society by legislati;e proc(rement. "#e con!ition of barbarism #a! t#en passe! away, an! t#at of ci;iliBation #a! commence!. "#e principle, on w#ic# t#e tribes were organiBe!, as bo!ies of consang(inei, pres(pposes an anterior gentile system, w#ic# #a! remaine! in existence an! was now systematiBe!. &t t#is time t#ey #a! no 2nowle!ge of any ot#er plan of go;ernment t#an a gentile society forme! of consang(ine gro(ps (nite! t#ro(g# personal relations. "#eir s(bse5(ent localiBation in 3alestine by consang(ine tribes, eac# !istrict name! after one of t#e twel;e sons of Cacob, wit# t#e exception of t#e tribe of e;i, is a practical recognition of t#e fact t#at t#ey were organiBe! by lineages an! not into a comm(nity of citiBens. "#e #istory of t#e most remar2able nation of t#e %emitic family #as been concentrate! aro(n! t#e names of &bra#am, Isaac an! Cacob, an! t#e twel;e sons of t#e latter. Hebrew #istory commences essentially wit# &bra#am t#e acco(nt of w#ose forefat#ers is limite! to a pe!igree barren of !etails. & few passages will s#ow t#e extent of t#e progress t#en ma!e, an! t#e stat(s of a!;ancement in w#ic# &bra#am appeare!. He is !escribe! as ;ery ric# in cattle, in sil;er, an! in gol!. [16] *or t#e ca;e of Mac#pela# )&bra#am weig#e! to 'p#ron t#e sil;er, w#ic# #e #a! name! in t#e a(!ience of t#e sons of Het#, fo(r #(n!re! s#e2els of sil;er, c(rrent money wit# t#e merc#ant.8[17] 6it# respect to !omestic life an! s(bsistence, t#e following passage may be cite!: )&n! &bra#am #astene! into t#e tent (nto %ara#, an! sai!, Ma2e rea!y 5(ic2ly t#ree meas(res of fine meal; 2nea! it$ an! ma2e ca2es (pon t#e #eart#.8[18] &n! #e too2 b(tter an! mil2, an! t#e calf w#ic# #e #a! !resse!, an! set it before t#em.[19] 6it# respect to implements, raiment an! ornaments: )&bra#am too2 t#e fire in #is #an! an! a 2nife.8 [20] )&n! t#e ser;ant bro(g#t fort# :ewels of sil;er, an! :ewels of gol!, an! raiment, an! ga;e t#em to 0ebe2a#: #e ga;e also to

D-, #er brot#er an! to #er mot#er precio(s t#ings.8 [21] 6#en s#e met Isaac, 0ebe2a# )too2 a ;eil an! co;ere! #erself.8[22] In t#e same connection are mentione! t#e camel, ass, ox, s#eep an! goat, toget#er wit# floc2 an! #er!s; t#e grain mill, t#e water pitc#er, earrings, bracelets, tents, #o(ses an! cities. "#e bow an! arrow, t#e swor!, corn an! wine, an! fiel!s sown wit# grain are mentione!. "#ey in!icate t#e $pper %tat(s of barbarism for &bra#am, Isaac an! Cacob. 6riting in t#is branc# of t#e %emitic family was probably t#en (n2nown. "#e !egree of !e;elopment s#own correspon!s s(bstantially wit# t#at of t#e Homeric 9ree2s. 'arly Hebrew marriage c(stoms in!icate t#e presence of t#e gens, an! in its arc#aic form. &bra#am, by #is ser;ant, seemingly p(rc#ase! 0ebe2a# as a wife for Isaac; t#e Eprecio(s t#ingsF being gi;en to t#e brot#er, an! to t#e mot#er of t#e bri!e, b(t not to t#e fat#er. In t#is case t#e presents went to t#e gentile 2in!re!, pro;i!e! a gens existe!, wit# !escent in t#e female line. &gain, &bra#am marrie! #is #alf? sister %ara#. )&n! yet in!ee!,8 #e says, )s#e is my sister; s#e is t#e !a(g#ter of my fat#er, b(t not t#e !a(g#ter of my mot#er; an! s#e became my wife.8 [23] 6it# an existing gens an! !escent in t#e female line &bra#am an! %ara# wo(l! #a;e belonge! to !ifferent gentes, an! alt#o(g# of blood +in t#ey were not of gentile 2in, an! co(l! #a;e marrie! by gentile (sage. "#e case wo(l! #a;e been re;erse! in bot# partic(lars wit# !escent in t#e male line. =a#or marrie! #is niece, t#e !a(g#ter of #is brot#er Haran;[24] an! &mram, t#e fat#er of Moses, marrie! #is a(nt, t#e sister of #is fat#er, w#o became t#e mot#er of t#e Hebrew lawgi;er. [25] In t#ese cases, wit# !escent in t#e female line, t#e persons marrying wo(l! #a;e belonge! to !ifferent gentes; b(t ot#erwise wit# !escent in t#e male line. 6#ile t#ese cases !o not pro;e absol(tely t#e existence of gentes, t#e latter wo(l! affor! s(c# an explanation of t#em as to raise a pres(mption of t#e existence of t#e gentile organiBation in its arc#aic form. 6#en t#e Mosaic legislation was complete! t#e Hebrews were a ci;iliBe! people, b(t not far eno(g# a!;ance! to instit(te political society. "#e script(re acco(nt s#ows t#at t#ey were organiBe! in a series of consang(ine gro(ps in an ascen!ing scale, analogo(s to t#e gens, p#ratry an! tribe of t#e 9ree2s. In t#e m(ster an! organiBation of t#e Hebrews, bot# as a society an! as an army, w#ile in t#e %inaitic penins(la, repeate! references are ma!e to t#ese consang(ine gro(ps in an ascen!ing series, t#e seeming e5(i;alents of a gens, p#ratry an! tribe. "#(s, t#e tribe of e;i consiste! of eig#t gentes organiBe! in t#ree p#ratries, as follows:

%ribe of Le/i.
%ons of e;i: I. Gershon. 7,4HH males. II. 4ohath 8,GHH males. III. 'erari G,DHH males I; Gershonite !hratry. Gentes.? 1. Libni. D. Shmei. II. 4ohathite !hratry. Gentes.? l. Amram. D. %#har. A. Hebron. -. ? )##iel

D4H III. 'erarite !hratry. Gentes.? 1. 'ahli. D. 'ushi. )=(mber t#e c#il!ren of e;i after t#e #o(se of t#eir fat#ers, by t#eir families..... &n! t#ese were t#e sons of e;i by t#eir names; 9ers#on, an! 7o#at#, an! Merari. &n! t#ese were t#e names of t#e sons of 9ers#on by t#eir families; ibni, an! %#imei. &n! t#e sons of 7o#at# by t#eir families; &mram, an! IB#ar, Hebron, an! $BBiel. &n! t#e sons of Merari by t#eir families; Ma#li, an! M(s#i. "#ese are t#e families of t#e e;ites by t#e #o(se of t#eir fat#er.[26] "#e !escription of t#ese gro(ps sometimes commences wit# t#e (pper member of t#e series, an! sometimes wit# t#e lower or t#e (nit; "#(s: of t#e c#il!ren of %imeon, by t#eir generation, after t#eir families, by t#e #o(se of t#eir fat#ers. [27] Here the children of Simeon$ (ith their generations$ constit(te t#e tribeD t#e families are t#e phratries2 an! the house of the father is t#e gens. &gain: &n! t#e c#ief of t#e #o(se of t#e fat#er of t#e families of t#e 7o#at#ites s#all be 'liBap#an t#e son of $BBiel.[28] Here we fin! t#e gen first, an! t#en t#e p#ratry an! last t#e tribe. "#e person name! was t#e c#ief of t#e p#ratry. 'ac# #o(se of t#e fat#er also #a! its ensign or banner to !isting(is# it from ot#ers. ';ery man of t#e c#il!ren of Israel s#all pitc# by #is own stan!ar!, wit# t#e ensign of t#eir fat#erFs #o(se.[29] "#ese terms !escribe act(al organiBations; an! t#ey s#ow t#at t#eir military organiBation was by gentes, by p#ratries an! by tribes. 6it# respect to t#e first an! smallest of t#ese gro(ps, t#e #o(se of t#e fat#er, it m(st #a;e n(mbere! se;eral #(n!re! persons from t#e fig(res gi;en of t#e n(mber in eac# p#ratry. "#e Hebrew term beth@ ab$ signifies paternal house$ house of the father$ an! family house. If t#e Hebrews possesse! t#e gens, it was t#is gro(p of persons. "#e (se of two terms to !escribe it wo(l! lea;e a !o(bt, (nless in!i;i!(al families (n!er monogamy #a! t#en become so n(mero(s an! so prominent t#at t#is circ(mloc(tion was necessary to co;er t#e 2in!re!. 6e #a;e literally, t#e #o(se of &mram, of IB#ar, of Hebron, an! of $BBiel; b(t as t#e Hebrews at t#at time co(l! #a;e #a! no conception of a house as now applie! to a title! family, it probably signifie!, as (se!, 2in!re! or lineage.[30] %ince eac# !i;ision an! s(b!i;ision is #ea!e! by a male, an! since Hebrew !escents are trace! t#ro(g# males excl(si;ely, !escent among t#em, at t#is time, was (n!o(bte!ly in t#e male line. =ext in t#e ascen!ing scale is t#e family$ w#ic# seems to be a p#ratry. "#e Hebrew term far t#is organiBation, mishpacah$ signifies union$ clanship. It was compose! of two or more #o(ses of t#e fat#er, !eri;e! by segmentation from an original gro(p, an! !isting(is#e! by a p#ratric name. It answers ;ery closely to t#e p#ratry. "#e family or p#ratry #a! an ann(al sacrificial feast. [31] astly, t#e tribe calle! in Hebrew matteh$ w#ic# signifies a branch$ stem$ or shoot$ is t#e analog(e of t#e 9recian tribe. Iery few partic(lars are gi;en respecting t#e rig#ts, pri;ileges an! obligations of t#e members of t#ese bo!ies of consang(inei. "#e i!ea of 2in w#ic# (nite! eac# organiBation from t#e house of the father to t#e tribe$ is carrie! o(t in a form m(c# more mar2e! an! precise t#an in t#e correspon!ing organiBations of 9recian, atin or &merican In!ian tribes. 6#ile t#e &t#enian tra!itions claime! t#at t#e fo(r

D41 tribes were !eri;e! from t#e fo(r sons of Ion t#ey !i! not preten! to explain t#e origin of t#e gentes an! p#ratries. >n t#e contrary, t#e Hebrew acco(nt not only !eri;es t#e twel;e tribes genealogically from t#e twel;e sons of Cacob, b(t also t#e gentes an! p#ratries from t#e c#il!ren an! !escen!ants of eac#. H(man experience f(rnis#es no parallel of t#e growt# of gentes an! p#ratries precisely in t#is way. "#e acco(nt m(st be explaine! as a classification of existing consang(ine gro(ps, accor!ing to t#e 2nowle!ge preser;e! by tra!ition, in !oing w#ic# minor obstacles were o;ercome by legislati;e constraint. "#e Hebrews style! t#emsel;es t#e )3eople of Israel,8 an! also a Congregation.[32] It is a !irect recognition of t#e fact t#at t#eir organiBation was social, an! not political. In &frica we enco(nter a c#aos of sa;agery an! barbarism. >riginal arts an! in;entions #a;e largely !isappeare! t#ro(g# fabrics an! (tensils intro!(ce! from external so(rces; b(t sa;agery in its lowest forms, cannibalism incl(!e!, an! barbarism in its lowest forms pre;ail o;er t#e greater part of t#e continent; &mong t#e interior tribes, t#ere is a nearer approac# to an in!igeno(s c(lt(re an! to a normal con!ition; b(t &frica, in t#e main, is a barren et#nological fiel!. &lt#o(g# t#e #ome of t#e =egro race, it is well 2nown t#at t#eir n(mbers are limite! an! t#eir areas small. at#am significantly remar2s t#at )t#e negro is an exceptional &frican.8[33] "#e &s#iras, &ponos, Is#ogos an! &s#angos, between t#e Congo an! t#e =iger, ;isite! by <( C#aill(, are t#e tr(e negro type. )'ac# ;illage,8 #e remar2s, )#a! its c#ief, an! f(rt#er in t#e interior t#e ;illages seeme! to be go;erne! by el!ers, eac# el!er wit# #is people #a;ing a separate portion of t#e ;illage to t#emsel;es. "#ere was in eac# clan t#e ifo(mo(, f(mo(, or ac2nowle!ge! #ea! of t#e clan +ifo(mo( meaning t#e source$ t#e father.. I #a;e ne;er been able to obtain from t#e nati;es a 2nowle!ge concerning t#e splitting of t#eir tribes into clans; t#ey seeme! not to 2now #ow it #appene!, b(t, t#e formation of new clans !oes not ta2e place now among t#em.... "#e #o(se of a c#ief or el!er is not better t#an t#ose of #is neig#bo(r. "#e !espotic form of go;ernment is (n2nown..... & co(ncil of t#e el!ers is necessary before one is p(t to !eat#.... "ribes an! clans intermarry wit# eac# ot#er, an! t#is brings abo(t a frien!ly feeling among t#e people. 3eople of t#e same clan cannot intermarry wit# eac# ot#er. "#e least consang(inity is consi!ere! an abomination; ne;ert#eless t#e nep#ew #as not t#e slig#test ob:ection to ta2e #is (ncleFs wi;es, an!, as among t#e /ala2ai, t#e son ta2es #is fat#erFs wi;es; except #is own mot#er .... 3olygamy an! sla;ery exist e;eryw#ere among t#e tribes I #a;e ;isite!..... "#e law of in#eritance among t#e 6estern tribes is, t#at t#e next brot#er in#erits t#e wealt# of t#e el!est +women, sla;es, etc.., b(t t#at if t#e yo(ngest !ies t#e el!est in#erits #is property, an! if t#ere are no brot#ers t#at t#e nep#ew in#erits it. "#e #ea!s#ip of t#e clan or family is #ere!itary, following t#e same law as t#at of t#e in#eritance of property. In t#e case of all t#e brot#ers #a;ing !ie!, t#e el!est son of t#e el!est sister in#erits, an! it goes on t#(s (ntil t#e branc# is exting(is#e!, for all clans are consi!ere! as !escen!e! from t#e female si!e.8[34] &ll t#e elements of a tr(e gens are embo!ie! in t#e foregoing partic(lars, namely, !escent is limite! to one line, in t#is case t#e female, w#ic# gi;es t#e gens in its arc#aic farm. Moreo;er, !escent is in t#e female line wit# respect to office an! to property, as well as t#e gentile name. "#e office of c#ief passes from brot#er to

D4D brot#er, or from (ncle to nep#ew, t#at nep#ew being t#e son of a sister, as among t#e &merican aborigines; w#ilst t#e sons are excl(!e! beca(se not members of t#e gens of t#e !ecease! c#ief. Marriage in t#e gens is also forbi!!en. "#e only material omission in t#ese precise statements is t#e names of some of t#e gentes. "#e #ere!itary feat(re re5(ires f(rt#er explanation. &mong t#e /anyai of t#e KambeBi ri;er, w#o are a people of #ig#er gra!e t#an t#e negroes, <r. i;ingstone obser;e! t#e following (sages: )"#e go;ernment of t#e /anyai is rat#er pec(liar; being a sort of fe(!al rep(blicanism. "#e c#ief is electe!, an! t#ey c#oose t#e son of a !ecease! c#iefFs sister in preference to #is own offspring. 6#en !issatisfie! wit# one can!i!ate, t#ey e;en go to a !istant tribe for a s(ccessor, w#o is (s(ally of t#e family of t#e late c#ief, a brot#er, or a sisterFs son, b(t ne;er #is own son or !a(g#ter .... &ll t#e wi;es, goo!s, an! c#il!ren of #is pre!ecessor belong to #im.8[35] <r. i;ingstone !oes not gi;e t#e partic(lars of t#eir social organiBation; b(t t#e !escent of t#e office of c#ief form brot#er to brot#er, or from (ncle to nep#ew, implies t#e existence of t#e gens wit# !escent in t#e female line. "#e n(mero(s tribes occ(pying t#e co(ntry watere! by t#e KambeBi, an! from t#ence so(t#war! to Cape Colony, are regar!e! by t#e nati;es t#emsel;es, accor!ing to <r. i;ingstone, as one stoc2 in t#ree great !i;isions, t#e /ec#(anas, t#e /as(tos, an! t#e 7afirs.[36] 6it# respect to t#e former, #e remar2s t#at t#e /ec#(ana tribes are name! after certain animals, s#owing probably t#at in ancient times t#ey were a!!icte! to animal wors#ip li2e t#e ancient 'gyptians. "#e term /a2atla means Et#ey of t#e Mon2eyF; /a2(ona, Et#ey of t#e &lligatorF; /atlapi, Et#ey of t#e *is#F; eac# tribe #a;ing a s(perstitio(s !rea! of t#e animal after w#ic# it is calle!.... & tribe ne;er eats t#e animal w#ic# is its namesa2e..... 6e fin! traces of many ancient tribes in in!i;i!(al members of t#ose non extinct; as /atia(, Et#ey of t#e ionF; /anoga, Et#ey of t#e %erpent,F t#o(g# no s(c# tribes now exist.8 [37] "#ese animal names are s(ggesti;e of t#e gens rat#er t#an t#e tribe. Moreo;er, t#e fact t#at single in!i;i!(als are fo(n!, eac# of w#om was t#e last s(r;i;or of #is tribe, wo(l! be more li2ely to #a;e occ(rre! if gens were (n!erstoo! in t#e place of tribe. &mong t#e /angalas of t#e Cassange Ialley, in &rgola, i;ingstone remar2s t#at )a c#iefFs brot#er in#erits in preference to #is sons. "#e sons of a sister belong to #er brot#er; an! #e often sells #is nep#ews to pay #is !ebts. [38] Here again we #a;e e;i!ence of !escent in t#e female line; b(t #is statements are too brief an! general in t#ese an! ot#er cases to s#ow !efinitely w#et#er or not t#ey possesse! t#e gens. &mong t#e &(stralians t#e gentes of t#e 7amilaroi #a;e alrea!y been notice!. In et#nical position t#e aborigines of t#is great islan! are near t#e bottom of t#e scale. 6#en !isco;ere! t#ey were not only sa;ages, b(t in a low con!ition of sa;agery. %ome of t#e tribes were cannibals. $pon t#is last 5(estion Mr. *ison, before mentione!, writes as follows to t#e a(t#or: )%ome, at least, of t#e tribes are cannibals. "#e e;i!ence of t#is is concl(si;e. "#e 6i!e /ay tribes eat not only t#eir enemies slain in battle, b(t t#eir frien!s also w#o #a;e been 2ille!, an! e;en t#ose w#o #a;e !ie! a nat(ral !eat#, pro;i!e! t#ey are in goo! con!ition. /efore eating t#ey s2in t#em, an! preser;e t#e s2ins by r(bbing t#em wit# mingle! fat an!

D4A c#arcoal "#ese s2ins t#ey priBe ;ery #ig#ly, belie;ing t#em to #a;e great me!icinal ;al(e.8 %(c# pict(res of #(man life enable (s to (n!erstan! t#e con!ition of sa;agery, t#e gra!e of its (sages, t#e !egree of material !e;elopment, an! t#e low le;el of t#e mental an! moral life of t#e people. &(stralian #(manity, as seen in t#eir cannibal c(stoms, stan!s on as low a plane as it #as been 2nown to to(c# on t#e eart#. &n! yet t#e &(stralians possesse! an area of continental !imensions, ric# in minerals, not (ncongenial in climate, an! fairly s(pplie! wit# t#e means of s(bsistence. /(t after an occ(pation w#ic# m(st be meas(re! by t#o(san!s of years, t#ey are still sa;ages, of t#e gra!e abo;e in!icate!. eft to t#emsel;es t#ey wo(l! probably #a;e remaine! for t#o(san!s of years to come, not wit#o(t any, b(t wit# s(c# slig#t impro;ement as scarcely to lig#ten t#e !ar2 s#a!e of t#eir sa;age state. &mong t#e &(stralians, w#ose instit(tions are normal an! #omogeneo(s, t#e organiBation into gentes is not, confine! to t#e 7amilaroi, b(t seems to be (ni;ersal. "#e =arrinyeri of %o(t# &(stralia, near acepe!e /ay are organiBe! in gentes name! after animals an! insects. 0e;. 9eorge "aplin, writing to my frien! Mr. *ison, after stating t#at, t#e =arrinyeri !o not marry into t#eir own gens, an! t#at t#e c#il!ren were of t#e gens of t#eir fat#er, contin(es as follows: )"#ere are no castes, nor are t#ere any classes, similar to t#ose of t#e 7amilaroi?spea2ing tribes of =ew %o(t# 6ales. /(t eac# tribe or family +an! a tribe is a family. #as its totem, or ngaitye2 an! in!ee! some in!i;i!(als #a;e t#is ngaitye. It is regar!e! as t#e man@s? t(telary geni(s. It is some animal, bir!, or insect. . ... "#e nati;es are ;ery strict in t#eir marriage arrangements. & tribe MgensN is consi!ere! a family, an! a man ne;er marries into #is own tribe. Mr. *ison also writes, )t#at among t#e tribes of t#e Maranoa !istrict, J(eenslan!, w#ose !ialect is calle! )rghi$ accor!ing t#e information comm(nicate! to me by Mr, &. %. 3. Cameron, t#e same classification exists as among t#e 7amilaroi? spea2ing tribes, bot# as to t#e class names an! t#e totems.8 6it# respect to t#e &(stralians of t#e <arling 0i;er, (pon information comm(nicate! by Mr. C#arles 9. =. oc2woo!, #e f(rt#er remar2s, t#at )t#ey are s(b!i;i!e! into tribes +gentes., mentioning t#e 'm(, 6il! <(c2, an! 7angaroo, b(t wit#o(t saying w#et#er t#ere are ot#ers, an! t#at t#e c#il!ren ta2e bot# t#e class name an! totem of t#e mot#er. [39] *rom t#e existence of t#e gentile organiBation among t#e tribes name! its general pre;alence among t#e &(stralian aborigines is ren!ere! probable; alt#o(g# t#e instit(tion, as #as elsew#ere been pointe! o(t, is in t#e incipient stages of its !e;elopment. >(r information wit# respect to t#e !omestic instit(tions of t#e in#abitants of 3olynesia, Micronesia an! t#e 3ap(an Islan!s is still limite! an! imperfect. =o traces of t#e gentile organiBation #a;e been !isco;ere! among t#e Hawaiians, %amoans, Mar5(esas Islan!ers or =ew Kealan!ers. "#eir system of consang(inity is still primiti;e, s#owing t#at t#eir instit(tions #a;e not a!;ance! as far as t#is organiBation pres(pposes.[40] In some of t#e Micronesian Islan!s t#e office of c#ief is transmitte! t#ro(g# females;[41] b(t, t#is (sage mig#t exist in!epen!ently of t#e gens. "#e *i:ians are s(b!i;i!e! into se;eral tribes spea2ing !ialects of t#e same stoc2 lang(age; >ne of t#ese, t#e 0ewas, consists of fo(r s(b!i;isions (n!er

D4!istincti;e names, an! eac# of t#ese is again s(b!i;i!e!. It !oes not seem probable t#at t#e last s(b!i;isions are gentes, for t#e reason, among ot#ers, t#at its members are allowe! to intermarry. <escent is in t#e male line. In li2e manner t#e "ongans are compose! of !i;isions, w#ic# are again s(b!i;i!e! t#e same as t#e 0ewas. &ro(n! t#e simple i!eas relating to marriage an! t#e family, to s(bsistence an! to go;ernment, t#e earliest social organiBations were forme!; an! wit# t#em an exposition of t#e str(ct(re an! principle of ancient society m(st commence. &!opting t#e t#eory of a progressi;e !e;elopment of man2in! t#ro(g# t#e experience of t#e ages, t#e ins(lation of t#e in#abitants of >ceanica, t#eir limite! local areas, an! t#eir restricte! means of s(bsistence pre!etermine! ?a slow rate of progress. "#ey still represent a con!ition of man2in! on t#e continent of &sia in times immensely remote from t#e present; an! w#ile pec(liarities, inci!ent to t#eir ins(lation, (n!o(bte!ly exist, t#ese islan! societies represent one of t#e early p#ases of t#e great stream of #(man progress. &n exposition of t#eir instit(tions, in;entions an! !isco;eries, an! mental an! moral traits, wo(l! s(pply one of t#e great nee!s of ant#ropological science. "#is concl(!es t#e !isc(ssion of t#e organiBation into gentes, an! t#e range of its !istrib(tion. "#e organiBation #as been fo(n! among t#e &(stralians an! &frican =egroes, wit# traces of t#e system in ot#er &frican tribes. It #as been fo(n! generally pre;alent among t#at portion of t#e &merican aborigines w#o w#en !isco;ere! were in t#e ower %tat(s of barbarism; an! also among a portion of t#e Iillage In!ians w#o were in t#e Mi!!le %tat(s of barbarism. In li2e manner it existe! in f(ll ;itality among t#e 9recian an! atin tribes in t#e $pper %tat(s of barbarism; wit# traces of it in se;eral of t#e remaining branc#es of t#e &ryan family. "#e organiBation #as been fo(n!, or traces of its existence, in t#e "(ranian; $ralian an! Mongolian families; in t#e "(ng(sian, an! C#inese, stoc2s, an! in t#e %emitic family among t#e Hebrews. *acts s(fficiently n(mero(s an! comman!ing #a;e been a!!(ce! to claim for it an ancient (ni;ersality in t#e #(man family, as well as a general pre;alence t#ro(g# t#e latter part of t#e perio! of sa;agery, an! t#ro(g#o(t t#e perio! of barbarism. "#e in;estigation #as also arraye! a s(fficient bo!y of facts to !emonstrate t#at t#is remar2able instit(tion was t#e origin an! t#e basis of &ncient %ociety. It was t#e first organic principle, !e;elope! t#ro(g# experience, w#ic# was able to organiBe society (pon a !efinite plan, an! #ol! it in organic (nity (ntil it was s(fficiently a!;ance! for t#e transition into political society. Its anti5(ity, its s(bstantial (ni;ersality an! its en!(ring ;itality are s(fficiently s#own by its perpet(ation (pon all t#e continents to t#e present time. "#e won!erf(l a!aptability of t#e gentile organiBation to t#e wants of man2in! in t#ese se;eral perio!s an! con!itions is s(fficiently atteste! by its pre;alence an! by its preser;ation. It #as been i!entifie! wit# t#e most e;entf(l portion of t#e experience of man2in!. 6#et#er t#e gens originates spontaneo(sly in a gi;en con!ition of society, an! wo(l! t#(s repeat itself in !isconnecte! areas; or w#et#er it #a! a single origin an! was propagate! from an original centre, t#ro(g# s(ccessi;e migrations, o;er t#e eart#Fs s(rface, are fair 5(estions for spec(lati;e consi!eration. "#e latter #ypot#esis, wit# a simple mo!ification, seems to be t#e better one, for t#e

D44 following reasons: 6e fin! t#at two forms of marriage, an! two forms of t#e family prece!e! t#e instit(tion of t#e gens. It re5(ire! a pec(liar experience to attain to t#e secon! form of marriage an! of t#e family, an! to s(pplement t#is experience by t#e in;ention of t#e gens. "#is secon! form of t#e family was t#e final res(lt, t#ro(g# nat(ral selection, of t#e re!(ction wit#in narrower limits of a st(pen!o(s con:(gal system w#ic# enfol!e! sa;age man an! #el! #im wit# a powerf(l grasp. His final !eli;erance was too remar2able an! too improbable, as it wo(l! seem, to be repeate! many !ifferent times, an! in wi!ely separate! areas. 9ro(ps of consang(inei, (nite! for protection an! s(bsistence, !o(btless, existe! from t#e infancy of t#e #(man family; b(t t#e gens is a ;ery !ifferent bo!y of 2in!re!. It ta2es a part an! excl(!es t#e remain!er; it organiBe! t#is part on t#e bon! of 2in, (n!er a common name, an! wit# common rig#ts an! pri;ileges. Intermarriage in t#e gens was pro#ibite! to sec(re t#e benefits of marrying o(t wit# (nrelate! persons. "#is was a ;ital principle of t#e organism as well as one most !iffic(lt of establis#ment. Instea! of a nat(ral an! ob;io(s conception, t#e gens was essentially abstr(se; an!, as s(c#, a pro!(ct of #ig# intelligence for t#e times in w#ic# it originate!. It re5(ire! long perio!s, of time, after t#e i!ea was !e;elope! into life, to bring it to mat(rity wit# its (ses e;ol;e!. "#e 3olynesians #a! t#is p(nal(an family, b(t faile! of in;enting t#e gens; t#e &(stralians #a! t#e same form of t#e family an! possesse! t#e gens. It originates in t#e p(nal(an family, an! w#ate;er tribes #a! attaine! to it possesse! t#e elements o(t of w#ic# t#e gens was farme!. "#is is t#e mo!ification of t#e #ypot#esis s(ggeste!. In t#e prior organiBation, on t#e basis of sex, t#e germ of t#e gens existe!. 6#en t#e gens #a! become f(lly !e;elope! in its arc#aic form it wo(l! propagate itself o;er immense areas t#ro(g# t#e s(perior powers of an impro;e! stoc2 t#(s create!. Its propagation is more easily explaine! t#an its instit(tion. "#ese consi!erations ten! to s#ow t#e improbability of its repeate! repro!(ction in !isconnecte! areas. >n t#e ot#er #an!, its beneficial effects in pro!(cing a stoc2 of sa;ages s(perior to any t#en existing (pon t#e eart# m(st be a!mitte!. 6#en migrations were flig#ts (n!er t#e law of sa;age life, or mo;ements in 5(est of better areas, s(c# a stoc2 wo(l! sprea! in wa;e after wa;e (ntil it co;ere! t#e larger part of t#e eart#Fs s(rface. & consi!eration of t#e principal facts now ascertaine! bearing (pon t#is 5(estion seems to fa;o(r t#e #ypot#esis of a single origin of t#e organiBation into gentes, (nless we go bac2 of t#is to t#e &(stralian classes, w#ic# ga;e t#e p(nal(an family o(t of w#ic# t#e gens originate!, an! regar! t#ese classes as t#e original basis of ancient society. In t#is e;ent w#ere;er t#e classes were establis#e!, t#e gens existe! potentially. &ss(ming t#e (nity of origin of man2in!, t#e occ(pation of t#e eart# occ(rre! t#ro(g# migrations from an original centre. "#e &siatic continent m(st t#en be regar!e! as t#e cra!le?lan! of t#e species, from t#e greater n(mber of original types of man it contains in comparison wit# '(rope, &frica an! &merica. It wo(l! also follow t#at t#e separation of t#e =egroes an! &(stralians from t#e common stem occ(rre! w#en society was organiBe! on t#e basis of sex, an! w#en t#e family was p(nal(an; t#at t#e 3olynesian migration occ(rre! later, b(t wit# society similarly constit(te!; an! finally, t#at t#e 9anowanian migration to &merica occ(rre! later still, an! after t#e instit(tion of t#e gentes. "#ese inferences are p(t forwar! simply

D4G as s(ggestions. & 2nowle!ge of t#e gens an! its attrib(tes, an! of t#e range of its !istrib(tion, is absol(tely necessary to a proper compre#ension of &ncient %ociety. "#is is t#e great s(b:ect now re5(iring special an! exten!e! in;estigation. "#is society among t#e ancestors of ci;iliBe! nations attaine! its #ig#est !e;elopment in t#e last !ays of barbarism. /(t t#ere were p#ases of t#at same society far bac2 in t#e anterior ages, w#ic# m(st, now be so(g#t among barbarians an! sa;ages in correspon!ing con!itions. "#e i!ea of organiBe! society #as been a growt# t#ro(g# t#e entire existence of t#e #(man race; its se;eral p#ases are logically connecte!, t#e one gi;ing birt# to t#e ot#er in s(ccession, an! t#at form of it we #a;e been contemplating originate! in t#e gens. =o ot#er instit(tion of man2in! #as #el! s(c# an ancient an! remar2able relation to t#e co(rse of Harman progress. "#e real #istory of man2in! is containe! in t#e #istory of t#e growt# an! !e;elopment of instit(tions, of w#ic# t#e gens is b(t one. It is, #owe;er, t#e basis of t#ose w#ic# #a;e exercise! t#e most material infl(ence (pon #(man affairs.

Footnotes
1 )'arly History of Instit(tions,8 HoltFs e!., p. 7. ! )9ermania,8 c. ii. " )<e /ell. 9all.,8 ;i, DD. # )9ermania,8 cap. 7. "#e line of battle, t#is a(t#or remar2s is forme! by we!ges. )&cies per c(neos componit(r. ? )9er.8 G. 7o#lra(sc# obser;es t#at )t#e confe!erates of one mar2 or #(n!re!, an! of one race or sept, fo(g#t (nite!.8 ? )History of 9ermany,8 &ppletonFs e!., trans, by C. <. Haas, p. D8. $ )<e /ell 9all.8 i;. I. E9ermania,F cap. G. % <r. *reeman, w#o #as st(!ie! t#is s(b:ect specially, remar2s: Y"#e lowest (nit in t#e political system is t#at w#ic# still exists (n!er ;ario(s, names, as t#e Emar2,F t#e Egemein!e,F t#e Ecomm(ne,F or t#e Eparis#.8 "#is, as we #a;e seen, is one of many forms of t#e EgensF or clan, t#at in w#ic# it is no longer a wan!ering or a mere pre!atory bo!y, b(t w#en, on t#e ot#er #an!, it #as not :oine! wit# ot#ers to form one component element of a city commonwealt#. In t#is stage t#e EgensF ta2es t#e form of an agric(lt(ral bo!y, #ol!ing its common an!s ? t#e germ of t#e Eager p(blic(sF of 0ome, an! of t#e Efol2lan!F of 'nglan!. "#is is t#e Emar2genossensc#aft,F t#e ;illage comm(nity of t#e 6est. "#is lowest political (nit, t#is gat#ering of real or artificial 2insmen, is ma!e (p of families, eac# li;ing (n!er t#e r(le, t#e Em(n!F of its own fat#er, t#at Epatria potestasF w#ic# s(r;i;e! at 0ome to form so mar2e! an! lasting a feat(re of 0oman law. &s t#e (nion of families forms t#e Egens,F an! as t#e EgensF in its territorial aspect forms t#e Emar2genossensc#aft,F so t#e (nion of se;eral s(c# ;illage comm(nities an! t#eir Emar2sF or common lan!s forms t#e next. #ig#er political (nion, t#e #(n!re!, a name to be fo(n! in one s#ape or anot#er in most lan!s into w#ic# t#e "e(tonic race #as sprea! itself.... &bo;e

D47
t#e #(n!re! comes t#e Epag(s,F t#e Ega(,F t#e <anis# Esyssel,F t#e 'nglis# Es#ire,F t#at is t#e tribe loo2e! at as occ(pying a certain territory. &n! eac# of t#ese !i;isions, greater an! smaller, #a! its c#iefs.... "#e #(n!re! is ma!e (p of ;illages, mar2s, gemein!en w#ate;er we call t#e lowest (nit; t#e Es#ire,F t#e Ega(!,F t#e Epages,F is ma!e (p of #(n!re!s.8 ? Comparati;e 3olitics, McMillan & Co.s e!., p. 11G. & )<escripti;e 't#nology,8 i, 8H. ' Mc ennanFs )3rimiti;e Marriage,8 p, 1I8. ( J(ote! in )3rimiti;e Marriage.8 p. 1H1. 1) ) etter to t#e &(t#or,8 by 0e;. 9openat# =(n!y, a nati;e /engalese, In!ia. 11 )'arly History of Man2in!,8 p. D8D. 1! )3rimiti;e C(lt(re,8 Holt C Co.s e!,. ii, DA4. 1" )<escripti;e 't#nology,8 I, D,H. 1# )>rigin of Ci;iliBation,8 ,G. 1$ )<escripti;e 't#nology,8 i, -74. 1% )9enesis,8 xiii, K. 1& )Ib.,8 xxiii, 1G. 1' Ib., x;iii, G 1( Ib., x;iii, 8. !) lb., xxii, G. !1 lb., xxi;, 0.. !! lb., xxi;, G4. !" lb., xx, 1D. !# Ib., xi, D,. !$ )'xo!(s,8 ;i, DH. !% )=(mbers,8 iii, 14?DH. !& lb., i, DD. !' lb., iii, AH. !( lb., ii, D. ") 7iel an! <elitBsc#s, in t#eir commentaries on 'xo!(s ;i, 1-, remar2 t#at )fat#erFs #o(ses8 was a tec#nical term applie! to a collection of families calle! by t#e name of a common ancestor,8 "#is is a fair !efinition of a gens.

D48
"1 )I %am(el,8 xx, G, D3. "! =(mbers8 i. D. "" )<escript 't#.,8 ii. 18"# )&s#ango an!,8 &ppletonsF e!., p. -D4, et se5. "$ )"ra;els in %o(t# &frica,8 &ppletonsF e!., c#. AH, p. GGH. )6#en a yo(ng man ta2es a li2ing for a girl of anot#er ;illage, an! t#e parents #a;e no ob:ection to t#e matc#, #e is oblige!, to come an! li;e at t#eir ;illage. He #as to perform certain ser;ices for t#e mot#er? in?law.... If #e becomes tire! of li;ing in t#is state of ;assalage, an! wis#es to ret(rn to #is own family, #e is oblige! to lea;e all #is c#il!ren be#in! ? t#ey belong to #is wife.8 ? lb., p. GG7. "% )"ra;els in %o(t# &frica,8 p. D1,. "& Ib., p. -71. "' lb., p. -71. "( %ee also "aylorFs )'arly History of Man2in!,8 p. D8-. #) )%ystem of Consang(inity,8 etc., loc. cit., pp. -41, -8D. #1 )Missionary Heral!,8 184A, p. ,H.

Part III G*+,T- +F T-. ID./ +F T-. F/1I23

Chapter I THE ANCIENT FAMILY

6e #a;e been acc(stome! to regar! t#e monogamian family as t#e form w#ic# #as always existe!; b(t interr(pte! in exceptional areas by t#e patriarc#al. Instea! of t#is, t#e i!ea of t#e family #as been a growt# t#ro(g# s(ccessi;e stages of !e;elopment, t#e monogamian being t#e last in its series of forms. It will be my ob:ect to s#ow t#at it was prece!e! by more ancient forms w#ic# pre;aile! (ni;ersally t#ro(g#o(t t#e perio! of sa;agery t#ro(g# t#e ol!er an! into t#e Mi!!le 3erio! of barbarism; an! t#at neit#er t#e monogamian nor t#e patriarc#al can be trace! bac2 of t#e ater 3erio! of barbarism. "#ey were essentiality mo!ern. Moreo;er, t#ey were impossible in ancient society, (ntil an anterior experience (n!er earlier forms in e;ery race of man2in! #a! prepare! t#e way for t#eir intro!(ction. *i;e !ifferent an! s(ccessi;e forms may now be !isting(is#e!, eac# #a;ing an instit(tion of marriage pec(liar to itself. "#ey are t#e following:

I. %he Consanguine )a ily.

It was fo(n!e! (pon t#e intermarriage of brot#ers an! sisters, own an! collateral, in a gro(p.

D4,

II. %he Punaluan )a ily.

1t was fo(n!e! (pon t#e intermarriage of se;eral sisters, own an! collateral, wit# eac# ot#erFs #(sban!s, in a gro(p; t#e :oint #(sban!s not being necessarily 2insmen of eac# ot#er. &lso, on t#e intermarriage of se;eral brot#ers, own an! collateral, wit# eac# ot#erFs wi;es, in a gro(p; t#ese wi;es not being necessarily of 2in to eac# ot#er, alt#o(g# often t#e case in bot# instances. In eac# case t#e gro(p of men mere con:ointly marrie! to t#e gro(p of women.

III. %he Syndyas ian or Pairing )a ily.

It was fo(n!e! (pon marriage between single pairs, #(t wit#o(t an excl(si;e co#abitation. "#e marriage contin(e! !(ring t#e pleas(re of t#e parties.

I(. %he Patriarchal )a ily.

It was fo(n!e! (pon t#e marriage of one man wit# se;eral wi;es; followe!, in general, by t#e secl(sion of t#e wi;es.

(. %he Monoga ian )a ily.

It was fo(n!e! (pon marriage between single pairs, wit# an excl(si;e co#abitation. "#ree of t#ese forms, namely, t#e first, secon!, an! fift#, were ra!ical; beca(se t#ey mere s(fficiently general an!. infl(ential to create t#ree !istinct systems of consang(inity, all of w#ic# still exist, in li;ing forms. Con;ersely, t#ese systems are s(fficient of t#emsel;es to pro;e t#e antece!ent existence of t#e forms of t#e family an! of marriage, wit# w#ic# t#ey se;eral stan! connecte!. "#e remaining two, t#e %yn!yasmian an! t#e patriarc#al, were interme!iate, an! not s(fficiently infl(ential (pon #(man affairs: to create a new, or mo!ify essentially t#e t#en existing system of consang(inity. It will not be s(ppose! t#at t#ese types of t#e family are separate! from eac# ot#er by s#arply !efine! lines; on t#e contrary, t#e first passes into t#e secon!, t#e secon! into t#e t#ir!, an! t#e t#ir! into t#e *ift# by insensible gra!ations. "#e propositions to be el(ci!ate! an! establis#e! are t#at t#ey #a;e spr(ng s(ccessi;ely one from t#e ot#er, an! t#at t#ey represent collecti;ely t#e growt# of t#e i!ea of t#e family. In or!er to explain t#e rise of t#ese se;eral forms of t#e family an! of marriage, it will be necessary to present t#e s(bstance of t#e system of consang(inity an! affinity w#ic# pertains to eac#. "#ese systems embo!y compen!io(s an! !ecisi;e e;i!ence, free from all s(spicion of !esign, #earing !irectly (pon t#e 5(estion. Moreo;er, t#ey spea2 wit# an a(t#ority an! certainty w#ic# lea;e no room to !o(bt t#e inferences t#erefrom. /(t a system of consang(inity is intricate an! perplexing (ntil it is bro(g#t into familiarity. It will tax t#e rea!erFs patience to loo2 into t#e s(b:ect far eno(g# to be able to test t#e ;al(e an! weig#t of t#e e;i!ence it contains. Ha;ing treate! at lengt#, in a pre;io(s wor2, t#e )%ystems of Consang(inity an! &ffinity of t#e H(man *amily.8 [1] I s#all confine t#e statements #erein to t#e material facts, re!(ce! to t#e lowest n(mber consistent wit# intelligibility, ma2ing reference to t#e ot#er wor2 for f(ller !etails, an! for t#e general "ables. "#e importance of t#e main proposition as a part of t#e #istory of man, namely, t#at, t#e family #as been a growt# t#ro(g# se;eral s(ccessi;e forms,

DGH is a comman!ing reason for t#e presentation an! st(!y of t#ese systems, if t#ey can in tr(t# establis# t#e fact. It will re5(ire t#is an! t#e fo(r s(ccee!ing c#apters to ma2e a brief general ex#ibition of t#e proof. "#e most primiti;e system of consang(inity yet !isco;ere! is fo(n! among t#e 3olynesians, of w#ic# t#e Hawaiian will be (se! as typical. I #a;e calle! it t#e Malayan system. $n!er it all consang(inei, near an! remote, fall wit#in some one of t#e following relations#ips; namely, parent, c#il!, gran!parent, gran!c#il!, brot#er, an! sister. =o ot#er bloo! relations#ips are recogniBe!. /esi!e t#ese are t#e marriage relations#ips. "#is system of consang(inity came in wit# t#e first form of t#e family, t#e consang(ine, an! contains t#e principal e;i!ence of its ancient existence. It may seem a narrow basis for: so important an inference; b(t if we are :(stifie! in ass(ming t#at eac# relations#ip as recogniBe! was t#e one w#ic# act(ally existe!, t#e inference is f(lly s(staine!; "#is system pre;aile! ;ery generally in 3olynesia, alt#o(g# t#e family among t#em #a! passe! o(t of t#e consang(ine into t#e p(nal(an. It remaine! (nc#ange! beca(se no moti;e s(fficiently strong, an! no alteration of instit(tions s(fficiently ra!ical #a! occ(rre! to pro!(ce its mo!ification. Intermarriage between brot#ers an! sisters #a! not entirely !isappeare! from t#e %an!wic# Islan! w#en t#e &merican missions, abo(t fifty years ago, were establis#e! among t#em. >f t#e ancient general pre;alence of t#is system of consang(inity o;er &sia t#ere can be no !o(bt, beca(se it is t#e basis of t#e "(ranian system still pre;alent in &sia. It also (n!erlies t#e C#inese. In co(rse of time, a secon! great system of consang(inity, t#e "(ranian, s(per;ene! (pon t#e first, an! sprea! o;er a large part of t#e eart#Fs s(rface. It was (ni;ersal among t#e =ort# &merican aborigines, an! #as been trace! s(fficiently among t#ose of %o(t# &merica to ren!er probable its e5(ally (ni;ersal pre;alence among t#em. "races of it #a;e been fo(n! in parts of &frica; b(t t#e system of t#e &frican tribes in general approac#es nearer t#e Malayan. It still pre;ails in %o(t# In!ia among t#e Hin!(s w#o spea2 !ialects of t#e <ra;i!ian lang(age, an! also, in a mo!ifie! form, in =ort# In!ia, among t#e Hin!(s w#o spea2 !ialects of t#e 9a(ra lang(age. It also pre;ails in &(stralia in a partially !e;elope! state, w#ere it seems to #a;e originate! eit#er in t#e organiBation into classes or in t#e incipient organiBation into gentes, w#ic# le! to t#e same res(lt, In t#e principal tribes of t#e "(ranian an! 9anowanian families, it owes its origin to p(nal(an marriage in t#e gro(p an! to t#e gentile organiBation, t#e latter of w#ic# ten!e! to repress consang(ine marriages. It #as been s#own #ow t#is was accomplis#e! by t#e pro#ibition of intermarriage in t#e gens, w#ic# permanently excl(!e! own brot#ers an! sisters from t#e marriage relation. 6#en t#e "(ranian system of consang(inity came in t#e form of t#e family was p(nal(an. "#is is pro;en by t#e fact t#at p(nal(an marriage in t#e gro(p explains t#e principal relations#ips (n!er t#e system s#owing t#em to be t#ose w#ic# wo(l! act(ally exist in ;irt(e of t#is form of marriage. "#ro(g# t#e logic of t#e facts we are enable! to s#ow t#at t#e p(nal(an family was once as wi!esprea! as t#e "(ranian system of consang(inity. "o t#e organiBation into gentes an! t#e p(nal(an family, t#e "(ranian system of consang(inity m(st be ascribe!. It will be seen in t#e se5(el t#at t#is system was forme! o(t of t#e Malayan, by c#anging t#ose relations#ips only w#ic# res(lte! from t#e pre;io(s intermarriage of brot#ers an! sisters, own an! collateral, an!

DG1 w#ic# were, in fact, c#ange! by t#e gentes; t#(s pro;ing t#e !irect connection between t#em. "#e powerf(l infl(ence of t#e gentile organiBation (pon society, an! partic(larly (pon t#e p(nal(an gro(p, is !emonstrate! by t#is c#ange of systems. "#e "(ranian system is simply st(pen!o(s. It recogniBes all t#e relations#ips 2nown (n!er t#e &ryan system besi!es an a!!itional n(mber (nnotice! by t#e latter. Consang(inei, near an! remote, are classifie! into categories; an! are trace!, by means pec(liar to t#e system far beyon! t#e or!inary range of t#e &ryan system. In familiar an! in formal sal(tation, t#e people a!!ress eac# ot#er by t#e term of relations#ip, an! ne;er by t#e personal name, w#ic# ten!s to sprea! abroa! a 2nowle!ge of t#e system as. well as to preser;e, by constant recognition, t#e relations#ip of t#e most !istant 2in!re!. 6#ere no relations#ip exists, t#e form of sal(tation is simply )my frien!.8 =o ot#er system of consang(inity fo(n! among men approac#es it in elaborateness of !iscrimination or in t#e extent of special c#aracteristics. 6#en t#e &merican aborigines were !isco;ere!, t#e family among t#em #a! passe! o(t of t#e p(nal(an into t#e %yn!yasmian form; so t#at t#e relations#ips recogniBe! by t#e system of consang(inity were not t#ose, in a n(mber? of cases, w#ic# act(ally existe! in t#e %yn!yasmian family. It was an exact repetition of w#at #a! occ(rre! (n!er t#e Malayan system, w#ere t#e family #a! passe! o(t of t#e consang(ine into t#e p(nal(an, t#e system of consang(inity remaining (nc#ange!; so t#at w#ile t#e relations#ips gi;en in t#e Malayan system were t#ose w#ic# act(ally existe! in t#e consang(ine family, t#ey were (ntr(e to a part of t#ose in t#e p(nal(an family. In li2e manner, w#ile t#e relations#ips gi;en in t#e "(ranian system are t#ose w#ic# act(ally existe! in t#e p(nal(an family, t#ey were (ntr(e to a part of t#ose in t#e %yn!yasmian. "#e form of t#e family a!;ances faster of necessity t#an systems of consang(inity, w#ic# follow to recor! t#e family relations#ips. &s t#e establis#ment of t#e p(nal(an family !i! not f(rnis# a!e5(ate moti;es to reform t#e Malayan system, so t#e growt# of t#e %yn!yasmian family !i! not s(pply a!e5(ate moti;es to reform t#e "(ranian. It re5(ire! an instit(tion as great as t#e gentile organiBation to c#ange t#e Malayan system into t#e "(ranian; an! it re5(ire! an instit(tion as great as property in t#e concrete, wit# its rig#ts of owners#ip an! of in#eritance, toget#er wit# t#e monogamian family w#ic# it create!, to o;ert#row t#e "(ranian system of consang(inity an! s(bstit(te t#e &ryan. In f(rt#er co(rse of time a t#ir! great system of consang(inity came in, w#ic# may be calle!, at pleas(re, t#e &ryan, %emitic, or $ralian, an! probably s(perse!e! a prior "(ranian system among t#e principal nations, w#o afterwar!s attaine! ci;iliBation. It is t#e system w#ic# !efines t#e relations#ips in t#e monogamian family. "#is system was not base! (pon t#e "(ranian, as t#e latter was (pon t#e Malayan; b(t it, s(perse!e! among ci;iliBe! nations a pre;io(s "(ranian system, as can be s#own by ot#er proofs. "#e last fo(r forms of t#e family #a;e existe! wit#in t#e #istorical perio!; b(t t#e first, t#e consang(ine, #as !isappeare!. Its ancient existence, #owe;er, can be !e!(ce! from t#e Malayan system of consang(inity. 6e #a;e t#en t#ree ra!ical forms of t#e family, w#ic# represent, t#ree great an! essentially !ifferent con!itions

DGD of life, wit# t#ree !ifferent an! well?mar2e! systems of consang(inity, s(fficient to pro;e t#e existence of t#ese families, if t#ey containe! t#e only proofs remaining. "#is affirmation will ser;e to !raw attention to t#e sing(lar permanence an! persistency of systems of consang(inity, an! to t#e ;al(e of t#e e;i!ence t#ey embo!y wit# respect to t#e con!ition of ancient society. 'ac# of t#ese families ran a ong co(rse in t#e tribes of man2in!, wit# a perio! of infancy, of mat(rity, an! of !eca!ence. "#e monogamian family owes its origin to property, as t#e %yn!yasmian, w#ic# containe! its germ owe! its origin to t#e gens. 6#en t#e 9recian tribes first came (n!er #istorical notice, t#e monogamian family existe!; b(t it !i! not become completely establis#e! (ntil positi;e legislation #a! !etermine! its stat(s an! its rig#ts. "#e growt# of t#e i!ea of property in t#e #(man min!, t#ro(g# its creation an! en:oyment, an! especially t#ro(g# t#e settlement of legal rig#ts wit# respect to its in#eritance, are intimately connecte! wit# t#e establis#ment of t#is form of t#e family. 3roperty became s(fficiently powerf(l in its infl(ence to to(c# t#e organic str(ct(re of society. Certainty wit# respect to t#e paternity of c#il!ren wo(l! now #a;e significance (n2nown in pre;io(s con!itions. Marriage between single pairs #a! existe! from t#e >l!er 3erio! of barbarism, (n!er t#e form of pairing !(ring t#e pleas(re of t#e parties. It #a! ten!e! to grow more stable as ancient society a!;ance!; wit# t#e impro;ement of instit(tions, an! wit# t#e progress of in;entions an! !isco;eries into #ig#er s(ccessi;e con!itions; b(t t#e essential element of t#e monogamian family, an excl(si;e co#abitation, was still wanting. Man far bac2 in barbarism began to exact fi!elity from t#e wife, (n!er sa;age penalties, b(t #e claime! exemption for #imself. "#e obligation is necessarily reciprocal, an! its performance correlati;e. &mong t#e Homeric 9ree2s, t#e con!ition of woman in t#e family relation was one of isolation an! marital !omination, wit# imperfect rig#ts an! excessi;e ine5(ality. & comparison of t#e 9recian family, at s(ccessi;e epoc#s, from t#e Homeric age to t#at of 3ericles, s#ows a sensible impro;ement, wit# its gra!(al settlement into a !efine! instit(tion. "#e mo!ern family is an (n5(estionable impro;ement (pon t#at of t#e 9ree2s an! 0omans; beca(se woman #as gaine! immensely in social position. *rom stan!ing in t#e relation of a !a(g#ter to #er #(sban!; as among t#e 9ree2 an! 0omans, s#e #as !rawn nearer to an e5(ality in !ignity an! in ac2nowle!ge! personal rig#ts. 6e #a;e a recor! of t#e monogamian family, r(nning bac2 nearly t#ree t#o(san! years, !(ring w#ic#, it may be claime! t#ere #as been a gra!(al b(t contin(o(s impro;ement in its c#aracter. It is !estine! to progress still f(rt#er, (ntil t#e e5(ality of t#e sexes is ac2nowle!ge!, an! t#e e5(ities of t#e marriage relation are completely recogniBe!. 6e #a;e similar e;i!ence, t#o(g# not so perfect, of t#e progressi;e impro;ement of t#e %yn!yasmian family, w#ic#, commencing in a low type, en!e! in t#e monogamian. "#ese facts s#o(l! be #el! in remembrance, beca(se t#ey are essential in t#is !isc(ssion. In pre;io(s c#apters attention #as been calle! to t#e st(pen!o(s con:(gal system w#ic# fastene! itself (pon man2in! in t#e infancy of t#eir existence, an! followe! t#em !own to ci;iliBation; alt#o(g# stea!ily losing gro(n! wit# t#e progressi;e impro;ement of society. "#e ratio of #(man progress may be meas(re! to some extent by t#e !egree of t#e re!(ction of t#is system t#ro(g# t#e moral elements of society arraye! against it. 'ac# s(ccessi;e form of t#e family an! of marriage is a

DGA significant registration of t#is re!(ction. &fter it was re!(ce! to Bero, an! not (ntil t#en, was t#e monogamian family possible. "#is family can be trace! far bac2 in t#e ater 3erio! of barbarism, w#ere it !isappears in t#e %yn!yasmian. %ome impression is t#(s gaine! of t#e ages w#ic# elapse! w#ile t#ese two forms of t#e family were r(nning t#eir co(rses of growt# an! !e;elopment. /(t t#e creation of fi;e s(ccessi;e forms of t#e family, eac# !iffering from t#e? ot#er, an! belonging to con!itions of society entirely !issimilar, a(gments o(r conception of t#e lengt# of t#e perio!s !(ring w#ic# t#e i!ea of t#e family was !e;elope! from t#e consang(ine, t#ro(g# interme!iate forms, into t#e still a!;ancing monogamian. =o instit(tion of man2in! #as #a! a more remar2able or more e;entf(l #istory, or embo!ies t#e res(lts of a more prolonge! an! !i;ersifie! experience. It re5(ire! t#e #ig#est mental an! moral efforts t#ro(g# n(mberless ages of time to maintain its existence an! carry it t#ro(g# its se;eral stages into its present form. Marriage passe! from t#e p(nal(an t#ro(g# t#e %yn!yasmian into t#e monogamian form wit#o(t any material c#ange in t#e "(ranian system of consang(inity. "#is system, w#ic# recor!s t#e relations#ips in p(nal(an families, remaine! s(bstantially (nc#ange! (ntil t#e establis#ment of t#e monogamian family, w#en it became almost totally (ntr(e to t#e nat(re of !escents, an! e;en a scan!al (pon monogamy. "o ill(strate: $n!er t#e Malayan system a man calls #is brot#erFs son #is son, beca(se #is brot#erFs wife is #is wife as well as #is brot#erFs; an! #is sisterFs son is also #is son beca(se #is sister is #is wife. $n!er t#e "(ranian system #is brot#erFs son is still #is son, an! for t#e same reason, b(t #is sisterFs son is now #is nep#ew, beca(se (n!er t#e gentile organiBation #is sister #as cease! to be #is wife. &mong t#e Iro5(ois, w#ere t#e family is %yn!yasmian, a man still calls #is brot#erFs son #is son, alt#o(g# #is brot#erFs wife #as cease! to be #is wife; an! so wit# a large n(mber of relations#ips e5(ally inconsistent wit# t#e existing form of marriage. "#e system #as s(r;i;e! t#e (sages in w#ic# it originate!, an! still maintains itself among t#em, alt#o(g# (ntr(e in t#e main, to !escents as t#ey now exist. =o moti;e a!e5(ate to t#e o;ert#row of a great an! ancient system of consang(inity #a! arisen. Monogamy w#en it appeare! f(rnis#e! t#at moti;e to t#e &ryan nations as t#ey !rew near to ci;iliBation. It ass(re! t#e paternity of c#il!ren an! t#e legitimacy of #eirs. & reformation of t#e "(ranian system to accor! wit# monogamian !escents was impossible. It was false to monogamy t#ro(g# an! t#ro(g#. & reme!y, #owe;er, existe!, at once simple an! complete. "#e "(ranian system was !roppe!, an! t#e !escripti;e met#o!, w#ic# t#e "(ranian tribes always employe! w#en t#ey wis#e! to ma2e a gi;en relations#ip specific, was s(bstit(te! in its place. "#ey fell bac2 (pon t#e bare facts of consang(inity an! !escribe! t#e relations#ip of eac# person by a combination of t#e primary terms. "#(s, t#ey sai! brot#erFs son, brot#erFs gran!son; fat#erFs brot#er, an! fat#erFs brot#erFs son. 'ac# p#rase !escribe! a person, lea;ing t#e relations#ip a matter of implication. %(c# was t#e system of t#e &ryan nations, as we fin! it in its most ancient form among t#e 9recian, atin, %ans2ritic, 9ermanic, an! Celtic tribes; an! also in t#e %emitic, as witness t#e Hebrew %cript(re genealogies. "races of t#e "(ranian system, some of w#ic# #a;e been referre! to, remaine! among t#e &ryan an! %emitic nations !own to t#e #istorical perio!; b(t it was essentially (proote!, an! t#e !escripti;e system s(bstit(te! in its place.

DG"o ill(strate an! confirm t#ese se;eral propositions it will be necessary to ta2e (p, in t#e or!er of t#eir origination, t#ese t#ree systems an! t#e t#ree ra!ical forms of t#e family, w#ic# appeare! in connection wit# t#em respecti;ely. "#ey m(t(ally interpret eac# ot#er. & system of consang(inity consi!ere! in itself is of b(t, little importance. imite! in t#e n(mber of i!eas it embo!ies, an! resting, apparently (pon simple s(ggestions, it wo(l! seem incapable of affor!ing (sef(l information, an! m(c# less of t#rowing lig#t (pon t#e early con!ition of man2in!. %(c#, at least, wo(l! be t#e nat(ral concl(sion w#en t#e relations#ips of a gro(p of 2in!re! are consi!ere! in t#e abstract. /(t w#en t#e system of many tribes is compare! an! it is seen to ran2 as a !omestic instit(tion, an! to #a;e transmitte! itself t#ro(g# immensely protracte! perio!s of time, it ass(mes a ;ery !ifferent aspect. "#ree s(c# systems, one s(ccee!ing t#e ot#er, represent t#e entire growt# of t#e family from t#e consang(ine to t#e monogamian. %ince we #a;e a rig#t to s(ppose t#at eac# one expresses t#e act(al relations#ips w#ic# existe! in t#e family at t#e time of its establis#ment, it re;eals, in t(rn, t#e form of marriage an! of t#e family w#ic# t#en pre;aile!, alt#o(g# bot# may #a;e a!;ance! into a #ig#er stage w#ile t#e system of consang(inity remaine! (nc#ange!. It will be notice!, f(rt#er, t#at t#ese systems are nat(ral growt#s wit# t#e progress of society from a lower into a #ig#er con!ition, t#e c#ange in eac# case being mar2e! by t#e appearance of some instit(tion affecting !eeply t#e constit(tion of society. "#e relations#ip of mot#er an! c#il!, of brot#er an! sister; an! of gran!fat#er an! gran!c#il! #as been ascertainable in all ages wit# entire certainty b(t, t#ose of fat#er an! c#il!, an! of gran!fat#er an! gran!c#il! were not ascertainable wit# certainty (ntil monogamy controlle! t#e #ig#est ass(rance attainable. & n(mber of persons wo(l! stan! in eac# of t#ese relations at t#e same time as e5(ally probable w#en marriage was in t#e gro(p. In t#e r(!est con!itions of ancient society t#ese relations#ips wo(l! be percei;e!, bot# t#e act(al an! t#e probable, of consang(inity wo(l! res(lt in time from t#e contin(e! an! terms wo(l! be in;ente! to express t#em. & system application of t#ese terms to persons t#(s forme! into a gro(p of 2in!re!. /(t t#e form of t#e system, as before state!, wo(l! !epen! (pon t#e form of marriage. 6#ere marriages were between brot#ers an! sisters, own an! collateral, in t#e gro(p, t#e family wo(l! #e consang(ine, an! t#e system of consang(inity Malayan. 6#ere marriages were between se;eral sisters wit# eac# ot#erFs #(sban!s in a gro(p, an! between se;eral brot#ers wit# eac# ot#erFs wi;es in a gro(p, t#e family wo(l! #e p(nal(an, an! t#e system of consang(inity "(ranian; an! w#ere marriage was between single pairs, wit# an excl(si;e co#abitation, t#e family wo(l! be monogamian, an! t#e system of consang(inity wo(l! be &ryan. Conse5(ently t#e t#ree systems are fo(n!e! (pon t#ree forms of marriage; an! t#ey see2 to express, as near as t#e fact co(l! be 2nown, t#e act(al relations#ip w#ic# existe! between persons (n!er t#ese forms of marriage respecti;ely. It will be seen, t#erefore, t#at t#ey !o not, rest (pon nat(re, b(t (pon marriage; not (pon fictitio(s consi!erations, b(t (pon fact; an! t#at eac# in its t(rn is a logical as well as tr(t#f(l system. "#e e;i!ence t#ey contain is of t#e #ig#est ;al(e, as well as of t#e most s(ggesti;e c#aracter. It re;eals t#e con!ition of ancient society in t#e plainest manner wit# (nerring !irectness.

DG4 "#ese systems resol;e t#emsel;es into two (ltimate farms, f(n!amentally !istinct. >ne of t#ese is classificatory$ an! t#e ot#er descriptive. $n!er t#e first, consang(inei are ne;er !escribe!, b(t are classifie! into categories, irrespecti;e of t#eir nearness or remoteness in !egree to Ego2 an! t#e same term of relations#ip is applie! to all t#e persons in t#e same category. "#(s my own brot#ers, an! t#e sons of my fat#erFs brot#ers are all ali2e my brot#ers; my own sisters, an! t#e !a(g#ters of my mot#erFs sisters are all ali2e my sisters; s(c# is t#e classification (n!er bot# t#e Malayan an! "(ranian systems. In t#e secon! case consang(inei are !escribe! eit#er by t#e primary terms of relations#ip or a combination of t#ese terms, t#(s ma2ing t#e relations#ip of eac# person specific. "#(s we say brot#erFs son, fat#erFs brot#er, an! fat#erFs brot#erFs son. %(c# was t#e system of t#e &ryan, %emitic, an! $ralian families, w#ic# came in wit# monogamy. & small amo(nt of classification was s(bse5(ently intro!(ce! by t#e in;ention of common terms; b(t t#e earliest form of t#e system, of w#ic# t#e 'rse an! %can!ina;ian are typical, was p(rely !escripti;e, as ill(strate! by t#e abo;e examples. "#e ra!ical !ifference between t#e two systems res(lte! from pl(ral marriages in t#e gro(p in one case, an! from single marriages between single pairs in t#e ot#er. 6#ile t#e !escripti;e system is t#e same in t#e &ryan, %emitic, an! $ralian families, t#e classificatory #as two !istinct forms. *irst, t#e Malayan, w#ic# is t#e ol!est in point of time; an! secon!, t#e "(ranian an! 9anowanian, w#ic# are essentially ali2e an! were forme! by t#e mo!ification of a pre;io(s Malayan system. & brief reference to o(r own system of consang(inity will bring into notice t#e principles w#ic# (n!erlie all systems. 0elations#ips are of two 2in!s: *irst, by consang(inity or bloo!; secon!, by affinity or marriage. Consang(inity is also of two 2in!s, lineal an! collateral. ineal consang(inity is t#e connection w#ic# s(bsists among persons of w#om one is !escen!e! from t#e ot#er. Collateral consang(inity is t#e connection w#ic# exists between persons w#o are !escen!e! from common ancestors, but not from eac# ot#er. Marriage relations#ips exist, by c(stom. =ot to enter too specially into t#e s(b:ect, it may #e state! generally t#at in e;ery system of consang(inity, w#ere marriage between single pairs exists, t#ere m(st be a lineal an! se;eral collateral lines, t#e latter !i;erging from t#e former. 'ac# person is t#e centre of a gro(p of 2in!re!, t#e 'go from w#om t#e !egree of relations#ip of eac# person is rec2one!, an! to w#om t#e relations#ip ret(rns. His position is necessarily in t#e lineal line, an! t#at line is ;ertical. $pon it may be inscribe!, abo;e an! below #im, #is se;eral ancestors an! !escen!ants in a !irect series from fat#er to son, an! t#ese persons toget#er will constit(te #is rig#t lineal male line. >(t of t#is tr(n2 line emerge t#e se;eral collateral lines, male an! female, w#ic# are n(mbere! o(twar!ly. It will be s(fficient for a perfect 2nowle!ge of t#e system to recogniBe t#e main lineal line, an! a single male an! female branc# of t#e first fi;e collateral lines, incl(!ing t#ose on t#e fat#erFs si!e, an! on t#e mot#erFs si!e, an! procee!ing in eac# case from t#e parent to one only of #is or #er c#il!ren, alt#o(g# it will incl(!e b(t a small portion of t#e 2in!re! of Ego$ eit#er in t#e ascen!ing or !escen!ing series. &n attempt to follow all t#e !i;isions an!

DGG branc#es of t#e se;eral collateral lines, w#ic# increase in n(mber in t#e ascen!ing series in a geometrical ratio, wo(l! not ren!er t#e system more intelligible. "#e first collateral line, male, consists of my brot#er an! #is !escen!ants; an! t#e first, female, of my sister an! #er !escen!ants. "#e secon! collateral line, male, on t#e fat#erFs si!e, consists of my fat#erFs brot#er an! #is !escen!ants; an! t#e secon!, female, of my fat#erFs sister an! #er !escen!ants: t#e secon!, male, on t#e mot#erFs si!e, is compose! of my mot#erFs brot#er an! #is !escen!ants; an! t#e secon!, female, of my mot#erFs sister an! #er !escen!ants. "#e t#ir! collateral line, male, on t#e fat#erFs si!e, consists of my gran!fat#erFs brot#er an! #is !escen!ants; an! t#e t#ir!, female, of my gran!? fat#erFs sister an! #er !escen!ants; on t#e mot#erFs si!e t#e same line, in its male an! female branc#es, is compose! of my gran!mot#erFs brot#er an! sister an! t#eir !escen!ants respecti;ely. It will be notice!, in t#e last case, t#at we #a;e t(rne! o(t of t#e lineal line on t#e fat#erFs si!e into t#at on t#e mot#erFs si!e. "#e fo(rt# collateral line, male an! female, commences wit# great?gran!fat#erFs brot#er an! sister an! great?gran!mot#erFs brot#er an! sister an! t#e fift# collateral line, male an! female, wit# great?great gran!fat#erFs brot#er an! sister; an! wit# great?great?gran!mot#erFs brot#er an! sister, an! eac# line an! branc# is r(n o(t in t#e same manner as t#e t#ir!. "#ese fi;e lines, wit# t#e lineal, embrace t#e great bo!y of o(r 2in!re!, w#o are wit#in t#e range of practical recognition. &n a!!itional explanation of t#ese se;eral lines is re5(ire!. If I #a;e se;eral brot#ers an! sisters, t#ey, wit# t#eir !escen!ants, constit(te as many lines, eac# in? !epen!ent of t#e ot#er, as I #a;e brot#ers an! sisters; b(t altoget#er t#ey form my first collateral line in two branc#es, a male an! a female. In li2e manner, t#e se;eral brot#ers an! sisters of my fat#er, an! of my mot#er, wit# t#eir respecti;e !escen!ants, ma2e (p as many lines, eac# in!epen!ent of t#e ot#er, as t#ere are brot#ers an! sisters; b(t t#ey all (nite to form t#e secon! collateral line in two !i;isions, t#at on t#e fat#erFs si!e, an! t#at on t#e mot#erFs si!e; an! in fo(r principal branc#es, two male, an! two female. If t#e t#ir! collateral line were r(n o(t f(lly, in its se;eral branc#es, it wo(l! gi;e fo(r general !i;isions of ancestors, an! eig#t principal branc#es; an! t#e n(mber of eac# wo(l! increase in t#e same ratio in eac# s(ccessi;e collateral line. 6it# s(c# a mass of !i;isions an! branc#es, embracing s(c# a m(ltit(!e of consang(inei, it will be seen at: once t#at a met#o! of arrangement an! of !escription w#ic# maintaine! eac# !istinct an! ren!ere! t#e w#ole intelligible wo(l! be no or!inary ac#ie;ement. "#is tas2 was perfectly accomplis#e! by t#e 0oman ci;ilians, w#ose met#o! #as been a!opte! by t#e principal '(ropean nations, an! is so entirely simple as to elicit a!miration. [2] "#e !e;elopment of t#e nomenclat(re to t#e re5(isite extent. m(st #a;e been so extremely !iffic(lt t#at it wo(l! probably ne;er #a;e occ(rre! except (n!er t#e stim(l(s of an (rgent necessity, namely, t#e nee! of a co!e of !escents to reg(late t#e in#eritance of property. "o ren!er t#e new form attainable, it was necessary to !iscriminate t#e relations#ips of (ncle an! a(nt, on t#e fat#erFs si!e an! on t#e mot#erFs si!e by concrete terms, an ac#ie;ement ma!e in a fem only of t#e lang(age of man2in!. "#ese terms finally appeare! among t#e 0omans in patruus an! amita$ for (ncle

DG7 an! a(nt on t#e fat#erFs si!e, an! in avunculus an! metertera for t#e same on t#e mot#erFs si!e. &fter t#ese were in;ente!, t#e impro;e! 0oman met#o! of !escribing consang(inei became establis#e!. It #as been a!opte!, in its essential feat(res, by t#e se;eral branc#es of t#e &ryan family, wit# t#e exception of t#e 'rse, t#e %can!ina;ian, an! t#e %la;onic. "#e &ryan system necessarily too2 t#e !escripti;e form w#en t#e "(ranian was aban!one!, as in t#e 'rse. ';ery relations#ip in t#e lineal an! first fi;e collateral lines; to t#e n(mber of one #(n!re! an! more, stan!s in!epen!ent, re5(iring as many !escripti;e p#ases, or t#e gra!(al in;ention of common terms. It will be notice! t#at t#e two ra!ical forms ? t#e classificatory an! !escripti;e ? yiel! nearly t#e exact line of !emarcation between t#e barbaro(s an! ci;iliBe! nations. %(c# a res(lt mig#t #a;e been pre!icte! from t#e law of progress re;eale! by t#ese se;eral forms of marriage an! of t#e family. %ystems of consang(inity are neit#er a!opte!, mo!ifie!, nor lai! asi!e at pleas(re. "#ey are i!entifie! in. t#eir origin wit# organic mo;ements of society w#ic# pro!(ce! a great c#ange of con!ition. 6#en a partic(lar form #a! come into general (se, wit# its nomenclat(re in;ente! an! its met#o!s settle!, it wo(l!, from t#e nat(re of t#e case, be ;ery slow to c#ange. ';ery #(man being is t#e centre of a gro(p of 2in!re!, an! t#erefore e;ery person is compelle! to (se an! to (n!erstan! t#e pre;ailing system. & c#ange in any one of t#ese relations#ips wo(l! be extremely !iffic(lt. "#is ten!ency to permanence is increase! by t#e fact t#at t#ese systems exist by c(stom rat#er t#an legal enactment, as growt#s rat#er t#an artificial creations, an! t#erefore a moti;e to c#ange m(st be as (ni;ersal as t#e (sage. 6#ile e;ery person is a party to t#e system, t#e c#annel of its transmission is t#e bloo!. 3owerf(l infl(ences t#(s existe! to perpet(ate t#e system long after t#e con!itions (n!er w#ic# eac# originate! #a! been mo!ifie! or #a! altoget#er !isappeare!. "#is element of permanence gi;es certainty to concl(sions entirely simple as to elicit a!miration.[2] "#e !e;elopment of t#e nomenclat(re to t#e re5(isite extent. m(st #a;e been so extremely !iffic(lt t#at it wo(l! probably ne;er #a;e occ(rre! except (n!er t#e stim(l(s of an (rgent necessity, namely, t#e nee! of a co!e of !escents to reg(late t#e in#eritance of property. "o ren!er t#e new form attainable, it was necessary to !iscriminate t#e relations#ips of (ncle an! a(nt, on t#e fat#erFs si!e an! on t#e mot#erFs si!e by concrete terms, an ac#ie;ement ma!e in a fem only of t#e lang(age of man2in!. "#ese terms finally appeare! among t#e 0omans in patruus an! amita$ for (ncle an! a(nt on t#e fat#erFs si!e, an! in avunculus an! metertera for t#e same on t#e mot#erFs si!e. &fter t#ese were in;ente!, t#e impro;e! 0oman met#o! of !escribing consang(inei became establis#e!. It #as been a!opte!, in its essential feat(res, by t#e se;eral branc#es of t#e &ryan family, wit# t#e exception of t#e 'rse, t#e %can!ina;ian, an! t#e %la;onic. "#e &ryan system necessarily too2 t#e !escripti;e form w#en t#e "(ranian was aban!one!, as in t#e 'rse. ';ery relations#ip in t#e lineal an! first fi;e collateral lines; to t#e n(mber of one #(n!re! an! more, stan!s in!epen!ent, re5(iring as many !escripti;e p#ases, or t#e gra!(al in;ention of common terms.

DG8 It will be notice! t#at t#e two ra!ical forms ? t#e classificatory an! !escripti;e ? yiel! nearly t#e exact line of !emarcation between t#e barbaro(s an! ci;iliBe! nations. %(c# a res(lt mig#t #a;e been pre!icte! from t#e law of progress re;eale! by t#ese se;eral forms of marriage an! of t#e family. %ystems of consang(inity are neit#er a!opte!, mo!ifie!, nor lai! asi!e at pleas(re. "#ey are i!entifie! in. t#eir origin wit# organic mo;ements of society w#ic# pro!(ce! a great c#ange of con!ition. 6#en a partic(lar form #a! come into general (se, wit# its nomenclat(re in;ente! an! its met#o!s settle!, it wo(l!, from t#e nat(re of t#e case, be ;ery slow to c#ange. ';ery #(man being is t#e centre of a gro(p of 2in!re!, an! t#erefore e;ery person is compelle! to (se an! to (n!erstan! t#e pre;ailing system. & c#ange in any one of t#ese relations#ips wo(l! be extremely !iffic(lt. "#is ten!ency to permanence is increase! by t#e fact t#at t#ese systems exist by c(stom rat#er t#an legal enactment, as growt#s rat#er t#an artificial creations, an! t#erefore a moti;e to c#ange m(st be as (ni;ersal as t#e (sage. 6#ile e;ery person is a party to t#e system, t#e c#annel of its transmission is t#e bloo!. 3owerf(l infl(ences t#(s existe! to perpet(ate t#e system long after t#e con!itions (n!er w#ic# eac# originate! #a! been mo!ifie! or #a! altoget#er !isappeare!. "#is element of permanence gi;es certainty to concl(sions !rawn from t#e facts, an! #as preser;e! an! bro(g#t forwar! a recor! of ancient society w#ic# ot#erwise wo(l! #a;e been entirely lost to #(man 2nowle!ge. It will not be s(ppose! t#at a system so elaborate as t#e "(ranian co(l! be maintaine! in !ifferent, nations an! families of man2in! in absol(te i!enticalness. <i;ergence in minor partic(lars is fo(n!, b(t t#e ra!ical feat(res are, in t#e main, constant. "#e system of consang(inity of t#e "amil people, of %o(t# In!ia, an! t#at of t#e %eneca? Iro5(ois, of =ew 1or2, are still i!entical t#ro(g# two #(n!re! relations#ips; an! application of nat(ral logic to t#e facts of t#e social con!ition wit#o(t a parallel in t#e #istory of t#e #(man min!. "#ere is also a mo!ifie! form of t#e system, w#ic# stan!s alone an! tells its own story. It is t#at of t#e Hin!i, /engali, Marat#i, an! ot#er people of =ort# In!ia, forme! by a combination of t#e &ryan an! "(ranian systems. & ci;iliBe! people, t#e /ra#mins, coalesce! wit# a barbaro(s stoc2, an! lost t#eir lang(age in t#e new ;ernac(lars name!, w#ic# retain t#e grammatical str(ct(re of t#e aboriginal speec#, to w#ic# t#e %ans2rit ga;e ninety per cent of its ;ocables. It bro(g#t t#eir two systems of consang(inity into collision, one fo(n!e! (pon monogamy or syn!yasmy, an! t#e ot#er (pon pl(ral marriages in t#e gro(p, res(lting in a mixe! system. "#e aborigines, w#o prepon!erate! in n(mber, impresse! (pon it a "(ranian c#aracter, w#ile t#e %ans2rit element intro!(ce! s(c# mo!ifications as sa;e! t#e monogamian family from reproac#. "#e %la;onic stoc2 seems to #a;e been !eri;e! from t#is intermixt(re of races. & system of consang(inity w#ic# ex#ibits b(t two p#ases t#ro(g# t#e perio!s of sa;agery an! of barbarism an! pro:ects a t#ir! b(t mo!ifie! form far into t#e perio! of ci;iliBation, manifests an element of permanence calc(late! to arrest attention. It will not be necessary to consi!er t#e patriarc#al family fo(n!e! (pon polygamy. *rom its limite! pre;alence, it ma!e b(t little impression (pon #(man affairs. "#e #o(se life of sa;ages an! barbarians #as not been st(!ie! wit# t#e attention t#e

DG, s(b:ect !eser;es. &mong t#e In!ian tribes of =ort# &merica t#e family was %yn!yasmian; b(t t#ey li;e! generally in :oint?tenement #o(ses an! practice! comm(nism wit#in t#e #o(se#ol!. &s we !escen! t#e scale in t#e !irection of t#e p(nal(an an! consang(ine families, t#e #o(se#ol! gro(p becomes larger, wit# more persons crow!e! toget#er in t#e same apartmentF. "#e coast tribes in IeneB(ela, among w#om t#e family seems to #a;e been p(nal(an, are represente! by t#e !isco;erers as li;ing in bell s#ape! #o(ses, eac# containing a #(n!re! an! sixty persons.[4] H(sban!s an! wi;es li;e! toget#er in a gro(p in t#e same #o(se, an! generally in t#e same apartment. "#e inference is reasonable t#at: t#is mo!e of #o(se life was ;ery general in sa;agery. &n explanation of t#e origin of t#ese systems of consang(inity an! affinity will be offere! in s(ccee!ing c#apters. "#ey will be gro(n!e! (pon t#e forms of marriage an! of t#e family w#ic# pro!(ce! t#em, t#e existence of t#ese forms being ass(me!. If a satisfactory explanation of eac# system is t#(s obtaine!, t#e antece!ent existence of eac# form of marriage an! of t#e family may be !e!(ce! from t#e system it explains. In a final c#apter an attempt will be ma!e to artic(late in a se5(ence t#e principal instit(tions w#ic# #a;e contrib(te! to t#e growt# of t#e family t#ro(g# s(ccessi;e forms. >(r 2nowle!ge of t#e early con!ition of man2in! is still so limite! t#at we m(st ta2e t#e best in!ications attainable. "#e se5(ence to be presente! is, in part, #ypot#etical; b(t it is s(staine! by a s(fficient bo!y of e;i!ence to commen! it to consi!eration. Its complete establis#ment m(st be left to t#e res(lts of f(t(re et#nological in;estigations.

Footnotes
1 )%mit#sonian Contrib(tions to 7nowle!ge,8 ;ol. x;ii ! )3an!ects,8 lib. xxx;iii, title x, <e gra!ib(s, et a! finib(s et nominib(s eor(m: an! )Instit(tes of C(stinian,8 Iib, iii, title ;i, <e gra!ib(s cognationem. " >(r term a(nt is from )amita,8 an! (ncle from )a;(nc(l(s.8 )&;(s,8 gran!fat#er, gi;es )a;(nc(l(s8 by a!!ing t#e !imin(ti;e. It t#erefore signifies a )little gran!fat#er,8 )Matertera8 is s(ppose! to be !eri;e! from )mater8 an! )altera,8 e5(al to anot#er mot#er. # HerreraFs )History of &merica,8 i, D1G, D18, A-8.

Chapter II THE CONSANGUINE FAMILY.

"#e existence of t#e Consang(ine family (nit m(st be pro;e! by ot#er e;i!ence t#an t#e pro!(ction of t#e family itself. &s t#e first an! most ancient, form of t#e instit(tion, it #as cease! to exist e;en among t#e lowest tribes of sa;ages. It belongs to a con!ition of society o(t, of w#ic# t#e least a!;ance! portion of t#e #(man race #a;e emerge!. %ingle instances of t#e marriage of a brot#er an! sister in barbaro(s an! e;en in ci;iliBe! nations #a;e occ(rre! wit#in t#e #istorical perio!, b(t t#is is ;ery !ifferent from t#e intermarriage of a n(mber of t#em in a gro(p, in a state of society in w#ic# s(c# marriages pre!ominate! an! forme! t#e basis of a social

D7H system. "#ere are tribes of sa;ages in t#e 3olynesian an! 3ap(an Islan!s, an! in &(stralia, seemingly not far remo;e! from t#e primiti;e state; #(t t#ey #a;e a!;ance! beyon! t#e con!ition t#e consang(ine family implies. 6#ere, t#en, it may be as2e!, is t#e e;i!ence t#at s(c# a family e;er existe! among man2in!U 6#ate;er proof is a!!(ce! m(st be concl(si;e, ot#erwise t#e proposition is not establis#e!. It is fo(n! in a system of consang(inity an! affinity w#ic# #as o(tli;e! for (nn(mbere! cent(ries t#e marriage c(stoms in w#ic# it originate!, an! w#ic# remains to attest t#e fact, t#at s(c# a family existe! w#en t#e system was forme!. "#at system is t#e Malayan. It !efines t#e relations#ips t#at wo(l! exist in a consang(ine family; an! it !eman!s t#e existence of s(c# a family to acco(nt for its own existence. Moreo;er, it pro;es wit# moral certainty t#e existence of a consang(ine family w#en t#e system was forme!. "#is system, w#ic# is t#e most arc#aic yet !isco;ere!, will now be ta2en (p for t#e p(rpose of s#owing, from its relations#ips, t#e principal facts state!. "#is family, also, is t#e most arc#aic form of t#e instit(tion of w#ic# any 2nowle!ge remains. %(c# a remar2able recor! of t#e con!ition of ancient society wo(l! not #a;e been preser;e! to t#e present time b(t for t#e sing(lar permanence of systems of consang(inity. "#e &ryan system, for example, #as stoo! near t#ree t#o(san! years wit#o(t ra!ical c#ange, an! wo(l! en!(re a #(n!re! t#o(san! years in t#e f(t(re, pro;i!e! t#e monogamian family, w#ose relations#ips it !efines, s#o(l! so long remain. It !escribes t#e relations#ips w#ic# act(ally exist (n!er monogamy, an! is t#erefore incapable of c#ange, so long as t#e family remains as at present constit(te!. 1f a new form of t#e family s#o(l! appear among &ryan nations, it wo(l! not affect t#e present system of consang(inity (ntil after it became (ni;ersal; an! w#ile in t#at case it, mig#t mo!ify t#e system in some partic(lars, it wo(l! not o;ert#row it; (nless t#e new family were ra!ically !ifferent from t#e monogamian. It was precisely t#e same wit# its imme!iate pre!ecessor, t#e "(ranian system, an! before t#at wit# t#e Malayan, t#e pre!ecessor of t#e "(ranian in t#e or!er of !eri;ati;e growt#. &n anti5(ity of (n2nown !(ration may be assigne! to t#e Malayan system w#ic# came in wit# t#e consang(ine family, remaine! for an in!efinite perio! after t#e p(nal(an family appeare!, an! seems to #a;e been !isplace! in ot#er tribes by t#e "(ranian, wit# t#e establis#ment of t#e organiBation into gentes. "#e in#abitants of 3olynesia are incl(!e! in t#e Malayan family. "#eir system of consang(inity #as been calle! t#e Malayan, alt#o(g# t#e Malays proper #a;e mo!ifie! t#eir own in some partic(lars. &mong t#e Hawaiians an! ot#er 3olynesian tribes t#ere still exists in !aily (se a system of, consang(inity w#ic# is gi;en in t#e "able, an! may be prono(nce! t#e ol!est 2nown among man2in!. "#e Hawaiian an! 0ot(man[1] forms are (se! as typical of t#e system. It is t#e simplest, an! t#erefore t#e ol!est form, of t#e classificatory system, an! re;eals t#e primiti;e form on w#ic# t#e "(ranian an! 9anowanian were afterwar!s engrafte!. It is e;i!ent t#at t#e Malayan co(l! not #a;e been !eri;e! from any existing system, beca(se t#ere is none, of w#ic# any conception can be forme!, more elementary. "#e only bloo! relations#ips recogniBe! are t#e primary, w#ic# are fi;e

D71 in n(mber, wit#o(t !isting(is#ing sex. &ll consang(inei, near an! remote, are classifie! (n!er t#ese relation? s#ips into fi;e categories. "#(s, myself, my brot#ers an!. sisters, an! my first, secon!, t#ir!, an! more remote male an! female co(sins, are t#e first gra!e or category. &ll t#ese, wit#o(t !istinction, are my brot#ers an! sisters. "#e wor! cousin$ is #ere (se! in o(r sense, t#e relations#ip being (n2nown in 3olynesia. My fat#er an! mot#er, toget#er wit# t#eir brot#ers an! sisters, an! t#eir first, secon! an! more remote co(sins, are t#e secon! gra!e. &ll t#ese, wit#o(t !istinction, are my parents. My gran!fat#ers an! gran!mot#ers, on t#e fat#erFs si!e an! on t#e mot#erFs si!e, wit# t#eir brot#ers an! sisters, an! t#eir se;eral co(sins are t#e t#ir! gra!e. &ll t#ese are my gran!parent. /elow me, my sons an! !a(g#ters, wit# t#eir se;eral co(sins as before, are t#e fo(rt# gra!e. &ll t#ese, wit#o(t !istinction, are my c#il!ren. My gran!sons an! gran!!a(g#ters, wit# t#eir se;eral co(sins, are t#e fift# gra!e. &ll t#ese in li2e manner are my gran!c#il!ren. Moreo;er, all t#e in!i;i!(als of t#e same gra!e are brot#ers an! sisters to eac# ot#er. In t#is manner all t#e possible 2in!re! of my gi;en person are bro(g#t into fi;e categories; eac# person applying to e;ery ot#er person in t#e same category wit# #imself or #erself t#e same term of relations#ip. 3artic(lar attention is in;ite! to t#e fi;e gra!es of relations in t#e Malayan system, beca(se t#e same classification appears in t#e )=ine 9ra!es of 0elations8 of t#e C#inese, w#ic# are exten!e! so as to incl(!e two a!!itional ancestors an! two a!!itional !escen!ants, as will elsew#ere be s#own. & f(n!amental connection between t#e two systems is t#(s !isco;ere!. "#ere are terms in Hawaiian for gran!parent, 4upuna2 for parent; 'a+ua2 for c#il!, 4ai+ee2 an! for gran!c#il!, 'oopuna. 9en!er is expresse! by a!!ing t#e terms 4ana, for male, an! (aheena$ for female; t#(s, 4upuna 4ana 6 gran!parent male, an! 4upuna$ 9aheena$ gran!parent female. "#ey are e5(i;alent to gran!fat#er, an!. gran!mot#er, an! express t#ese relations#ips in t#e concrete. &ncestors an! !escen!ants, abo;e an! below t#ose name!, are !isting(is#e! n(merically, as first, secon!, t#ir!, w#en it is necessary to be specific; b(t in common (sage 4upuna is applie! to all persons abo;e gran!parent, an! 'oopuna is applie! to all !escen!ants below gran!c#il!. "#e relations#ips of brot#er an! sister are concei;e! in t#e twofol! form of el!er an! yo(nger, an! separate terms are applie! to eac#; b(t it is not carrie! o(t wit# entire completeness. "#(s, in Hawaiian, from w#ic# t#e ill(strations will be ta2en, we #a;e: 'l!er /rot#er, Male %pea2ing, )7ai2(aana.8 *emale %pea2ing, )7ai2(nana.8 1o(nger /rot#er, Male %pea2ing, )7ai2aina.8 *emale %pea2ing, )7ai2(nana.8 'l!er %ister, Male %pea2ing, )7ai2(wa#eena.8 *emale %pea2ing, )7ai2(aana.8 1o(nger %ister, Male %pea2ing, )7ai2(wa#eena.8 *emale %pea2ing, )7ai2aina.8[2] It will be obser;e! C#at a man calls #is el!er brot#er 4ai+uaana$ an! t#at a woman calls #er el!er sister t#e same; t#at a man calls #is yo(nger brot#er 4ai+aina$ an! a woman calls #er yo(nger sister t#e same: #ence t#ese terms are in common gen!er, an! s(ggest t#e same i!ea fo(n! in t#e 7aren system, namely, t#at of pre!ecessor

D7D an! s(ccessor in birt#.[3] & single term is (se! by t#e males for el!er an! yo(nger sister, an! a single term by t#e females for el!er an! yo(nger brot#er. It t#(s appears t#at w#ile a manFs brot#ers are classifie! into el!er an! yo(nger, #is sisters are not, an!, w#ile a womanFs sisters are classifie! into el!er an! yo(nger, #er brot#ers are not. & !o(ble set of terms are t#(s !e;elope!, one of w#ic# is (se! by t#e males an! t#e ot#er by t#e females, a pec(liarity w#ic# reappears in t#e system of a n(mber of 3olynesian tribes. &mong sa;age an!. barbaro(s tribes t#e relations#ips of brot#er an! sister are sel!om concei;e! in t#e abstract. "#e s(bstance of t#e system is containe! in t#e fi;e categories of consang(inei; b(t t#ere are special feat(res to be notice! w#ic# will re5(ire t#e presentation in !etail of t#e first t#ree collateral lines. &fter t#ese are s#own t#e connection of t#e system wit# t#e intermarriage of brot#ers an! sisters, own an! collateral, in a gro(p, will appear in t#e relations#ips t#emsel;es. *irst collateral line. In t#e male branc#, wit# myself a male, t#e c#il!ren of my brot#er, spea2ing as a Hawaiian, are my sons an! !a(g#ters, eac# of t#em calling me fat#er; an! t#e c#il!ren of t#e latter are my gran!c#il!ren, eac# of t#em calling me gran!fat#er. In t#e female branc# my sisterFs c#il!ren are my sons an! !a(g#ters, eac# of t#em calling me fat#er; an! t#eir c#il!ren are my gran!c#il!ren, eac# of t#em calling me gran!fat#er. 6it# myself a female, t#e relations#ips of t#e persons abo;e name! are t#e same in bot# branc#es, wit# correspon!ing c#anges for sex. "#e #(sban!s an! wi;es of t#ese se;eral sons an! !a(g#ters are my sons?in?law an! !a(g#ters?in?law; t#e terms being (se! in common gen!er, an! #a;ing t#e terms for male an! female a!!e! to eac# respecti;ely. %econ! collateral line. In t#e male branc# on t#e fat#erFs si!e my fat#erFs brot#er is my fat#er, an! calls me #is son; #is c#il!ren are my brot#ers an! sisters, el!er or yo(nger; t#eir c#il!ren are my sons an! !a(g#ters; an! t#e c#il!ren of t#e latter are my gran!c#il!ren, eac# of t#em in t#e prece!ing an! s(ccee!ing cases applying to me t#e proper correlati;e. My fat#erFs sister is my mot#er; #er c#il!ren are my brot#ers an! sisters, el!er or yo(nger; t#eir c#il!ren are my sons an! !a(g#ters; an! t#e c#il!ren of t#e latter are my gran!c#il!ren. In t#e same line on t#e mot#erFs si!e my mot#erFs brot#er is my fat#er; #is c#il!ren are my brot#ers an! sisters; t#eir c#il!ren are my sons an! !a(g#ters; an! t#e c#il!ren of t#e latter are my gran!c#il!ren. My mot#erFs sister is my mot#er; #er c#il!ren are my brot#ers an! sisters; t#eir c#il!ren are my sons an! !a(g#ters; an! t#e c#il!ren of t#e later are my gran!c#il!ren. "#e relations#ips of t#e persons name! in all t#e branc#es of t#is an! t#e s(ccee!ing lines are t#e same wit# myself a female. "#e wi;es of t#e se;eral brot#ers, own an! collateral, are my wi;es as well as t#eirs. 6#en a!!ressing eit#er one of t#em, I call #er my wife, employing t#e (s(al term to express t#at connection. "#e #(sban!s of t#ese se;eral women, :ointly s(c# wit# myself, are my brot#ers?in?law. 6it# myself, a female t#e #(sban!s of my se;eral sisters, own an! collateral, are my #(sban!s as well as t#eirs. 6#en a!!ressing eit#er of t#em, I (se t#e common term for #(sban!. "#e wi;es of t#ese

D7A se;eral #(sban!s, w#o are :ointly s(c# wit# myself, are my sisters?in?law. "#ir! collateral line. In t#e male branc# of t#is line on t#e fat#erFs si!e, my gran!fat#erFs brot#er is my gran!fat#er; #is c#il!ren are my fat#ers an! mot#ers; t#eir c#il!ren are my brot#ers an! sisters, el!er or yo(nger; t#e c#il!ren of t#e latter are my sons an! !a(g#ters; an! t#eir c#il!ren are my gran!c#il!ren; My gran!fat#erFs sister is my gran!mot#er; an! #er c#il!ren an! !escen!ants follow in t#e same relations#ips as in t#e last case. In t#e same line on t#e mot#erFs si!e, my gran!mot#erFs brot#er is my gran!fat#er; #is sister is my gran!mot#er; an! t#eir respecti;e c#il!ren an! !escen!ants fall into t#e same categories as t#ose in t#e first branc# of t#is line. "#e marriage relations#ips are t#e same in t#is as in t#e secon! collateral line, t#(s increasing largely t#e n(mber (nite! in t#e bon!s of marriage. &s far as consang(inei can #e trace! in t#e ore remote collateral lines, t#e system, w#ic# is all?embracing, is t#e same in its classifications. "#(s, my great? gran!fat#er in t#e fo(rt# collateral line is my gran!fat#er; #is son is my gran!fat#er also; t#e son of t#e latter is my fat#er; #is son is my brot#er, el!er or yo(nger, an! #is son an! gran!son are my son an! gran!son. It will #e obser;e! t#at t#e se;eral collateral lines are bro(g#t into an! merge! in t#e lineal line, ascen!ing as well as !escen!ing; so t#at t#e ancestors an! !escen!ants of my collateral brot#ers an! sisters become mine as well as t#eirs. "#is is one of t#e c#aracteristics of t#e classificatory system. =one of t#e 2in!re! are lost. *rom t#e simplicity of t#e system it may be seen #ow rea!ily t#e relations#ips of consang(inei are 2nown an! recogniBe!, an! #ow a 2nowle!ge of t#em is preser;e! from generation to generation. & single r(le f(rnis#es an ill(stration: t#e c#il!ren of brot#ers are t#emsel;es brot#ers an! sisters; t#e c#il!ren of t#e latter are brot#ers an! sisters; an! so !ownwar! in!efinitely. It is t#e same wit# t#e c#il!ren an! !escen!ant of sisters, an! of brot#ers an! sisters. &ll t#e members of eac# gra!e are re!(ce! to t#e same le;el in t#eir relations#ips wit#o(t, regar! to nearness or remoteness in n(merical !egrees; t#ose in eac# gra!e stan!ing to Ego in an i!entical relations#ip. It follows, also, t#at 2nowle!ge of t#e n(merical !egrees forme! an integral part of t#e Hawaiian system, wit#o(t w#ic# t#e proper gra!e of eac# person co(l! not be 2nown "#e simple an! !istincti;e c#aracter of t#e system will arrest attention, pointing wit# s(c# !irectness as it !oes, to t#e intermarriage of brot#ers an! sisters, own an! collateral, in a gro(p, as t#e so(rce from w#ence it spr(ng. 3o;erty of lang(age or in!ifference to relations#ips exercise! no infl(ence w#ate;er (pon t#e formation of t#e system, as will appear in t#e se5(el. "#e system, as were !etaile!, is fo(n! in ot#er 3olynesian tribes besi!es t#e Hawaiians an! 0ot(mans, as among t#e Mar5(esas Islan!ers, an! t#e Maoris of =ew Kealan!. It pre;ails, also, among t#e %amoans, 7(saiens, an! 7ingFs Mill Islan!ers of Micronesia[5] an! wit#o(t a !o(bt in e;ery in#abite! islan! of t#e 3acific, except w#ere it ;erges (pon t#e "(ranian. *rom t#is system t#e antece!ent, existence of t#e consang(ine family, wit# t#e 2in!

D7of marriage appertaining t#ereto, is plainly !e!(cible. 3res(mpti;ely it is a nat(ral an! real system, expressing t#e relations#ips w#ic# act(ally existe! w#en t#e system was forme!, as near as t#e parentage of c#il!ren co(l! be 2nown. "#e (sages wit# respect to marriage w#ic# t#en pre;aile! may not pre;ail at t#e present time. "o s(stain t#e !e!(ction it is not necessary t#at t#ey s#o(l!. %ystems of consang(inity, as before state!, are fo(n! to remain s(bstantially (nc#ange! an! in f(ll ;igo(r long after t#e marriage c(stoms in w#ic# t#ey originate! #a;e in part or w#olly passe! away. "#e small n(mber of in!epen!ent systems of consang(inity create! !(ring t#e exten!e! perio! of #(man experience is s(fficient proof of t#eir permanence. "#ey are fo(n! not -o c#ange except in connection wit# great epoc#s of progress. *or t#e p(rpose of explaining t#e origin of t#e Malayan system, from t#e nat(re of !escents, we are at liberty to ass(me t#e antece!ent intermarriage of own an! collateral brot#ers an! sisters in a gro(p; an! if it is t#en fo(n! t#at t#e principal relation? s#ips recogniBe! are t#ose t#at wo(l! act(ally exist (n!er t#is form of marriage, t#en t#e system itself becomes e;i!ence concl(si;e of t#e existence of s(c# marriages. It is plainly inferable t#at t#e system originate! in pl(ral marriages of consang(inei, incl(!ing own brot#ers an! sisters; in fact commence! wit# t#e intermarriage of t#e latter, an! gra!(ally enfol!e! t#e collateral brot#ers an! sisters as t#e range of t#e con:(gal system wi!ene!. In co(rse of time t#e e;ils of t#e first form of marriage came to be percei;e!, lea!ing, if not to its !irecte! abolition, to a preference for wi;es beyon! t#is !egree. &mong t#e &(stralians i- was permanently abolis#e! by t#e organiBation into classes, an! more wi!ely among t#e "(ranian tribes by t#e organiBation into gentes. It is impossible to explain t#e system as a nat(ral growt# (pon any ot#er #ypot#esis t#an t#e one name!, since t#is form of marriage alone can f(rnis# a 2ey to its interpretation. In t#e consang(ine family, t#(s constit(te!, t#e #(sban!s li;e! in polygyny, an! t#e wi;es in polyan!ry, w#ic# are seen to be as ancient as #(man society. %(c# a family was neit#er (nnat(ral nor remar2able. It wo(l! be !iffic(lt to s#ow any ot#er possible beginning of t#e family in t#e primiti;e perio!. Its long contin(ance in a partial form among t#e tribes of man2in! is t#e greater ca(se for s(rprise; for all traces of it #a! not !isappeare! among t#e Hawaiians at t#e epoc# of t#eir !isco;ery. "#e explanation of t#e origin of t#e Malayan system gi;en in t#is c#apter, an! of t#e "(ranian an! 9anowanian gi;en in t#e next, #a;e been 5(estione! an! !enie! by Mr. Co#n *, Mc ennan, a(t#or of )3rimiti;e Marriage.8 I see no occasion, #owe;er, to mo!ify t#e ;iews #erein presente!, w#ic# are t#e same s(bstantially as t#ose gi;en in )%ystems of Consang(inity,8 etc. /(t I as2 t#e attention of t#e rea!er to t#e interpretation #ere repeate!, an! to a note at t#e en! of C#apter II, in w#ic# Mr. Mc ennanFs ob:ections are consi!ere!. If t#e recogniBe! relations#ips in t#e Malayan system are now teste! by t#is form of marriage, it will #e fo(n! t#at t#ey rest (pon t#e intermarriage of own an! collateral brot#ers an! sisters in a gro(p. It s#o(l! be remembere! t#at t#e relations#ips w#ic# grow o(t of t#e family organiBation are of two 2in!s: t#ose of bloo! !etermine! by !escents, an! t#ose of affinity !etermine! by marriage. %ince in t#e consang(ine family t#ere are two

D74 !istinct gro(ps of persons, one of fat#ers an! one of mot#ers, t#e affiliation of t#e c#il!ren to bot# gro(ps wo(l! be so strong t#at t#e !istinction between relations#ips by bloo! an! by affinity wo(l! not be recogniBe! in t#e system in e;ery case. I. &ll t#e c#il!ren of my se;eral brot#ers, myself a male, are my sons an! !a(g#ters. 0eason: %pea2ing as a Hawaiian, all t#e wi;es of my se;eral brot#ers are my wi;es as well as t#eirs. &s it wo(l! be impossible for me to !isting(is# my own c#il!ren from t#ose of my brot#ers, if I call my one my c#il!, I m(st call t#em all my c#il!ren. >ne is as li2ely to be mine as anot#er. II. &ll t#e gran!c#il!ren of my se;eral brot#ers are my gran!c#il!ren. 0eason: "#ey are t#e c#il!ren of my sons an! !a(g#ters. III. 6it# myself a female t#e foregoing relations#ips are t#e same. "#is is p(rely a 5(estion of relations#ip by marriage. My se;eral brot#ers being my #(sban!s, t#eir c#il!ren by ot#er wi;es wo(l! be my step?c#il!ren, w#ic# relations#ip being (nrecogniBe!, t#ey nat(rally fall into t#e category of my sons an! !a(g#ters. >t#erwise t#ey wo(l! pass wit#o(t t#e system. &mong o(rsel;es a step?mot#er is calle! mot#er, an! a step?son a son. II. &ll t#e c#il!ren of my se;eral sisters, own an! collateral, myself a male, are my sons an! !a(g#ters. 0eason: &ll my sisters are my wi;es, as well as t#e wi;es of my se;eral brot#ers. I. &ll t#e gran!c#il!ren of my se;eral sisters are my gran!c#il!ren. 0eason: "#ey are t#e c#il!ren of my sons an! !a(g#ters. II. &ll t#e c#il!ren of my se;eral sisters, myself a female, are my sons an! !a(g#ters. 0eason: "#e #(sban!s of my sisters are my #(sban!s as well as t#eirs. "#is !ifference, #owe;er, exists: I can !isting(is# my own c#il!ren from t#ose of my sisterFs, to t#e latter of w#om I am a step?mot#er. /(t since t#is relations#ip is not !iscriminate!, t#ey fall into t#e category of my sons an! !a(g#ters. >t#erwise t#ey wo(l! fail wit#o(t t#e system. III. &ll t#e c#il!ren of se;eral own brot#ers are brot#ers an! sisters to eac# ot#er. 0eason: "#ese brot#ers are t#e #(sban!s of all t#e mot#ers of t#ese c#il!ren. "#e c#il!ren can !isting(is# t#eir own mot#ers, b(t not t#eir fat#ers, w#erefore, as to t#e former, a part are own brot#ers an! sisters, an! step?brot#ers an! step?sisters to t#e remain!er; b(t as to t#e latter, t#ey are probable brot#ers an! sisters. *or t#ese reasons t#ey nat(rally fall into t#is category.

D7G IIII. "#e c#il!ren of t#ese brot#ers an! sisters are also brot#ers an! sisters to eac# ot#er; t#e c#il!ren of t#e latter are brot#ers an! sisters again, an! t#is relations#ip contin(es !ownwar! among t#eir !escen!ants in!efinitely. It is precisely t#e same wit# t#e c#il!ren an! !escen!ants of se;eral own sisters, an! of se;eral brot#ers an! sisters. &n infinite series is t#(s create!, w#ic# is a f(n!amental part of t#e system. "o acco(nt for t#is series it m(st be f(rt#er ass(me! t#at t#e marriage relation exten!e! w#ere;er t#e relations#ip of brot#er an! sister was recogniBe! to exist; eac# brot#er #a;ing as many wi;es as #e #a! sisters, own or collateral, an! eac# sister #a;ing as many #(sban!s as s#e #a! brot#ers, own or collateral. Marriage an! t#e family seem to form in t#e gra!e or category, an! to be coextensi;e wit# it. %(c# apparently was t#e beginning of t#at st(pen!o(s con:(gal system w#ic# #as before been a n(mber of times a!;erte! to. IL. &ll t#e brot#ers of my fat#er are my fat#ers; an! all t#e sisters of my mot#er are my mot#ers. 0easons, as in I, III, an! II. L. &ll t#e brot#ers of my mot#er are my fat#ers. 0eason: "#ey are my mot#erFs #(sban!s. LI. &ll t#e sisters of my mot#er are my mot#ers. 0easons, as in II. LII, &ll t#e c#il!ren of my collateral brot#ers an! sisters are, wit#o(t !istinction, my sons an! !a(g#ters. 0easons, as in I, III, II, II. LIII. &ll t#e c#il!ren of t#e latter are my gran!?c#il!ren. 0easons as in II. LII. &ll t#e brot#ers an! sisters of my gran!fat#er an! gran!mot#er, on t#e fat#erFs si!e an! on t#e mot#erFs si!e, are my gran!fat#ers an! gran!mot#ers. 0eason: "#ey are t#e fat#ers an! mot#ers of my fat#er an! mot#er. ';ery relations#ip recogniBe! (n!er t#e system is t#(s explaine! from t#e nat(re of t#e consang(ine family, fo(n!e! (pon t#e intermarriage of brot#ers an! sisters, awn an! collateral, in a gro(p. 0elations#ips on t#e fat#erFs si!e are followe! as near as t#e parentage of c#il!ren co(l! be 2nown, probable fat#ers being treate! as act(al fat#ers. 0elations#ips on t#e mot#erFs si!e are !etermine! by t#e principle of affinity, step?c#il!ren being regar!e! as act(al c#il!ren. "(rning next to t#e marriage relations#ips, confirmatory res(lts are obtaine!, as t#e following table will s#ow:

%ongan. Male spea1ing+

My /rot#erFs 6ife, My 6ifeFs %ister, $no#o, My 6ife $no#o, My 6ife.

Hawaiian.
6a#eena, My 6ife. 6a#eena, My 6ife.

D77

)e ale Spea1ing
My H(sban!Fs /rot#er, My *at#erFs /ot#erFs %onFs 6ife My Mot#erFs %isterFs %onFs 6ife, $no#o, My H(sban!. 7ane, My H(sban!. 6a#eena, My 6ife 6a#eena, My 6ife.

Male Spea1ing
$no#o, My 6ife. $no#o, My 6ife.

*emale spea2ing My *at#erFs /rot#erFs $no#o, My H(sban!. 7ai2oe2a, My /rot#er? <a(g#terFs H(sban!, in? law. My Mot#erFs %isterFs $no#o, My H(sban!. 7ai2oe2a, My /rot#er? <a(g#terFs H(sban!, in? law. 6#ere;er t#e relations#ip of wife is fo(n! in t#e collateral line, t#at of #(sban! m(st be recogniBe! in t#e lineal, an! con;ersely. [6] 6#en t#is system of consang(inity an! affinity first came into (se t#e relations#ips, w#ic#: are still preser;e!, co(l! #a;e been none ot#er t#an t#ose w#ic# act(ally existe!, w#ate;er may #a;e afterwar!s occ(rre! in marriage (sages. *rom t#e e;i!ence embo!ie! in t#is system of consang(inity t#e !e!(ction is ma!e t#at t#e consang(ine family, as !efine!, existe! among t#e ancestors of t#e 3olynesian tribes w#en t#e system was forme!. %(c# a form of t#e family is necessary to ren!er an interpretation of t#e system possible. Moreo;er, it f(rnis#es an interpretation of e;ery relations#ip wit# reasonable exactness. "#e following obser;ation of Mr. >scar 3esc#el is !eser;ing of attention: )"#at at any time an! in any place t#e c#il!ren of t#e same mot#er #a;e propagate! t#emsel;es sex(ally, for any long perio!, #as been ren!ere! especially incre!ible, since it #as been establis#e! t#at e;en in t#e case of organisms !e;oi! of bloo!, s(c# as t#e plants, reciprocal fertiliBation of t#e !escen!ants of t#e same parents is to a great extent impossible.8[7] It m(st be remembere! t#at t#e consang(ine gro(p (nite! in t#e marriage relation was not restricte! to own brot#ers an! sisters; b(t it incl(!e! collateral brot#ers an! sisters as well. "#e larger t#e gro(p recogniBing t#e marriage relation, t#e less t#e e;il of close inter?bree!ing. *rom general consi!erations t#e ancient existence of s(c# a family was probable. "#e nat(ral an! necessary relations of t#e consang(ine family to t#e p(nal(an, of t#e p(nal(an to t#e %yn!yasmian, an! of t#e %yn!yasmian to t#e monogamian, eac# pres(pposing its pre!ecessor, lea! !irectly to t#is concl(sion. "#ey stan! to eac# ot#er in a logical se5(ence, an! toget#er stretc# across se;eral et#nical perio!s from sa;agery to ci;iliBation. In li2e manner t#e t#ree great systems of consang(inity, w#ic# are connecte! wit# t#e t#ree ra!ical forms of t#e family, stan! to eac# ot#er in a similarly connecte! series, r(nning parallel wit# t#e former, an! in!icating not less plainly a similar line of #(man progress from sa;agery to ci;iliBation. "#ere are reasons for concl(!ing t#at t#e remote ancestors of t#e &ryan, %emitic, an! $ralian families possesse! a system i!entical wit# t#e Malayan w#en in t#e swage state, w#ic# was finally mo!ifie! into t#e "(ranian after t#e establis#ment of t#e gentile organiBation, an! t#en o;ert#rown w#en t#e monogamian family appeare! intro!(cing t#e &ryan %ystem of consang(inity.

D78 =otwit#stan!ing t#e #ig# c#aracter of t#e ancient existence of t#e consang(ine family among t#e Hawaiians w#ic# s#o(l! not be o;erloo2e!. Its antece!ent existence is ren!ere! probably by t#e con!ition of society in t#e %an!wic# Islan!s w#en it first became t#oro(g#ly 2nown. &t t#e time t#e &merican missions were establis#e! (pon t#ese Islan!s +18DH., a state of society was fo(n! w#ic# appalle! t#e missionaries. "#e relations of t#e sexes an! t#eir marriage c(stoms w#ic# existe! was t#eir c#ief astonis#ment. "#ey were s(!!enly intro!(ce! to a p#ase of ancient society w#ere t#e monogamian family was (n2nown, w#ere t#e %yn!yasmian family was (n2nown; b(t, in t#e place of t#ese, an! wit#o(t (n!erstan!ing t#e organism, t#ey fo(n! t#e p(nal(an family, wit# own brot#ers an! sisters not entirely excl(!e!, in w#ic# t#e males were li;ing in polygyny, an! t#e females in polyan!ry. It seeme! to t#em t#at t#ey #a! !isco;ere! t#e lowest le;el of #(man !egra!ation, not to say of !epra;ity. /(t t#e innocent Hawaiians, w#o #a! not been able to a!;ance t#emsel;es o(t of sa;agery, were li;ing, no !o(bt respectably an! mo!estly for sa;ages (n!er c(stoms an! (sages w#ic# to t#em #a! t#e force of laws. It is probable t#at, t#ey were li;ing as ;irt(o(sly in t#eir fait#f(l obser;ance, as t#ese excellent, missionaries were in t#e performance of t#eir own. "#e s#oc2 t#e latter experience! from t#eir !isco;eries expresses t#e profo(n!ness of t#e expanse w#ic# separates ci;iliBe! from sa;age man. "#e #ig# moral sense an! refine! sensibilities, w#ic# #a! been a growt# of t#e ages, were bro(g#t face to face wit# t#e feeble moral sense an! t#e coarse sensibilities of a sa;age man of all t#ese perio!s ago. &s a contrast it was total an! complete. "#e 0e;. Hiram /ing#am, one of t#ese ;eteran missionaries, #as gi;en (s an excellent #istory of t#e %an!wic# Islan!s, fo(n!e! (pon original in;estigations, in w#ic# #e pict(res t#e people as practising t#e s(m of #(man abominations. )3olygamy, implying pl(rality of #(sban!s an! wi;es,8 #e obser;es, )fornication, a!(ltery, incest, infant m(r!er, !esertion of #(sban! an! wi;es, parents an! c#il!ren; sorcery, co;eto(sness, an! oppression extensi;ely pre;aile!, an! seem #ar!ly to #a;e been forbi!!en by t#eir religion.8 [8] 3(nal(an marriage an! t#e p(nal(an family !ispose of t#e principal c#arges in t#is gra;e in!ictment, an! lea;e t#e Hawaiians a c#ance at a moral c#aracter. "#e existence of morality, e;en among sa;ages, m(st be recogniBe!, alt#o(g# low in type; for t#ere ne;er co(l! #a;e been a time in #(man experience w#en t#e principle of morality !i! not exist. 6a2ea, t#e eponymo(s ancestor of t#e Hawaiians, accor!ing to Mr. /ing#am, is sai! to #a;e marrie! #is el!est !a(g#ter. In t#e time of t#ese missionaries brot#ers an! sisters marrie! wit#o(t reproac#. )"#e (nion of brot#er an! sister in t#e #ig#est, ran2s,8 #e f(rt#er remar2s, )became fas#ionable, an! contin(e! (ntil t#e re;eale! will of 9o! was ma!e 2nown to t#em.8 [9] It is not sing(lar t#at t#e intermarriage of brot#ers an! sisters s#o(l! #a;e s(r;i;e! from t#e consang(ine family into t#e p(nal(an in some cases, in t#e %an!wic# Islan!s, beca(se t#e people #a! not attaine! to t#e gentile organiBation, an! beca(se t#e p(nal(an family was a growt# o(t of t#e consang(ine not yet entirely cons(mmate!. &lt#o(g# t#e family was s(bstantially p(nal(an, t#e system of consang(inity remaine! (nc#ange!, as it came in wit# t#e consang(ine family, wit# t#e exception of certain marriage relations#ips. It is not probable t#at t#e act(al family, among t#e Hawaiians, was as large as t#e

D7, gro(p (nite! in t#e marriage relation. =ecessity wo(l! compel its s(b!i;ision into smaller gro(ps for t#e proc(rement of s(bsistence, an! for m(t(al protection; b(t, eac# smaller family wo(l! be a miniat(re of t#e gro(p. It is not improbable t#at in!i;i!(als passe! at pleas(re from one of t#ese s(b!i;isions into anot#er in t#e p(nal(an as well as consang(ine family, gi;ing rise to t#at apparent !esertion by #(sban!s an! wi;es of eac# ot#er, an! by parents of t#eir c#il!ren, mentione! by Mr. /ing#am. Comm(nism in li;ing m(st, of necessity, #a;e pre;aile! bot# m t#e consang(ine an! in t#e p(nal(an family, beca(se it was a re5(irement of t#eir con!ition. It still pre;ails generally among sa;age an! barbaro(s tribes. & brief reference s#o(l! be ma!e to t#e )=ine 9ra!es of 0elations of t#e C#inese.8 &n ancient C#inese a(t#or remar2s as follows: )&ll men born into t#e worl! #a;e nine ran2s of relations. My own generation is one gra!e, my fat#erFs is one, t#at of my gran!fat#er is one, t#at of my gran!fat#erFs fat#er is one, an! t#at of my gran!fat#erFs gran!fat#er is one; t#(s, abo;e me are fo(r gra!es: My sonFs generation is one, an! t#at of my gran!sonFs is one, t#at of my gran!sonFs son is one, an! t#at of my gran!sonFs gran!son is one; t#(s, below me are fo(r gra!es; incl(!ing myself in t#e estimate, t#ere are, in all nine gra!es. "#ese are bret#ren, an! alt#o(g# eac# gra!e belongs to a !ifferent, #o(se or family, yet t#ey are all my relations, an! t#ese are t#e nine gra!es of relations.8 )"#e !egrees of 2in!re! in a family are li2e t#e streamlets of a fo(ntain, or t#e branc#es of a tree; alt#o(g# t#e streams !iffer in being more or less remote, an! t#e branc#es in being more or less near, yet t#ere is b(t one tr(n2 an! one fo(ntain #ea!.8[10] "#e Hawaiian system of consang(inity realiBes t#e nine gra!es of relations +concei;ing t#em re!(ce! to fi;e by stri2ing off t#e two (pper an! t#e two lower members. more perfectly t#an t#at of t#e C#inese at t#e present time. [11] 6#ile t#e latter #as c#ange! t#ro(g# t#e intro!(ction of "(ranian elements, an! still more t#ro(g# special a!!ition to !isting(is# t#e se;eral collateral lines, t#e former #as #el!, p(re an! simple, to t#e primary gra!es w#ic# pres(mpti;ely were all t#e C#inese possesse! originally. It is e;i!ent t#at consang(inei, in t#e C#inese as in t#e Hawaiian, are generaliBe! into categories by generations; all collaterals of t#e same gra!e being brot#ers an! sisters to eac# ot#er. Moreo;er, marriage an! t#e family are concei;e! as forming wit#in t#e gra!e, an!. confine!, so far as #(sban!s an! wi;es are concerne!, wit#in its limits. &s explaine! by t#e Hawaiian categories it is perfectly intelligible. &t t#e same time it in!icates an. anterior con!itions among t#e remote ancestors of t#e C#inese, of w#ic# t#is fragment preser;es a 2nowle!ge, precisely analogo(s to t#at reflecte! by t#e Hawaiian. In ot#er wor!s, it in!icate! t#e presence of t#e p(nal(an family w#en t#ese gra!es were forme!, of w#ic# t#e consang(ine was a necessary pre!ecessor. In t#e )"imae(s8 of 3lato t#ere is a s(ggesti;e recognition of t#e same fi;e primary gra!es of relation. &ll consang(inei in t#e I!eal 0ep(blic were to fall into fi;e categories, in w#ic# t#e women were to be in common as wi;es, an! t#e c#il!ren in common as to parents. )/(t #ow abo(t t#e procreation of c#il!ren,8 %ocrates says to "imae(s. )"#is, per#aps, yo( easily remember, on acco(nt of t#e no;elty of t#e proposal; for we or!ere! t#at marriage (nions an! c#il!ren s#o(l! be in common to

D8H all persons w#atsoe;er, special care being ta2en also t#at no one s#o(l! be able to !isting(is# #is own c#il!ren in!i;i!(ally, b(t all consi!er all t#eir 2in!re! regar!ing t#ose of an e5(al age, an! in t#e prime of life, as t#eir brot#ers an! sisters, t#ose prior to t#em, an! yet f(rt#er bac2 as t#eir parents an! gran!sires, an! t#ose below t#em, as t#eir c#il!ren an! gran!c#il!ren.8 [12] 3lato (n!o(bte!ly was familiar wit# Hellenic an! 3elasgian tra!itions not 2nown to (s, w#ic# reac#e! far bac2 into t#e perio! of barbarism, an! re;eale! traces of a still earlier con!ition of t#e 9recian tribes. His i!eal family may #a;e been !eri;e! from t#ese !elineations, a s(pposition far more probable t#an t#at it was a p#ilosop#ical !e!(ction. It will be notice! t#at #is fire gra!es of relations are precisely t#e same as t#e Hawaiian; t#at t#e family was to form in eac# gra!e w#ere t#e relations#ip was t#at of brot#ers an! sisters; an! t#at #(sban!s an! wi;es were to be in common in t#e gro(p. *inally, it will be percei;e! t#at t#e state of society in!icate! by t#e consang(ine family points wit# logical !irectness to an anterior con!ition of promisc(o(s interco(rse. "#ere seems to be no escape from t#is concl(sion, alt#o(g# 5(estione! by so eminent a writer as Mr. <arwin. [13] It is not probable t#at, promisc(ity in t#e primiti;e perio! was long contin(e! e;en in t#e #or!e; beca(se t#e latter wo(l! brea2 (p into smaller gro(ps for s(bsistence, an! fall into consang(ine families. "#e most t#at can safely be claime! (pon t#is !iffic(lt 5(estion is t#at t#e consang(ine family was t#e first organiBe! form of society, an! t#at it was necessarily an impro;ement (pon t#e pre;io(s (norganiBe! state, w#ate;er t#at state may #a;e been. It fo(n! man2in! at t#e bottom of t#e scale, from w#ic#, as a starting point, an! t#e lowest 2nown, we may ta2e (p t#e #istory of #(man progress, an! trace it t#ro(g# t#e growt# of !omestic instit(tions, in;entions, an! !isco;eries, from sa;agery to ci;iliBation. /y no c#ain of e;ents can it be s#own more conspic(o(sly t#an in t#e growt# of t#e i!ea of t#e family t#ro(g# s(ccessi;e forms. 6it# t#e existence of t#e consang(ine family establis#e!, of w#ic# t#e proofs a!!(ce! seem to be s(fficient, t#e remaining families are easily !emonstrate!.

Footnotes
1 "#e 0ot(man is #erein for t#e first time p(blis#e!. It was wor2e! o(t by t#e 0e;. Co#n >sborn, 6esleyan missionary at 0ot(ma, an! proc(re! an! forwar!e! to t#e a(t#or by t#e 0e;. orimer *ison, of %y!ney, &(stralia. ! a as in ale; a as a in fat#er; a as a in at; i as i in it; u as? oo in foo!. " )%ystems of Consang(inity,8 loc. cit+ p. --4. # 1b, pp. 4D4, 47A. $ ) %ystems of Consang(inity,8 etc. 1, c., "able iii, pp. 4-D, 47A. % &mong t#e 7afirs of %o(t# &frica, t#e wife of my fat#erFs brot#erFs son, of my fat#erFs sisterFs son, of my mot#erFs brot#erFs son, an! of my mot#erFs sisterFs son, are all ali2e my wi;es, as well as t#eirs, as appears by t#eir system of consang(inity.

D81
& )0aces of Man,8 &ppletonFs e!. 187G, p. DAD. ' /ing#amFs )%an!wic# Islan!s,8 Hartfor! e!., 18-7, p. D1. ( lb., p. DA. 1) )%ystems of Consang(inity,8 etc., p. -14. 11 lb., p. -AD, w#ere t#e C#inese system is presente! in f(ll. 1! )"imae(s,8 c. ii, <a;isFs trans. 1" )<escent of Man,8 ii, AGH.

)or Hawaiian Syste appended.

'< grand+ M<
<escription of persons 1 D A 4 G 7 8 , 1H 11 1D 1A 114 My 9 gran!fat#er My 9 gran!fat#erFs brot#er My 9 gran!fat#erFs sister My 9 gran!mot#er My 9 gran!mot#erFs sister My gran!fat#er My gran!mot#er My fat#er My mot#er My son My !a(g#ter My gran!son My gran!!a(g#ter My 9 gran!son My 9 gran!!a(g#ter

of )a ily Relationship+ see the %ables

%ystem of 0elations#ip of t#e Hawaiians an! 0omans ale+ M sp< ale spea1ing )< fe ale+ ) sp< fe ale spea1ing+
"ranslation /y 0e;. Co#n >sborne 0elations#ip in 0oman Ma?pi?ga fa Ma?pi?ga fa Ma?pi?ga fa?#onF?i Ma?pi?ga fa?#onF?i Ma?pi?ga fa?#onF?i Ma?pi?ga f( Ma?pi?ga fa?#onF?i >i?fa #onF?i >i?#onF?i eF?a?fa eF?e?#onF?i Ma?pi?ga fa Mai?pi?ga fa Mai?pi?ga fa Mai?pi?ga?#onF?i "ranslation /y Hon. "#omas Miller 0elations#ip in Hawaiian 7(?p(Fna 7(?p(Fna 7(?p(Fna 7(?p(Fna 7(?p(Fna 7(?p(Fna 7(?p(Fna Ma?2(F?a 2aF ?na Ma?2(?a?wa? #eeF?na 7aiF?2ee?2aF?a 7aiF?2ee?wa? #eeF?na Moo?p(F?na 2aF? na Moo?p(F?na wa? #eeF?na Moo?p(F?na?2aF? na Moo?p(F?na?wa? #eeF?na

My gran!parent My gran!parent My gran!parent My gran!parent My gran!parent My gran!parent My gran!parent My parent, M My 3arent * My c#il!, M My c#il!, * My gran!c#il!, M M gran!c#il!, * My gran!c#il!, M My gran!c#il!, *

My gran!parent, M My gran!parent, M My gran!parent, * My gran!parent, * My gran!parent, * My gran!parent, M My gran!parent, * My fat#er My mot#er My c#il! M My c#il! * My gran!c#il! M My gran!c#il! * My gran!c#il! M My gran!c#il! *

D8D
1G 17 18 1, DH D1 DD DA DD4 DG D7 D8 D, AH A1 AD AA AA4 AG A7 A8 A, -H -1 My 9 9 gran!son My 9 9 gran!!a(g#ter My ol!er brot#er +M sp. My ol!er brot#er +* sp. My ol!er sister +M sp. My ol!er sister +* sp. My yo(nger brot#er +M sp. My yo(nger brot#er +* sp. My yo(nger sister +M sp. My yo(nger sister +* sp. My brot#erFs son +M sp. My brot#erFs wife +M sp. My brot#erFs !a(g#ter +M sp. My brot#erFs !a(g#terFs #(sban! +M sp. My brot#erFs gran!son +M sp. My brot#erFs gran!?!a(g#ter +M sp. My brot#erFs 9 gran!son +M sp. My brot#erFs gran!?!a(g#ter My sisterFs son My sisterFs sonFs wife +M sp. My sisterFs !a(g#ter My sisterFs !a(g#terFs #(sban! My sisterFs gran!son My sisterFs gran!?!a(g#ter +M sp. My sisterFs 9 gran!son +M sp. My sisterFs 9 Moo?p(F?naF?2aF? na Moo?p(F?na?wa? #eeF?na 7ai?2(?a?aF?na 7ai?2(?naF?na 7ai?2(?wa?#eeF? na 7ai?2a?IF?na 7ai?2(?naF?na 7ai?2(?wa?#eeF? na 7ai?2a?IF?na 7aiF?2ee?2aF?na H(?noF?na 7aiF?2ee?wa? #eeF?na H(?noF?na Moo?p(F?na?2aF? na Moo?p(F?naF?wa? #eeF?na Moo?p(F?na?2aF? na Moo?p(F?na?wa? #eeF?na 7aiF?2ee?2aF?na H(?noF?na 7ai?2ee?wa?#eeF? na H?(?noF?na Moo?p(F?na?2aF? na Moo?p(F?na?wa? #eeF?na Moo?p(F?na?2aF? na Moo?p(F?na?wa? My gran!c#il!, M My gran!c#il!, * My brot#er, ol!er My brot#er, ol!er My sister, ol!er 7ai?2(?naF?na My brot#er, yo(nger My brot#er, yo(nger My sister, yo(nger My sister, yo(nger My c#il!, M My son?in?law My c#il!, * My !a(g#ter?in?law My gran!c#il!, M My gran!c#il!, * My gran!c#il!, M My gran!c#il!, * My c#il!, M My !a(g#ter?in?law My c#il!, * My son?in?law My gran!c#il!, M My gran!c#il!, * My gran!c#il!, M My gran!c#il!, * Ma?pi?ga fa Mai?pi?ga?#onF?i %a?si?gi %agF?;e?;enF?i %ag?#onF?i My brot#er, ol!er %a?si?gi %agF?;e?;enF?i %ag?#onF?i %a?si?gi eF?eF?faF eF?e?#onF?i eF?e?#onF?i eF?eF?faF Ma?pi?ga fa ) #onF?i Ma?pi?ga fa ) #onF?i eF?eF?faF eF?e?#onF?i eF?e?#onF?i eF?eF?faF Ma?pi?ga fa Ma?pi?ga?#onF?i Ma?pi?ga fa Ma?pi?ga?#onF?i My gran!c#il! M My gran!c#il! * My brot#er, ol!er My brot#er, ol!er My sister, ol!er %agF?;e?;enF?i My brot#er, yo(nger My brot#er, yo(nger My sister, yo(nger My sister, yo(nger My c#il!, M My c#il!, * My c#il!, * My c#il!, M My gran!c#il! M My gran!c#il! * My gran!c#il! M My gran!c#il! * My c#il!, M My c#il!, * My c#il!, * My c#il!, M My gran!c#il!, M My gran!c#il!, * My gran!c#il!, M My gran!c#il!, *

D8A
gran!?!a(g#ter +M sp. My brot#erFs son +* sp. My brot#erFs sonF wife +* sp. My brot#erFs !a(g#ter +* sp. My brot#erFs !a(g#terFs #(sban! * sp My brot#erFs gran!son * sp My brot#erFs gran!?!a(g#ter Z My brot#erFs 9 gran!son * sp My brot#erFs 9 gran!?!a(g#ter * sp My sisterFs son * sp My sisterF sonFs wife My sisterFs !a(g#ter My sisterFs !a(g#terFs #(sban! My sisterFs gran!son My sisterFs gran!?!a(g#ter My sisterFs 9 gran!son My sisterFs 9 gran!?!a(g#ter My fat#erFs brot#er My fat#erFs brot#erFs wife My fat#erFs brot#erFs son +ol!er, M sp. My fat#erFs brot#erFs son +yo(nger, M sp. My fat#erFs brot#erFs sonFs wife My fat#erFs brot#erFs !a(g#ter +ol!er M sp. My fat#erFs #eeF?na 7aiF?2ee?2aF?na H(?noF?na 7aiF?2ee?wa? #eeF?na H(?noF?na Moo?p(F?na?2aF? na Moo?p(F?na?wa? #eeF?na 3oo?p(F?na?2aF? na Moo?p(F?na?wa? #eeF?na 7aiF?2ee?2a?na H(?noF?na 7iF?2ee?wa?#eeF? na H(?noF?na Moo?p(F?na?2aF? na Moo?p(F?na?wa? #eeF?na Moo?p(F?na?2aF? na Moo?p(F?na?wa? #eeF?na Ma?2(F?a?2aF?na Ma?2(F?a?wa? #eeF?na 7aiF?2(?a?aF?na 7aiF?2a?i?na 6a?#eeF?na 7aiF?2(?wa?#eeF? na 7aiF?2(?wa?#eeF? My c#il!, M My !a(g#ter?in law My c#il!, * My son?in?law My gran!c#il!, M My gran!c#il!, * My gran!c#il!, M My gran!c#il!, * My c#il!, M <a(g#ter?in law My c#il!, * My son?in?law My gran!c#il!, M My gran!c#il!, * My gran!c#il!, M My gran!c#il!, * My parent, M My parent, * My brot#er, ol!er My brot#er, yo(nger My wife My sister eF?a?fa eF?e?#onF?i eF?e?#onF?i eF?e?fa Ma?pi?ga fa Ma?pi?ga?#onF?i Ma?pi?ga?#onF?i Ma?pi?ga?#onF?i eF?e?fa eF?a?#onF?i eF?a?#onF?i eF?eFfa Ma?pi?ga?fa Ma?pi?ga?#onF?i Ma?pi?ga?fa Ma?pi?ga?#onF?i >i?fa >i?#onF?i %a?si?gi %a?si?gi %ag?#onF?i %ag?#onF?i My c#il!, M My c#il!, * My c#il!, * My c#il!, M My gran!c#il!, M My gran!c#il!, * My gran!c#il!, M My gran!c#il!, * My c#il!, M My c#il!, * My c#il!, * My c#il!, M My gran!c#il!, M My gran!c#il!, * My gran!c#il!, M My gran!c#il!, * My parent, M My parent, * My brot#er My brot#er My sister My sister

-D -A --4 -G -7 -8 -, 4H 41 4D 4A 444 4G 47 48 4, GH G1 GD GA

G-

My sister

%ag?#onF?i

My sister

D8brot#erFs !a(g#ter +yo(nger M sp. My fat#erFs brot#erFs !a(g#terF #(sban! My fat#erFs brot#erFs sonFs son My fat#erFs brot#erFs sonFs !a(g#ter My fat#erFs brot#erFs !a(g#terFs son My fat#erFs brot#erFs !a(g#terFs !a(g#ter My fat#erFs brot#erFs 9 gran!son My fat#erFs brot#erFs 9 !a(g#ter My fat#erFs brot#erFs 9 9 gran!son My fat#erFs brot#erFs 9 9 gran!!a(g#ter My fat#erFs sister My fat#erFs sisterF #(sban! My fat#erFs sisterF son +ol!er, M sp. My fat#erFs sisterF son +yo(nger, M sp. My fat#erFs sisterF sonFs wife My fat#erFs sisterFs !a(g#ter My fat#erFs sisterFs !a(g#terFs #(sban! My fat#erFs sisterFs sonFs son My fat#erFs sisterFs sonFs !a(g#ter My fat#erFs na 7aiF?2o?weeF?2a My brot#er?in?law %a?si?gi My brot#er

G4

GG G7 G8 G,

7aiF?2ee?2aF?na 7ai?2ee?wa?#eeF? na 7aiF?2ee?2aF?na 7aiF?2ee?wa? #eeF?na Moo?p(F?na?2aF? na Moo?p(F?na?waF? #eeF?na Moo?p(F?na?2aF? na Moo?p(F?na?wa? #eeF?na Ma?2(Fa?wa? #eeF?na Ma?2(F?a?2aF?na 7aiF?2(?a?aF?na 7aiF?2a?i?na 6a?#eeF?na? 7aiF?2(?wa?#eeF? na 7ai?2o?weeF?2a 7iF?2ee?2aF?na 7i?2ee?wa?#eeF? na 7aiF?2ee?2aF?na

My c#il!, M My c#il!, * My c#il!, M My c#il!, *

eF?e?fa eF?e?#onF?i eF?a?fa eF?e?#onF?i

My c#il!, M My c#il!, * My c#il!, M My c#il!, *

7H 71 7D 7A 774 7G 77 78 7, 8H 81 8D 8A

My gran!c#il!, M My gran!c#il!, * My gran!c#il!, M My gran!c#il!, * My parent, * My parent, M My brot#er, ol!er My brot#er, yo(nger My wife My sister My brot#er?in?law My c#il!, M My c#il!, * My c#il!, M

Ma?pi?ga?fa Ma?pi?ga?#onF?i Ma?pi?ga?fa Ma?pi?ga?#onF?i >i?#onF?i >i?fa *a?fi?gi *a?fi?gi %ag?#onF?i %ag?#onF?i %a?si?gi eF?a?fa eF?e?#onF?i eF?e?fa

My gran!c#il!, M My gran!c#il!, f My gran!c#il!, M My gran!c#il!, * My parent, * My parent, M My brot#er My brot#er My sister My sister My brot#er My c#il!, M My c#il!, * My c#il!, M

D84
sisterFs !a(g#terFs son My fat#erFs sisterFs !a(g#terFs !a(g#ter My fat#erFs sisterFs 9 gran!son My fat#erFs sisterFs 9 gran!!a(g#ter My fat#erFs sisterFs 9 9 gran!son My fat#erFs sisterFs 9 9 gran!!a(g#ter My mot#erFs brot#er My mot#erFs brot#erFs wife My mot#erFs brot#erF son +ol!er M spea2ing. My mot#erFs brot#erF son +yo(nger M spea2ing. My mot#erFs brot#erF sonFs wife My mot#erFs brot#erF !a(g#ter My mot#erFs brot#erF !a(g#terFs #(sban! My mot#erFs brot#erF sonFs son My mot#erFs brot#erF sonFs !a(g#ter My mot#erFs brot#erF !a(g#terFs son My mot#erFs brot#erF !a(g#terFs !a(g#ter My mot#erFs brot#erFs 9 gran!son My mot#erFs brot#erFs 9

884 8G 87 88 8, ,H ,1

7aiF?2ee?wa? #eeF?na Moo?p(F?na?2aF? na Moo?p(F?na?wa? #eeF?na Moo?p(F?na?2aF? na Moo?p(F?na?wa ? #eeF?na Ma?2(?a?2aF?na Ma?2(?a?wa? #eeF?na 7aiF?2(?a?aF?na

My c#il!, * My gran!c#il!, M My gran!c#il!, * My gran!c#il!, M My gran!c#il!, * My parent, M My parent, * My brot#er, ol!er

eF?e?#onFi Ma?pi?ga?fa Ma?pi?ga?#onF?i Ma?pi?ga?fa Ma?pi?ga?#onF?i >i?fa >i?#onF?i %a?si ? gi

My c#il!, * My gran!c#il!, M My gran!c#il!, * My gran!c#il!, M My gran!c#il!, * My parent, M My parent, * My brot#er

,D

7ai?2a?i?na

My brot#er, yo(nger

%a?si ? gi

My brot#er

,A ,,4

6a?#eeF?na 7aiF?2(?wa?#eeF? na 7ai?2o?eeF?2a

My wife My sister My brot#er?in?law

%ag?#onF?i %ag?#onF?i %a?si ? gi

My sister My sister My brot#er

,G ,7 ,8 ,,

7aiF?2ee?2aF?na 7aiF?2ee?wa? #eeF?na 7aiF?2ee?2a?na 7aiF?2ee?wa? #eeF?na Moo?p(F?na?2aF? na Moo?p(F?na?waF? #eeF?na

My c#il!, M My c#il!, * My c#il!, M My c#il!, *

eF?e?fa eF?e?#onF?i eF?e?fa eF?e?#onF?i

My c#il!, M My c#il!, * My c#il!, M My c#il!, *

1HH 1H1

My gran!c#il!, M My gran!c#il!, *

Ma?pi?ga?fa Ma?pi?ga?#onF?i

My gran!c#il!, M My gran!c#il!, *

D8G
gran!?!a(g#ter My mot#erF brot#erFs 9 9 gran!son My mot#erFs brot#erFs 9 9 gran!?!a(g#ter My mot#erFs sister My mot#erFs sisterFs #(sban! My mot#erFs sisterF son +ol!er, M %p. My mot#erFs sisterF son +yo(nger, M %p. My mot#erFs sisterF sonFs wife My mot#erFs sisterFs !a(g#ter My mot#erFs sisterFs !a(g#terFs #(sban! My mot#erFs sisterFs sonFs son My mot#erFs sisterFs sonFs !a(g#ter My mot#erFs sisterFs !a(g#terFs son My mot#erFs sisterFs !a(g#terFs !a(g#ter My mot#erFs sisterFs 9 gran!son My mot#erFs sisterFs 9 gran!? !a(g#ter My mot#erFs sisterFs 9 9 gran!son My mot#erFs sisterFs 9 9 gran!?!a(g#ter My fat#erFs fat#erF brot#er My fat#erFs fat#erF brot#erFs son My fat#erFs fat#erF brot#erFs !a(g#ter

1HD 1HA 1H1H4 1HG 1H7 1H8 1H, 11H 111 11D 11A 11114 11G 117 118 11, 1DH 1D1

Moo?p(F?na?2aF? na Moo?p(F?wa? #eeF?na Ma?2(?a?wa? #eeF?na Ma?2(?a?2aF?na 7ai?2(?a?aF?na 7aiF?2a?i?na 6a?#eeF?na 7aiF?2(?wa?#eeF? na 7aiF?2o?weeF?2a 7aiF?2ee?2aF?na 7aiF?2ee?wa? #eeF?na 7aiF?2ee?2aF?na 7aiF?2ee?wa? #eeF?na Moo?p(F?na?2aF? na Moo?p(F?na?wa? #eeF?na Moo?p(F?na?2aF? na Moo?p(F?na?wa? #eeF?na 7(?p(F?na?2aF?na Ma?2(F?a?2aF?na Ma?2(F?a?2aF?wa? #eeF?na

My gran!c#il!, M My gran!c#il!, * My parent, * My parent, M My brot#er, ol!er My brot#er, yo(nger My wife My sister My brot#er?in?law My c#il!, M My c#il!, * My c#il!, M My c#il!, * My gran!c#il!, M My gran!c#il!, * My gran!c#il!, M My gran!c#il!, * My gran!parent, M My parent, M My parent, *

Ma?pi?ga?fa Ma?pi?ga?#onF?i >i?#onF?i >i?fa %a?si?gi %a?si?gi %ag?#onF?i %ag?#onF?i %a?si?gi Ie?e?fa eF?e?#onF?i Ie?e?fa Ie?e?#onF?i Ma?pi?ga?fa Ma?pi ? ga?#onF?i Ma?pi?ga?fa Ma?pi ? ga?#onF?i Ma?pi?ga?fa >i?fa >i?#onF?i

My gran!c#il!, M My gran!c#il!, * My parent, * My parent, M My brot#er My brot#er My sister My sister My brot#er My c#il!, M My c#il!, * My c#il!, M My c#il!, * My gran!c#il!, M My gran!c#il!, * My gran!c#il!, M My gran!c#il!, * My gran!parent, M My parent, M My parent, *

D87
1DD 1DA My fat#erFs fat#erF brot#erFs gran!son +ol!er. My fat#erFs fat#erF brot#erFs gran!?!a(g#ter +ol!e. My fat#erFs fat#erF brot#erFs 9 gran!son My fat#erFs fat#erF brot#erFs 9 gran!?!a(g#ter My fat#erFs fat#erF brot#erFs 9 9 gran!son My fat#erFs fat#erF brot#erFs 9 9 gran!? !a(g#ter My fat#erFs fat#erF sister My fat#erFs fat#erF sisterFs son My fat#erFs fat#erF sisterFs !a(g#ter My fat#erFs fat#erF sisterFs gran!son +ol!er. My fat#erFs fat#erF sisterFs gran!?!a(g#ter +ol!er. My fat#erFs fat#erF sisterFs 9 gran!son My fat#erFs fat#erF sisterFs 9 gran!?!a(g#ter My fat#erFs fat#erF sisterFs 9 9 gran!son My fat#erFs fat#erF sisterFs 9 9 gran!?!a(g#ter My mot#erF mot#erFs brot#er My mot#erF mot#erFs brot#erF son My mot#erF mot#erFs brot#erF !a(g#ter 7aiF?2(?a?aF?na 7aiF?2(?wa?#eeF? na 7aiF?2ee?2aF?na 7aiF?2ee?wa? #eeF?na Moo?p(?na?2aF? na Moo?p(?na?wa? #eeF?na 7(?p(F?na?wa? #eeF?na Ma?2(F?a?2aF?na Ma?2(F?a?wa? #eeF?na 7aiF?2(?a?aF?na 7aiF?2(?wa?#eeF? na 7aiF?2ee?2aF?na 7aiF?2ee?wa? #eeF?na Moo?p(F?na?2aF? na Moo?p(F?na?wa? #eeF?na 7(?p(F?na?2aF?na Ma?2(?a?2aF?na Ma?2(?a?wa? #eeF?na My brot#er, 'l!er My sister, 'l!er %a?si?gi %ag?#onF?i My brot#er, My sister

1D1D4 1DG 1D7

My c#il!, M My c#il!, * My gran!c#il!, M My gran!c#il!, *

eF?e?fa eF?e?#onF?i Ma?pi?ga?fa Ma?pi?ga?#onF?i

My c#il!, M My c#il!, * My gran!c#il!, M My gran!c#il!, *

1D8 1D, 1AH 1A1 1AD

My gran!parent, * My parent, M My parent, * M brot#er, 'l!er My sister, el!er

Ma?pi?ga?#onF?i >i?fa >i?#onF?i %a?si?gi %ag?#onF?i

My gran!parent, * My parent, M My parent, * M brot#er My sister

1AA 1A1A4 1AG 1A7 1A8 1A,

My c#il!, M My c#il!, * My gran!c#il!, M My gran!c#il!, * My gran!parent, M My parent, M My parent, *

Ie?e?fa eF?e?#onF?i Ma?pi?ga?fa Ma?pi?ga?#onF?i Ma?pi?ga?fa >i?fa >i?#onF?i

My c#il!, M My c#il!, * My gran!c#il!, M My gran!c#il!, * My gran!parent, M My parent, M My parent, *

D88
1-H 1-1 My mot#erF mot#erFs brot#er gran!son +ol!er. My mot#erF mot#erFs brot#er gran!?!a(g#ter +ol!er. My mot#erF mot#erFs 9 gran!son My mot#erF mot#erFs 9 gran!?!a(g#ter My mot#erF mot#erFs 9 9 gran!son My mot#erF mot#erFs 9 9 gran!?!a(g#ter My mot#erFs mot#erFs sister My mot#erFs mot#erFs sisterF son My mot#erFs mot#erFs sisterF !a(g#ter My mot#erFs mot#erFs sisterF gran!son +ol!er, M %p. My mot#erFs mot#erFs sisterFs gran!?!a(g#ter My mot#erFs mot#erFs sisterFs 9 gran!son My mot#erFs mot#erFs sisterFs 9 gran!!a(g#ter My mot#erFs mot#erFs sisterFs 9 9 gran!son My mot#erFs mot#erFs sisterFs 9 gran!?!a(g#ter My #(sban! My wife My #(sban!Fs fat#er My #(sban!Fs mot#er My wifeFs fat#er. My wifeFs mot#er 7ai?2(?a?aF?na 7aiF?2(?wa?#eeF? na 7aiF?2ee?2aF?na 7aiF?2ee?wa? #eeF?na Moo?p(F?na?2aF? na Moo?p(F?na?wa? #eeF?na 7(?p(?na?wa? #eeF?na =a?2(?a?2aF?na Ma?2(?a?wa? #eeF?na 7aiF?2(?a?a?na My brot#er, el!er My sister, el!er %a?si?gi %ag?#onF?i My brot#er My sister

1-D 1-A 1-1-4 1-G 1-7 1-8 1-,

My c#il!, M My c#il!, * My gran!c#il!, M My gran!c#il!, * My gran!parent, M My parent, M My parent, * My brot#er, 'l!er

eF?e?fa eF?e?#onF?i Ma?pi?ga?fa Ma?pi?ga?#onF?i Ma?pi?ga?#onF?i >i?fa >i?#onF?i %a?si?ga

My c#il!, M My c#il!, * My gran!c#il!, M My gran!c#il!, * My gran!parent, M My parent, M My parent, * My brot#er

14H 141 14D 14A 14144 14G 147 148 14, 1GH

7ai?2(?wa?#eeF? na 7aiF?2ee?2aF?na 7aiF?2ee?2aF?wa? #eeF?na Moo?p(F?na?2aF? na Moo?p(F?wa? #eeF* spna 7aF?na 6a?#eeF?na Ma?2(F?a?#(?na? ai Ma?2(F?a?#(?na? ai Ma?2(F?a?#(?na? ai Ma?2(F?a?#(?na?

My sister, el!er My c#il!, M My c#il!, * My gran!c#il!, M My gran!c#il!, * My #(sban! My wife My fat#er?in?law My mot#er?in?law My fat#er?in?law My mot#er?in?law

%ag?#onF?i eF?a?fa eF?a?#onF?l Ma?pi?ga?fa Ma?pi?ga?#onF?i Ie?;enF?i Hoi?e?na?an!?#en >i?fa? >i?#onF?i >i?fa >i?#onF?i

My sister My c#il!, M My c#il!, * My gran!c#il!, M My gran!c#il!, * My #(sban! My wife My fat#er My mot#er My fat#er My mot#er

D8,
ai H(F?noF?na?2aF? na H(?noF?na?wa? #eeF?na 7aF?na 7aF?na 3(?na?l(?a? 7ai?2o?aF?2a 6a?#eeF?na 7ai?2o?aF?2a 6a?#eeF?na 7ai?2o?a?2a 3(?na?l(?a 6a?#eeF?na Ma?2(F?a?2aF?na Ma?2(F?a?wa? #eeF?na 7aiF?2ee?2aF?na 7aiF?2ee?2aF?wa? #eeF?na

1G1 1GD 1GA 1G1G4 1GG 1G7 1G8 1G, 17H 171 17D 17A 17174 17G

My son?in?law My !a(g#ter?in? law My brot#er?in? law +#(sban!Fs brot#er. My brot#er?in? law +sisterFs #(sban!, * sp. My brot#er?in? law, +wifeFs sisterFs #(sban!. My brot#er?in law, +wifeFs brot#er My sister?in?law +wifeFs. My sister?in?law, +#(sban!Fs sister. My sister?in?law, +brot#ers wife. My sister?in?law, +brot#erFs wife, * sp. My sister?in?law, +#(sban!Fs brot#erFs wife. My sister?in?law +wifeFs brot#erFs wife. My step fat#er My step mot#er My step son My step !a(g#ter

My son?in?law My !a(g#ter?in?law My #(sban! My #(sban! My intimate companion My sister?in?law My wife My sister?in?law My wife My sister?in?law My intimate companion My wife My parent, M My parent, * My c#il!, M My c#il!, *

eF?e?fa eF?e?#onF?i Hom?f(F?e Me?i

My c#il!, M My c#il!, * My brot#er?in? law My brot#er?in? law

Me?i Hom?f(F?e Me?i Hom?f(F?e Hom?f(F?e

My brot#er?in? law My sister?in?law My sister?in?law My sister?in?law My sister?in?law

>i?fa >i?#onF?i eF?e?fa eF?e?#onF?i

My parent, M My parent, * My c#il!, M My c#il!, *

Chapter III THE PUNALUAN FAMILY

"#e 3(nal(an family #as existe! in '(rope, &sia an! &merica wit#in t#e #istorical perio!, an! in 3olynesia wit#in t#e present cent(ry. 6it# a wi!e pre;alence in t#e tribes of man2in! in t#e %tat(s of %a;agery, it remaine! in some instances among tribes w#o #a! a!;ance! into t#e ower %tat(s of barbarism, an! in one case, t#at of t#e /ritons, among tribes w#o #a! attaine! t#e Mi!!le %tat(s. In t#e co(rse of #(man progress it followe! t#e consang(ine family, (pon w#ic# is s(per;ene!, an! of w#ic# it was a mo!ification. "#e transition from one into t#e ot#er was pro!(ce! by t#e gra!(al excl(sion of own brot#ers an! sisters from t#e marriage relation, t#e e;ils of w#ic# co(l! not fore;er escape #(man obser;ation. It

D,H may be impossible to reco;er t#e e;ents w#ic# le! to !eli;erance; b(t we are not wit#o(t some e;i!ence ten!ing to s#ow #ow it occ(rre!. &lt#o(g# t#e facts from w#ic# t#ese concl(sions are !rawn are of a !reary an! forbi!!ing c#aracter, t#ey will not s(rren!er t#e 2nowle!ge t#ey contain wit#o(t a patient as well as caref(l examination. 9i;en t#e consang(ine family, w#ic# in;ol;e! own brot#ers an! sisters an! also collateral brot#ers an! sisters in t#e marriage relation, an! it was only necessary to excl(!e t#e former from t#e gro(p, an! retain t#e latter, to c#ange t#e consang(ine into t#e p(nal(an family. "o effect t#e excl(sion of t#e one class an! t#e retention of t#e ot#er was a !iffic(lt process, beca(se it in;ol;e! a ra!ical c#ange in t#e composition of t#e family, not to say in t#e ancient plan of !omestic life. It also re5(ire! t#e s(rren!er of a pri;ilege w#ic# sa;ages wo(l! be slow to ma2e, Commencing, it may be s(ppose!, in isolate! cases, an! wit# a slow recognition of its a!;antages, it remaine! an experiment, t#ro(g# immense expanses of time; intro!(ce! partially at first, t#en becoming general, an! finally (ni;ersal among t#e a!;ancing tribes, still in sa;agery, among w#om t#e mo;ement originate!. It affor!s a goo! ill(stration of t#e operation of t#e principle of nat(ral selection. "#e significance of t#e &(stralian class system presents itself anew in t#is connection. It is e;i!ent from t#e manner in w#ic# t#e classes were forme!, an! from t#e r(le wit# respect to marriage an! !escents, t#at t#eir primary ob:ect was to excl(!e own brot#ers an! sisters from t#e marriage relation, w#ile t#e collateral brot#ers an! sisters were retaine! in t#at relation. "#e former ab:ect is impresse! (pon t#e classes by an external law; b(t t#e latter, w#ic# is not apparent on t#e face of t#e organiBation, is ma!e e;i!ent by tracing t#eir !escents. [1] It is t#(s fo(n! t#at first, secon!, an! more remote co(sins, w#o are collateral brot#ers an! sisters (n!er t#eir system of consang(inity, are bro(g#t perpet(ally bac2 into t#e marriage relation, w#ile own brot#ers an! sisters are excl(!e!. "#e n(mber of persons in t#e &(stralian p(nal(an gro(p is greater t#an in t#e Hawaiian, an! its composition is slig#tly !ifferent; b(t t#e remar2able fact remains in bot# cases, t#at t#e brot#er#oo! of t#e #(sban!s forme! t#e basis of t#e marriage relation in one gro(p, an! t#e sister#oo! of t#e wi;es t#e basis in t#e ot#er. "#is !ifference, #owe;er, existe! wit# respect -o the Ha(aiians$ t#at it !oes not appear as yet t#at t#ere were any classes among t#em between w#om marriages m(st occ(r. %ince t#e &(stralian classes ga;e birt# to t#e p(nal(an gro(p, w#ic# containe! t#e germ of t#e gens. It s(ggests t#e probability t#at t#is organiBation into classes (pon sex once pre;aile! among all t#e tribes of man2in! w#o afterwar!s fell (n!er t#e gentile organiBation. It wo(l! not be s(rprising if t#e Hawaiians, at some anterior perio!, were organiBe! in s(c# classes. 0emar2able as it may seem, t#ree of t#e most important an! most wi!e?sprea! instit(tions of man2in!, namely, t#e p(nal(an family, t#e organiBation into gentes, ari! t#e "(ranian system of consang(inity, root t#emsel;es in an anterior organiBation analogo(s to t#e p(nal(an gro(p, in w#ic# t#e germ of eac# is fo(n!. %ome e;i!ence of t#e tr(t# of t#is proposition will appear in t#e !isc(ssion of t#is family. &s p(nal(an marriage ga;e t#e p(nal(an family, t#e latter wo(l! gi;e t#e "(ranian

D,1 system of consang(inity, as soon as t#e existing system was reforme! so as to express t#e relations#ips as t#ey act(ally existe! in t#is family. /(t somet#ing more t#an t#e p(nal(an gro(p was nee!e! to pro!(ce t#is res(lt, namely, t#e organiBation into gentes, w#ic# permanently excl(!e! brot#ers an! sisters from t#e marriage relation by an organic law, w#o before t#at, m(st #a;e been fre5(ently in;ol;e! in t#at relation. 6#en t#is excl(sion was ma!e complete it wo(l! wor2 a c#ange in all t#ese relations#ips w#ic# !epen!e! (pon t#ese marriages; an! w#en t#e system of consang(inity was ma!e to conform to t#e new state of t#ese relations#ips, t#e "(ranian system wo(l! s(per;ene (pon t#e Malayan. "#e Hawaiians #a! t#e p(nal(an family, b(t neit#er t#e organiBation into gentes nor t#e "(ranian system of consang(inity. "#eir retention of t#e ol! system of t#e consang(ine family lea!s to a s(spicion, confirme! by t#e statements of Mr. /ing#am, t#at own brot#ers an! sisters were fre5(ently in;ol;e! in t#e p(nal(an gro(p t#(s ren!ering a reformation of t#e ol! system of consang(inity impossible. 6#et#er t#e p(nal(an gro(p of t#e Hawaiian type can claim an e5(al anti5(ity wit# t#e &(stralian classes is 5(estionable, since t#e latter is more arc#aic t#an any ot#er 2nown constit(tion of society. /(t t#e existence of a p(nal(an gro(p of one or t#e ot#er type was essential to t#e birt# of t#e gentes, as t#e latter were essential to t#e pro!(ction of t#e "(ranian system of consang(inity. "#e t#ree instit(tions will be consi!ere! separately.

I. %he Punaluan )a ily.

In rare instances a c(stom #as been !isco;ere! in a concrete form (sable as a 2ey to (nloc2 some of t#e mysteries of ancient society, an! explain w#at before co(l! only be (n!erstoo! imperfectly. %(c# a c(stom is t#e 3(nal(a of t#e Hawaiians. In 18GH C(!ge orin &n!rews, of Honol(l(, in a letter accompanying a sc#e!(le of t#e Hawaiian system of consang(inity, commente! (pon one of t#e Hawaiian terms of relations#ip as follows: )"#e relations#ip of p(nal(a is rat#er amp#ibio(s. It arose from t#e fact t#at two or more brot#ers wit# t#eir wi;es, or two or more sisters wit# t#eir #(sban!s, were incline! to possess eac# ot#er in common; b(t t#e mo!ern (se of t#e wor! is t#at of dear friend, or intimate companion8 "#at w#ic# C(!ge &n!rews says t#ey were incline! to !o, an! w#ic# may t#en #a;e been a !eclining practice, t#eir system of consang(inity pro;es to #a;e been once (ni;ersal among t#em. "#e 0e;. &rtem(s /is#op, lately !ecease!, one of t#e ol!est missionaries in t#ese Islan!s, sent to t#e a(t#or t#e same year, wit# a similar sc#e!(le, t#e following statement (pon t#e same s(b:ect: )"#is conf(sion of relations#ips is t#e res(lt of t#e ancient c(stom among relati;es of t#e li;ing toget#er of #(sban!s an! wi;es in common.8 In a pre;io(s c#apter t#e remar2 of =r. /ing#am was 5(ote! t#at t#e polygamy of w#ic# #e was writing, implie! a pl(rality of #(sban!s en! wi;es. "#e same fact is reiterate! by <r. /artlett: )"#e nati;es #a! #ar!ly more mo!esty or s#ame t#an so many animals. H(sban!s #a! many wi;es, an! wi;es many #(sban!s, an! exc#ange! wit# eac# ot#er at, pleas(re.8 "#e form of marriage w#ic# t#ey fo(n! create! a p(nal(an gro(p, in w#ic# t#e #(sban!s an! wi;es were :ointly intermarrie! in t#e gro(p. 'ac# of t#ese gro(ps, incl(!ing t#e c#il!ren of t#e marriages, was a p(nal(an family; for one consiste! of se;eral brot#ers an! t#eir wi;es, an! t#e ot#er of se;eral sisters wit# t#eir #(sban!s.

D,D If we now t(rn to t#e Hawaiian system of consang(inity, in t#e "able, it will be fo(n! t#at a man calls #is wifeFs sister #is wife. &ll t#e sisters of #is wife, own as well as collateral, are all #is wi;es. /(t t#e #(sban! of #is wifeFs sister #e calls punalua$ i.e., his intimate companion2 an! all t#e #(sban!s of t#e se;eral sisters of #is wife t#e same. "#ey were :ointly intermarrie! in t#e gro(p. "#ese #(sban!s were not probably brot#ers; if t#ey were, t#e bloo! relations#ip wo(l! nat(rally #a;e pre;aile! o;er t#e affineal; b(t t#eir wi;es were sisters, own an! collateral. In t#is case t#e sister#oo! of t#e wi;es was t#e basis (pon w#ic# t#e gro(p was forme!, an! t#eir #(sban!s stoo! to eac# ot#er in t#e relations#ip of punalua. In t#e ot#er gro(p, w#ic# rests (pon t#e brot#er#oo! of t#e #(sban!s, a woman calls #er #(sban!Fs brot#er #er #(sban!. &ll t#e brot#ers of #er #(sban!, own as well as collateral, were also #er #(sban!s. /(t t#e wife of #er #(sban!Fs brot#er s#e calls punalua$ an! t#e se;eral wi;es of #er #(sban!Fs brot#ers stan! to #er in t#e relations#ip of punalua. "#ese wi;es were not, probably, sisters of eac# ot#er, for t#e reason state! in t#e ot#er case, alt#o(g# exceptions !o(btless existe! (n!er bot# branc#es of t#e c(stom. &ll t#ese wi;es stoo! to eac# ot#er in t#e relations#ip of punalua. It is e;i!ent t#at t#e p(nal(an family was forme!, o(t of t#e consang(ine. /rot#ers cease! to marry t#eir own sisters; an! after t#e gentile organiBation #a! wor2e! (pon society its complete res(lts, t#eir collateral sisters as well. /(t in t#e inter;al t#ey s#are! t#eir remaining wi;es in common. In li2e manner, sisters cease! marrying t#eir own brot#ers, an! after a long perio! of time, t#eir collateral brot#ers; b(t t#ey s#are! t#eir remaining #(sban!s in common. "#e a!;ancement of society o(t of t#e consang(ine into t#e p(nal(an family was t#e inception of a great (pwar! mo;ement, preparing t#e way, for t#e gentile organiBation w#ic# gra!(ally con!(cte! to t#e syn!yasmian family, an! (ltimately to t#e monogamian. &not#er remar2able fact wit# respect to t#e c(stom of p(nal(a is t#e necessity w#ic# exists for its ancient pre;alence among t#e ancestors of t#e "(ranian an! 9anowanian families w#en t#eir system of consang(inity was forme!. "#e reason is simple an! concl(si;e. Marriages in p(nal(an gro(ps explain t#e relations#ips in t#e system. 3res(mpti;ely t#ey are t#ose w#ic# act(ally existe! w#en t#is system was forme!. "#e existence of t#e system, t#erefore, re5(ires t#e antece!ent pre;alence of p(nal(an marriage, an! of t#e p(nal(an family. &!;ancing to t#e ci;iliBe! nations, t#ere seems to #a;e been an e5(al necessity for t#e ancient existence of p(nal(an gro(ps among t#e remote ancestors of all s(c# as possesse! t#e gentile organiBation ? 9ree2s, 0omans, 9ermans, Celts, Hebrews ? for it is reasonably certain t#at all t#e families of man2in! w#o rose (n!er t#e gentile organiBation to t#e practice of monogamy possesse!, in prior times, t#e "(ranian system of consang(inity w#ic# sprang from t#e p(nal(an gro(p. It will be fo(n! t#at t#e great mo;ement, w#ic# commence! in t#e formation of t#is gro(p, was, in t#e main, cons(mmate! t#ro(g# t#e organiBation into gentes, an! t#at, t#e latter was generally accompanie!, prior to t#e rise of monogamy, by t#e "(ranian system of consang(inity. "races of t#e p(nal(an c(stom remaine!, #ere an! t#ere, do(n to t#e Mi!!le 3erio! of barbarism, in exceptional cases, in '(ropean, &siatic, an! &merican tribes. "#e

D,A most remar2able ill(stration is gi;en by Caesar in stating t#e marriage c(stoms of t#e ancient /ritons. He obser;es t#at, )by tens an! by twel;es, #(sban!s possesse! t#eir wi;es in common; an! especially brot#ers wit# brot#ers an! parents wit# t#eir c#il!ren.8 "#is passage re;eals a c(stom of intermarriage in t#e gro(p w#ic# punalua explains. /arbarian mot#ers wo(l! not be expecte! to s#ow ten an! twel;e sons, as a r(le, or e;en in exceptional cases; b(t (n!er t#e "(ranian system of consang(inity, w#ic# we are :(stifie! in s(pposing t#e /ritons to #a;e possesse!, large gro(ps of brot#ers are always fo(n!, beca(se male co(sins, near an! remote, fall into t#is category wit# Ego. %e;eral brot#ers among t#e /ritons, accor!ing to Caesar, possesse! t#eir wi;es in common. Here we fin! one branc# of t#e p(nal(an c(stom, p(re an! simple. "#e correlati;e gro(p w#ic# t#is pres(pposes, w#ere se;eral sisters s#are! t#eir #(sban!s in common, is not s(ggeste! !irectly by Caesar; b(t it probably existe! as t#e complement of t#e first. %omet#ing beyon! t#e first #e notice!, namely, t#at parents, wit# t#eir c#il!ren, s#are! t#eir wi;es in common. It is not (nli2ely t#at t#ese wi;es were sisters. 6#et#er or not Caesar by t#is expression referre! to t#e ot#er gro(p, it ser;es to mar2 t#e extent to w#ic# pl(ral marriages in t#e gro(p existe! among t#e /ritons; an! w#ic# was t#e stri2ing fact t#at arreste! t#e attention of t#is !isting(is#e! obser;er. 6#ere se;eral brot#ers were marrie! to eac# ot#erFs wi;es, t#ese wi;es were marrie! to eac# ot#erFs #(sban!s. Hero!ot(s, spea2ing of t#e Massagetae, w#o were in t#e Mi!!le %tat(s of barbarism, remar2s t#at e;ery man #a! one wife, yet all t#e wi;es were common.8[4] It may be implie! from t#is statement t#at t#e %yn!yasmian family #a! beg(n to s(per;ene (pon t#e p(nal(an. 'ac# #(sban! paire! wit# one wife, w#o t#(s became #is principal wife, b(t wit#in t#e limits of t#e gro(p #(sban!s an! wi;es contin(e! in common. If Hero!ot(s inten!e! to intimate a state of promisc(ity, it probably !i! not exist. "#e Massagetae, alt#o(g# ignorant of iron, possesse! floc2s an! #er!s, fo(g#t on #orse bac2 arme! wit# battle axes of copper an! wit# copper?pointe! spears, an! man(fact(re! an! (se! t#e wagon +ama"a.. It is not s(pposable t#at a people li;ing in promisc(ity co(l! #a;e attaine! s(c# a !egree of a!;ancement. /e also remar2s of t#e &gat#yrsi, w#o were in t#e same stat(s probably t#at t#ey #a! t#eir wi;es in common t#at t#ey mig#t all be brot#ers, an! as memberFs of a common family, neit#er en;y nor #ate one anot#er. [5] 3(nal(an marriage in t#e gro(p affor!s a more rational an! satisfactory explanation of t#ese, an! similar (sages in ot#er tribes mentione! by Hero!ot(s, t#an polygamy or general promisc(ity. His acco(nts are too meagre to ill(strate t#e act(al state of society among t#em. "races of t#e p(nal(an c(stom were notice! in some of t#e least a!;ance! tribes of t#e %o(t# &merican aborigines; b(t t#e partic(lars are not f(lly gi;en. "#(s, t#e first na;igators w#o ;isite! t#e coast tribes of IeneB(ela fo(n! a state of society w#ic# s(ggests for its explanation p(nal(an gro(ps. )"#ey obser;e no law or r(le in matrimony, b(t too2 as many wi;es as t#ey wo(l!, an! t#ey as many #(sban!s, 5(itting one anot#er at pleas(re, wit#o(t rec2oning any wrong !one on eit#er part. "#ere was no s(c# t#ing as :ealo(sy among t#em, all li;ing as best please! t#em,

D,wit#o(t ta2ing offence to one anot#er.... "#e #o(ses t#ey !welt in were common to all, an! so spacio(s t#at t#ey containe! one #(n!re! an! sixty persons, strongly b(ilt, t#o(g# co;ere! wit# palm tree lea;es, an! s#ape! li2e a bell. [6] "#ese tribes (se! eart#en ;essels an! were t#erefore in t#e ower %tat(s of barbarism; b(t from t#is acco(nt were b(t slig#tly remo;e! from sa;agery. In t#is case, an! in t#ose mentione! by Hero!ot(s, t#e obser;ations (pon w#ic# t#e statements were ma!e were s(perficial. It s#ows, at least, a low con!ition of t#e family an! of t#e marriage relation. 6#en =ort# &merica was !isco;ere! in its se;eral parts t#e p(nal(an family seems to #a;e entirely !isappeare!. =o tra!ition remaine! among t#em, so far as I am aware, of t#e ancient pre;alence of t#e p(nal(an c(stom. "#e family generally #a! passe! o(t of t#e p(nal(an into t#e %yn!yasmian form; b(t it was en;irone! wit# t#e remains of an ancient con:(gal system w#ic# points bac2war! to p(nal(an gro(ps. >ne c(stom may be cite! of (nmista2able p(nal(an origin, w#ic# is still recogniBe! in at least forty =ort# &merican In!ian tribes. 6#ere a man marrie! t#e el!est !a(g#ter of a family #e became entitle! by c(stom to all #er sisters as wi;es w#en t#ey attaine! t#e marriageable age. It was a rig#t sel!om enforce!, from t#e !iffic(lty, on t#e part of t#e in!i;i!(al, of maintaining se;eral families, alt#o(g# polygamy was recogniBe! (ni;ersally as a pri;ilege of t#e males. 6e fin! in t#is t#e remains of t#e c(stom of p(nal(a among t#eir remote ancestors. $n!o(bte!ly t#ere was a time among t#em w#en own sisters went into t#e marriage relation on t#e basis of t#eir sister#oo!; t#e #(sban! of one being t#e #(sban! of all, b(t not t#e only #(sban!, for ot#er males were :oint #(sban!s wit# #im in t#e gro(p. &fter t#e p(nal(an family fell o(t, t#e rig#t remaine! wit# t#e #(sban! of t#e el!est sister to become t#e #(sban! of all #er sisters if #e c#ose to claim it. It may wit# reason be regar!e! as a gen(ine s(r;i;al of t#e ancient p(nal(an c(stom. >t#er traces of t#is family among t#e tribes of man2in! mig#t be cite! from #istorical wor2s, ten!ing to s#ow not only its ancient existence, b(t its wi!e pre;alence as well. It is (nnecessary, #owe;er, to exten! t#ese citations, beca(se t#e antece!ent, existence of t#e p(nal(an family among t#e ancestors of all t#e tribes w#o possess, or !i! possess, t#e "(ranian system of consang(inity can be !e!(ce! from t#e system itself.

II. !rigin of the !rgani"ation into 'entes.

It #as before been s(ggeste! t#at t#e time, w#en t#is instit(tion originate!, was t#e perio! of sa;agery, firstly, beca(se it is fo(n! in complete !e;elopment in t#e ower %tat(s of barbarism; an! secon!ly, beca(se it is fo(n! in partial !e;elopment in t#e %tat(s of sa;agery. Moreo;er, t#e germ of t#e gens is fo(n! as plainly in t#e &(stralian classes as in t#e Hawaiian p(nal(an gro(p. "#e gentes are also fo(n! among t#e &(stralians; base! (pon t#e classes, wit# t#e apparent, manner of t#eir organiBation o(t of t#em. %(c# a remar2able instit(tion as t#e gens wo(l! not be expecte! to spring into existence complete, or to grow o(t, of not#ing, t#at is, wit#o(t a fo(n!ation pre;io(sly forme! by nat(ral growt#. Its birt# m(st be so(g#t, in pre?existing elements of society, an! its mat(rity wo(l! be expecte! M occ(r

D,4 long after its origination. "wo of t#e f(n!amental r(les of t#e gens in its arc#aic form are fo(n! in t#e &(stralian classes, namely, t#e pro#ibition of intermarriage between brot#ers an! sisters, an! !escent in t#e female line. "#e last fact is ma!e entirely e;i!ent w#en t#e gens appeare!, for t#e c#il!ren are t#en fo(n! in t#e gens of t#eir mot#ers. "#e nat(ral a!aptation of t#e classes to gi;e birt# to t#e gens is s(fficiently ob;io(s to s(ggest t#e probability t#at it act(ally? so occ(rre!. Moreo;er, t#is probability is strengt#ene! by t#e fact t#at t#e gens is #ere fo(n! in connection wit# an antece!ent an! more arc#aic organiBation, w#ic# was still t#e (nit of a social system, a place belonging of rig#t to t#e gens. "(rning now to t#e Hawaiian p(nal(an gro(p, t#e same elements me fo(n! containing t#e germ of t#e gens. It is confine!, #owe;er, to t#e female branc# of t#e c(stom, w#ere se;eral sisters, own an! collateral, s#are! t#eir #(sban!s in common. "#ese sisters, wit# t#eir c#il!ren an! !escen!ants t#ro(g# females, f(rnis# t#e exact members#ip of a. gens of t#e arc#aic type. <escent wo(l! necessarily be trace! t#ro(g# females, beca(se t#e paternity of c#il!ren was not ascertainable wit# certainty. &s soon as t#is special form of marriage in t#e gro(p became an establis#e! instit(tion, t#e fo(n!ation for a gens existe!. It t#en re5(ire! an exercise of intelligence to t(rn t#is nat(ral p(nal(an gro(p into an organiBation, restricte! so t#ese mot#ers, t#eir c#il!ren, an! !escen!ants in t#e female line. "#e Hawaiians, alt#o(g# t#is gro(p existe! among t#em, !i! not rise to t#e conception of a gens. /(t to precisely s(c# a gro(p as t#is, resting (pon t#e sister#oo! of t#e mot#ers, or to t#e similar &(stralian gro(p, resting (pon t#e same principle of (nion, t#e origin of t#e gens m(st, be ascribe!. It too2 t#is gro(p as it fo(n! it, an! organiBe! certain of its members wit# certain of t#eir posterity into a gens on t#e basis of 2in. "o explain t#e exact manner in w#ic# t#e gens originate! is, of co(rse, impossible. "#e facts an! circ(mstances belong to a remote anti5(ity. /(t t#e gens may #e trace! bac2 to a con!ition of ancient society calc(late! to bring it into existence. "#is is all I #a;e attempte! to !o. It belongs in its origin to a low stage of #(man !e;elopment, an! to a ;ery ancient con!ition of society; t#o(g# later in time t#an t#e first appearance of t#e p(nal(an family. It is 5(ite e;i!ent t#at it sprang (p in t#is family, w#ic# consiste! of a gro(p of persons coinci!ent s(bstantially wit# t#e members#ip of a gens. "#e infl(ence of t#e gentile organiBation (pon ancient society was conser;ati;e an! ele;ating. &fter it #a! become f(lly !e;elope! an! expan!e! o;er large areas, an! after time eno(g# #a! elapse! to wor2 its f(ll infl(ence (pon society, wi;es became scarce in place of t#eir former ab(n!ance, beca(se it ten!e! to contract t#e siBe of t#e p(nal(an gro(p, an! finally to o;ert#row it. "#e %yn!yasmian family was gra!(ally pro!(ce! wit#in t#e p(nal(an, after t#e gentile organiBation became pre!ominant o;er ancient society. "#e interme!iate stages of progress are not well ascertaine!; b(t, gi;en t#e p(nal(an family in t#e %tat(s of sa;agery, an! t#e %yn!yasmian family in t#e ower %tat(s of barbarism, an! t#e fact of progress from one into t#e ot#er may be !e!(ce! wit# reasonable certainty. It was after t#e latter family began to appear, an! p(nal(an gro(ps to !isappear, t#at wi;es came to

D,G be so(g#t by p(rc#ase an! by capt(re. 6it#o(t !isc(ssing t#e e;i!ence still accessible, it is a plain inference t#at t#e gentile organiBation was t#e s(fficient ca(se of t#e final o;ert#row of t#e p(nal(an family, an! of t#e gra!(al re!(ction of t#e st(pen!o(s con:(gal system of t#e perio! of sa;agery. 6#ile it originate! in t#e p(nal(an gro(p, as we m(st s(ppose, it ne;ert#eless carrie! society beyon! an! abo;e its plane.

III. %he %uranian or 'anowanian Syste

of Consanguinity.

"#is system an! t#e gentile organiBation, w#en in its arc#aic form, are (s(ally fo(n! toget#er. "#ey are not m(t(ally !epen!ent, b(t t#ey probably appeare! not far apart in t#e or!er of #(man progress. /(t systems of consang(inity an! t#e se;eral forms of t#e family stan! in !irect relations. "#e family represents an acti;e principle. It is ne;er stationary, b(t a!;ances from a lower to a #ig#er form as society a!;ances from a lower to a #ig#er con!ition, an! finally passes o(t of one form into anot#er of #ig#er gra!e. %ystems of consang(inity, on t#e contrary, are passi;e; recor!ing t#e progress ma!e by t#e family at long inter;als apart, an! only c#anging ra!ically w#en t#e family #as ra!ically c#ange!. "#e "(ranian system co(l! not #a;e been forme! (nless p(nal(an marriage an! t#e p(nal(an family #a! existe! at t#e time. In a society w#erein by general (sage se;eral sisters were marrie! in a gro(p to eac# ot#erFs #(sban!s, an! se;eral brot#ers in a. gro(p to eac# ot#erFs wi;es, t#e con!itions were present, for t#e creation of t#e "(ranian system. &ny system forme! to express t#e act(al relations#ips as t#ey existe! in s(c# a family wo(l!, of necessity, to t#e "(ranian; an! wo(l!, of itself, !emonstrate t#e existence of s(c# a family w#en it was forme!. It is now propose! to ta2e (p t#is remar2able system as it still exists in t#e "(ranian an! 9anowanian families, an! offer it in e;i!ence to pro;e t#e existence of t#e p(nal(an family at t#e time it was establis#e!. It #as come !own to t#e present time on two continents after t#e marriage c(stoms in w#ic# it originate! #a! !isappeare!, an! after t#e family #a! passe! o(t of t#e p(nal(an into t#e %yn!yasmian form. In or!er to appreciate t#e e;i!ence it will be necessary to examine t#e !etails of t#e system. "#at of t#e %eneca? Iro5(ois will be (se! as typical on t#e part of t#e 9anowanian tribes of &merica, an! t#at of t#e "amil people of %o(t# In!ia on t#e part of t#e "(ranian tribes of &sia. "#ese forms, w#ic# are s(bstantially i!entical t#ro(g# (pwar!s of two #(n!re! relations#ips of t#e same person, will be fo(n! in a "able at t#e en! of t#is c#apter In a pre;io(s wor2.[7] I #a;e presente! in f(ll t#e system of consang(inity of some se;enty &merican In!ian tribes; an! among &siatic tribes an! nations t#at of t#e "amil, "el(g(, an! Canarese people of %o(t# In!ia, among all of w#om t#e system, as gi;en in t#e "able, is now in practical !aily (se. "#ere are !i;ersities in t#e systems of t#e !ifferent tribes an! nations, b(t t#e ra!ical feat(res are constant. &ll ali2e sal(te by 2in, b(t wit# t#is !ifference, t#at among t#e "amil people w#ere t#e person a!!resse! is yo(nger t#an t#e spea2er, t#e term of relations#ip m(st be (se!; b(t w#en ol!er t#e option is gi;es to sal(te by 2in or by t#e personal name. >n t#e contrary, among t#e &merican

D,7 aborigines, t#e a!!ress m(st always be by t#e term of relations#ip. "#ey (se t#e system in a!!resses beca(se it is a system of consang(inity an! affinity. It was also t#e means by w#ic# eac# in!i;i!(al in t#e ancient gentes was able to trace #is connection wit# e;ery member of #is gens (ntil monogamy bro2e (p t#e "(ranian system. It will be fo(n!, in many cases, t#at, t#e relations#ip of t#e same person to Ego is !ifferent as t#e sex of Ego is c#ange!. *or t#is reason it was fo(n! necessary to state t#e 5(estion twice, once wit# a male spea2ing, an! again wit# a female. =otwit#stan!ing t#e !i;ersities it create!, t#e system is logical t#ro(g#o(t. "o ex#ibit its c#aracter, it will be necessary to pass t#ro(g# t#e se;eral lines as was !one in t#e Malayan system. "#e %eneca?Iro5(ois will be (se!. "#e relations#ips of gran!fat#er +HocF*sote.$ an! gran!mot#er +&cF*sote.$ an! of gran!son +Ha*yaF*da.$ an! gran!!a(g#ter +4a*yaF*da.$ are t#e most remote recogniBe! eit#er in t#e ascen!ing or !escen!ing series. &ncestors an! !escen!ants abo;e an! below t#ese, fall into t#e same categories respecti;ely. "#e relations#ips of brot#er an! sister are concei;e! in t#e twofol! form of el!er an! yo(nger, an! not in t#e abstract, an! t#ere are special terms for eac#, as follow: 'l!er /ro#er, HaF?ge. 'l!er %ister, &#F?:e. 1o(nger brot#er, HaF?ga. 1o(nger %ister, 7aF?ga. "#ese terms are (se! by t#e males an! females, an! are applie! to all s(c# brot#ers or sisters as are ol!er or yo(nger t#an t#e person spea2ing. In "amil t#ere are two sets of terms for t#ese relations#ips, b(t t#ey are now (se! in!iscriminately by bot# sexes. *irst Collateral ine. 6it# myself a male, an! spea2ing as a %eneca, my brot#erFs son an! !a(g#ter are my son an! !a(g#ter +Ha*ahF (u+$ an! 4a*ahF*(u+.$ eac# of t#em calling me fat#er +Ha*nigh.. "#is is t#e first in!icati;e feat(re of t#e system. It places my brot#erFs c#il!ren in t#e same category wit# my own. "#ey are my c#il!ren as well as #is. My brot#erFs gran!c#il!ren are my gran!sons an! gran!!a(g#ters +Ha*yaF da$ an! 4a*ya* da$ sing(lar., eac# of t#em calling me gran!fat#er +HocF* sote.. "#e relations#ips #ere gi;en are t#ose recogniBe! an! applie!; none ot#ers are 2nown. Certain relations#ips will be !isting(is#e! as in!icati;e. "#ey (s(ally control t#ose t#at prece!e an! follow. 6#en t#ey agree in t#e systems of !ifferent tribes, an! e;en of !ifferent families of man2in!, as in t#e "(ranian an! 9anowanian, t#ey establis# t#eir f(n!amental i!entity. In t#e female branc# of t#is line, myself still a male, my sisterFs son an! !a(g#ter are my nep#ew an! niece +Ha*yaF(an*da$ an! 4a* ya(an*da.$ eac# of t#em calling me (ncle +Hoc*noFseh... "#is is a secon! in!icati;e feat(re. It restricts t#e relations#ips of nep#ew an! niece to t#e c#il!ren of a manFs sisters own or collateral. "#e c#il!ren of t#is nep#ew an! niece are my gran!c#il!ren as before, eac# of t#em applying to me t#e proper correlati;e. 6it# myself a female, a part of t#ese relations#ips are re;erse!. My brot#erFs son an! !a(g#ter are my nep#ew an! niece +Ha*sohF*neh.$ an! 4a*sohF*neh.$ eac# of t#em calling me a(nt +Ah*gaF*huc.. It will be notice! t#at t#e terms for nep#ew an!

D,8 niece (se! by t#e males are !ifferent from t#ose (se! by t#e females. "#e c#il!ren of t#ese nep#ews an! nieces are my gran!c#il!ren. In t#e female branc#, my sisterFs son an! !a(g#ter are my son an! !a(g#ter, eac# of t#em calling me mot#er +Aoh*yehF.$ an! t#eir c#il!ren are my gran!c#il!ren, eac# of t#em calling me gran!mot#er +&cF*sote.. "#e wi;es of t#ese sons an! nep#ews are my !a(g#ters? in?law + 4aF*sa., an! t#e #(sban!s of t#ese !a(g#ters an!F nieces are my sons?in?law + &c*naF*hose, eac# term sing(lar., an! t#ey apply to me t#e proper correlati;e. %econ! Collateral ine. In t#e male branc# of t#is line, on t#e fat#erFs si!e, an! irrespecti;e of t#e sex of Ego$ my fat#erFs brot#er is my fat#er, an! calls me #is son or !a(g#ter as I am a male or a female. "#ir! in!icati;e feat(re. &ll t#e brot#ers of a fat#er are place! in t#e relation of fat#ers. His son an! !a(g#ter are my brot#er an! sister, el!er or yo(nger, an! I apply to t#em t#e same terms I (se to !esignate own brot#ers an! sisters. *o(rt# in!icati;e feat(re. It places t#e c#il!ren of brot#ers in t#e relations#ip of brot#ers an! sisters. "#e c#il!ren of t#ese brot#ers, myself a male, are my sons an! !a(g#ters, an! t#eir c#il!ren are my gran!c#il!ren; w#ilst t#e c#il!ren of t#ese sisters are my nep#ews an! nieces, an! t#e c#il!ren of t#e latter are my gran!c#il!ren. /(t wit# myself a female t#e c#il!ren of t#ese brot#ers are my nep#ews an! nieces, t#e c#il!ren of t#ese sisters are my sons an! !a(g#ters, an! t#eir c#il!ren, ali2e are my gran!c#il!ren. It is t#(s seen t#at t#e classification in t#e first collateral line is carrie! into t#e secon!, as it is into t#e t#ir! an! more remote as far as consang(inei can be trace!. My fat#erFs sister is my a(nt, an! calls me #er nep#ew it I am a male. *ift# in!icati;e feat(re. "#e relations#ip of a(nt is restricte! to t#e sisters of my fat#er, an! to t#e sisters of s(c# ot#er persons as stan! to me in t#e relation of a fat#er, to t#e excl(sion of t#e sisters of my mot#er. My fat#erFs sisterFs c#il!ren are my co(sins +Ah*gareF*seh$ sing(lar., eac# of t#em calling me co(sin. 6it# myself a male, t#e c#il!ren of my male co(sins are my sons an! !a(g#ters, an! of my female co(sins are my nep#ews an! nieces; b(t wit# myself a female, t#ese last relations#ips are re;erse!. &ll t#e c#il!ren of t#e latter are my gran!c#il!ren. >n t#e mot#er@s si!e, myself a male, my mot#er@s brot#er is my (ncle, an! calls me #is nep#ew. %ixt# in!icati;e feat(re. "#e relations#ip of (ncle is restricte! to t#e brot#ers of my mot#er, own an! collateral, to t#e excl(sion of my fat#er@s brot#ers. His c#il!ren are my co(sins, t#e c#il!ren of my male co(sins are my sons an! !a(g#ters, of my female co(sins are

D,, my nep#ews an! nieces; b(t wit# myself a female t#ese last relations#ips are re;erse!, t#e c#il!ren of all ali2e are my gran!c#il!ren. In t#e female branc# of t#e same line my mot#er@s sister is my mot#er. %e;ent# in!icati;e feat(re. &ll of se;eral sisters, own an! collateral, are place! in t#e relation of anot#er to t#e c#il!ren of eac# ot#er. My mot#er@s sister@s c#il!ren are my brot#ers an! sisters, el!er or yo(nger. 'ig#t# in!icati;e feat(re. It establis#es t#e relations#ip of brot#er an! sister among t#e c#il!ren of sisters. "#e c#il!ren of t#ese brot#ers are my sons an! !a(g#ters, of t#ese sisters are my nep#ews an! nieces; an! t#e c#il!ren of t#e latter are my gran!c#il!ren. 6it# myself a female t#e same relations#ips are re;erse! as in pre;io(s cases. 'ac# of t#e wi;es of t#ese se;eral brot#ers, an! of t#ese se;eral male co(sins is my sister?in?law +&#?ge?a#F ne?a#.,eac# of t#em calling me brot#er?in?law +Ha?yaF?o.. "#e precise meaning of t#e former term is not 2nown. /ac# of t#e #(sban!s of t#ese se;eral sisters an! female co(sins is my brot#er?in?law, an! t#ey all apply to me t#e proper correlati;e. "races of t#e p(nal(an c(stom remain #ere an! t#ere in t#e marriage relations#ip of t#e &merican aborigines, namely, between 'go an! t#e wi;es of se;eral brot#ers an! t#e #(sban!s of se;eral sisters. In Man!an my brot#er@s wife is my wife, an! in 3awnee an! &ric2aree t#e same. In Crow my #(sban!@s brot#er@s wife is )my comra!e8 +/ot?BeF?no?pa?c#e@.; in Cree2 my )present occ(pant8 +C#(?#(@?c#o?wa., an! in M(nsee )my frien!8 +=ain?:ose@).. In 6innebago an! &c#aotinne s#e is )my sister.8 My wife@s sister@s #(sban!, in some tribes is )my brot#er,8 in ot#ers my )brot#er?in?law,8 an! in Cree2 )my little separator8 +$n?2aF?p(@?c#e., w#ate;er t#at may mean. "#ir! Collateral ine. &s t#e relations#ips in t#e se;eral branc#es of t#is line are t#e same as in t#e correspon!ing branc#es of t#e secon!, wit# t#e exception of one a!!itional ancestor, it will be s(fficient to present one branc# o(t of t#e fo(r. My fat#er@s fat#er@s brot#er is my gran!fat#er, an! calls me #is gran!son. "#is is a nint# in!icati;e?feat(re, an! t#e last of t#e n(mber. It places t#ese brot#ers in t#e relation of gran!fat#ers, an! t#(s pre;ents collateral ascen!ants from passing beyon! t#is relations#ip. "#e principle w#ic# merges t#e collateral lines in t#e lineal line wor2s (pwar! as well as !ownwar!. "#e son of t#is gran!?fat#er is my fat#er; #is c#il!ren are my brot#ers an! sisters; t#e c#il!ren of t#ese brot#ers are my sons an! !a(g#ters, of t#ese sisters are my nep#ews an! nieces; an! t#eir c#il!ren are my gran!c#il!ren. 6it# myself a female t#e same relations#ips are re;erse! as in pre;io(s cases. More?o;er, t#e correlati;e term is applie! in e;ery instance. *o(rt# Collateral ine. It will be s(fficient, for t#e same reason, to gi;e b(t a single branc# of t#is line. My gran!?fat#er@s fat#er@s brot#er is my gran!fat#er; #is son is also my gran!fat#er; t#e son of t#e latter is my fat#er; #is son an! !a(g#ter are my brot#er an! sister, el!er or yo(nger; an! t#eir c#il!ren an! gran!c#il!ren follow in t#e same relations#ips to

AHH 'go as in ot#er cases. In t#e fift# collateral line t#e classification is t#e same in its se;eral branc#es as in t#e correspon!ing branc#es of t#e secon!, wit# t#e exception of a!!itional ancestors. It follows, from t#e nat(re of t#e system, t#at a 2nowle!ge of t#e n(merical !egrees of consang(inity is essential to a proper classification of 2in!re!. /(t to a nati;e In!ian, acc(stome! to its !aily (se t#e apparent maBe of relations#ips presents no !iffic(lty. &mong t#e remaining marriage relations#ip, t#ere are terms in %eneca?Iro5(ois for fat#er?m?law +&c*naF*hose. for a wife@s fat#er, an! +Ha?ga@?sa. for a #(sban!Fs fat#er. "#e former term is also (se! to !esignate a son?in?law, t#(s s#owing it to be reciprocal. "#ere are also terms for step? fat#er an! step?mot#er +HocF*no*ese. an! +&cF*no*ese.$ an! for step?son an! step?!a(g#ter +HaF*na an! 4aF*no.. In a n(mber of tribes two fat#ers?in?law an! two?mot#ers? in?law are relate!, an! t#ere are terms to express t#e connection. "#e op(lence of t#e nomenclat(re, alt#o(g# ma!e necessary by t#e elaborate !iscriminations of t#e system, is ne;ert#eless remar2able. *or f(ll !etails of t#e %eneca? Iro5(ois an! "amil system reference is ma!e to t#e "able. "#eir i!entity is apparent on bare inspection. It s#ows not only t#e pre;alence of p(nal(an marriage amongst t#eir remote ancestors w#en t#e system was forme!, b(t also t#e powerf(l impression w#ic# t#is form of marriage ma!e (pon ancient society. It is, at t#e same time, one of t#e most extraor!inary applications of t#e nat(ral logic of t#e #(man min! to t#e facts of t#e social system preser;e! in t#e experience of man2in!. "#at t#e "(ranian an! 9anowanian system was engrafte! (pon a pre;io(s Malayan, or one li2e it in all essential respects, is now !emonstrate!. In abo(t one? #alf of all t#e relations#ips name!, t#e two are i!entical. If t#ose are examine!, in w#ic# t#e %eneca an! "amil !iffer from t#e Hawaiian, it, will be fo(n! t#at t#e !ifference is (pon t#ose relations#ips w#ic# !epen!e! on t#e intermarriage or non? intermarriage of brot#ers an! sisters. In t#e former two, for example, my sisterFs son is my nep#ew, b(t in t#e latter, #e is my son. "#e two relations#ips express t#e !ifference between t#e consang(ine an! p(nal(an families. "#e c#ange of relations#ips w#ic# res(lte! from s(bstit(ting p(nal(an in t#e place of consang(ine marriages t(rns t#e Malayan into t#e "(ranian system. /(t it may be as2e! w#y t#e Hawaiians, w#o #a! t#e p(nal(an family, !i! not reform t#eir system of consang(inity in accor!ance t#erewit#U "#e answer #as elsew#ere been gi;en, b(t it may be repeate!. "#e form of t#e family 2eeps in a!;ance of t#e system. In 3olynesia it was p(nal(an w#ile t#e system remaine! Malayan, in &merica it was %yn!yasmian w#ile t#e system remaine! "(ranian; an! in '(rope an! 6estern &sia it became monogamian w#ile t#e system seems to #a;e remaine! "(ranian for a time, b(t it t#en fell into !eca!ence, an! was s(ccee!e! by t#e &ryan. *(rt#ermore, alt#o(g# t#e family #as passe! t#ro(g# fi;e forms, b(t t#ree O !istinct systems of consang(inity were create!, so far as is now 2nown. It re5(ire! an organic c#ange in society attaining (n(s(al !imensions to c#ange essentially an establis#e! system of consang(inity. I t#in2 it will be fo(n! t#at t#e organiBation into gentes was s(fficiently infl(ential an! s(fficiently (ni;ersal to c#ange t#e

AH1 Malayan system into t#e "(ranian; an! t#at monogamy, w#en f(lly establis#e! in t#e more a!;ance! branc#es of t#e #(man family, was s(fficient, wit# t#e infl(ence of property, to o;ert#row t#e "(ranian system an! s(bstit(te t#e &ryan. It remains to explain t#e origin of s(c# "(ranian relations#ips as !iffer from t#e Malayan. 3(nal(an marriages an! t#e gentile organiBations form t#e basis of t#e explanation. I. &ll t#e c#il!ren of my se;eral brot#ers, own an! collateral, myself a male, are my sons an! !a(g#ters. 0easons: %pea2ing as a %eneca, all t#e wi;es of my se;eral brot#ers are mine as well as t#eirs. 6e are now spea2ing of t#e time w#en t#e system was forme!. It is t#e same in t#e Malayan, w#ere t#e reasons are assigne!. II. &ll t#e c#il!ren of my se;eral sisters, own an! collateral, myself a male, are my nep#ews an! nieces. 0easons: $n!er t#e gentile organiBation t#ese females, by a law of t#e gens, cannot be my wi;es. "#eir c#il!ren, t#erefore, can no longer be my c#il!ren, b(t stan! to me in a more remote relations#ip; w#ence t#e new relations#ips of nep#ew an! niece. "#is !iffers from t#e Malayan. III. 6it# myself a female, t#e c#il!ren of my se;eral brot#ers, own an! collateral, are my nep#ews an! nieces. 0easons, as in II. "#is also !iffers from t#e Malayan. II. 6it# myself a female, t#e c#il!ren of my se;eral sisters, own an! collateral, an! of my se;eral female eosins, are my sons an! !a(g#ters. 0easons: &ll t#eir #(sban!s are my #(sban!s as well. In strictness t#ese c#il!ren are my step?c#il!ren, an! are so !escribe! in >:ibwa an! se;eral ot#er &lgon2in tribes; b(t in t#e %eneca? Iro5(ois, an! in "amil, fallowing t#e ancient classification, t#ey are place! in t#e category of my sons an! !a(g#ters, for rcasons gi;en in t#e Malayan. I. &ll t#e c#il!ren of t#ese sons an! !a(g#ters are my gran!c#il!ren. 0eason: "#ey are t#e c#il!ren of my sons an! !a(g#ters. II: &ll t#e c#il!ren of t#ese nep#ews an! nieces are my gran!c#il!ren. 0eason: "#ese were t#e relations#ips of t#e same persons (n!er t#e Malayan system, w#ic# pres(mpti;ely prece!e! t#e "(ranian. =o new one #a;ing been in;ente!, t#e ol! wo(l! remain. III. &ll t#e brot#ers of my fat#er, own an! collateral, are my fat#ers. 0eason: "#ey are t#e #(sban!s of my mot#er. It is t#e same in Malayan. IIII. &ll t#e sisters of my fat#er, own an! collateral, are my a(nts.

AHD 0eason: $n!er t#e gentile organiBation neit#er can be t#e wife of my fat#er; w#erefore t#e pre;io(s relations#ip of mot#er is ina!missible. & new relations#ip, t#erefore, was re5(ire!: w#ence t#at of a(nt. IL. &ll t#e brot#ers of my mot#er, own an! collateral, are my (ncles. 0easons: "#ey are no longer t#e #(sban!s of my mot#er, an! m(st stan! to me in a more remote relations#ip t#an t#at of fat#er: w#ence t#e new relations#ip of (ncle. L. &ll t#e sisters of my mot#er, own an! collateral, are my mot#ers. 0eason, as in II. LI. &ll t#e c#il!ren of my fat#erFs brot#ers, an! all t#e c#il!ren of my mot#erFs sisters, own an! collateral, are my brot#ers an! sisters. 0easons: It is t#e same in Malayan, an! for reasons t#ere gi;en. LII. &ll t#e c#il!ren of my se;eral (ncles an! all t#e c#il!ren of my se;eral a(nts, own an! collateral, are my male an! female co(sins. 0easons: $n!er t#e gentile organiBation all t#ese (ncles an! a(nts are excl(!e! from t#e marriage relation wit# my fat#er an! mot#er; w#erefore t#eir c#il!ren cannot stan! to me in t#e relation of brot#ers an! sisters, as in t#e Malayan, b(t m(st be place! in one more remote: w#ence t#e new relations#ip of co(sin. LIII. In "amil all t#e c#il!ren of my male co(sins, myself a male, are my nep#ews an! nieces, an! all t#e c#il!ren of my female co(sins are my sons an! !a(g#ters. "#is is t#e exact re;erse of t#e r(le among t#e %eneca? Iro5(ois. It ten!s to s#ow t#at among t#e "amil people, w#en t#e "(ranian system came in, all my female co(sins were my wi;es, w#ilst t#e wi;es of my male co(sins were not. It is a sing(lar fact t#at t#e !e;iation on t#ese relations#ips is t#e only one of any importance between t#e two systems in t#e relations#ips to Ego of some two #(n!re! persons. LII. &ll t#e brot#ers an! sisters of my gran!fat#er an! of my gran!mot#er are my gran!fat#ers an! gran!mot#ers. 0eason: It is t#e same in Malayan, an! for t#e reasons t#ere gi;en. It is now ma!e a!!itionally plain t#at bot# t#e "(ranian an! 9anowanian systems, w#ic# are i!entical, s(per;ene! (pon an original Malayan system; an! t#at t#e latter m(st #a;e pre;aile! generally in &sia before t#e Malayan migration to t#e Islan!s of t#e 3acific. Moreo;er, t#ere are goo! gro(n!s for belie;ing t#at t#e system was transmitte! in t#e Malayan form to t#e ancestors of t#e t#ree families, wit# t#e streams of t#e bloo!, from a common &siatic so(rce, an! afterwar!, mo!ifie! into its present form by t#e remote ancestors of t#e "(ranian an! 9anowanian families.

AHA "#e principal relations#ips of t#e "(ranian #a;e now been explaine! in t#eir origin, an! are fo(n! to be t#ose w#ic# wo(l! act(ally exist in t#e p(nal(an family as near as t#e parentage of c#il!ren co(l! be 2nown. "#e system explains itself as. an organic growt#, an! since it co(l! not #a;e originate! wit#o(t an a!e5(ate ca(se, t#e inference becomes legitimate as well as necessary t#at it was create! by p(nal(an families. It will be notice!, #owe;er, t#at se;eral of t#e marriage relations#ips #a;e been c#ange!. "#e system treats all brot#ers as t#e #(sban!s of eac# ot#erFs wi;es, an! all sisters as t#e wi;es of eac# ot#erFs #(sban!s, an! as intermarrie! in a gro(p. &t t#e time t#e system was forme!, w#ere;er a man fo(n! a brot#er, own or collateral, an! t#ose in t#at relation were n(mero(s, in t#e wife of t#at brot#er #e fo(n! an a!!itional wife. In li2e manner, w#ere;er a woman fo(n! a sister, own or collateral, an! t#ose in t#at relation were e5(ally n(mero(s, in t#e #(sban! of t#at sister s#e fo(n! an a!!itional #(sban!. "#e brot#er#oo! of t#e #(sban!s an! t#e sister? #oo! of t#e wi;es forme! t#e basis of t#e relation. It is f(lly expresse! by t#e Hawaiian c(stom of punalua. "#eoretically, t#e family of t#e perio! was co?extensi;e wit# t#e gro(p (nite! in t#e marriage relation; b(t, practically; it m(st #a;e s(b!i;i!e! into a. n(mber of smaller families for con;enience of #abitation an! s(bsistence. "#e brot#ers, by tens an! twel;es, of t#e /ritons, marrie! to eac# ot#erFs wi;es, wo(l! in!icate t#e siBe of an or!inary s(b!i;ision of a p(nal(an gro(p. Comm(nism in li;ing seems to #a;e originate! in t#e necessities of t#e consang(ine family, to #a;e been contin(e! in t#e p(nal(an, an! to #a;e been transmitte! to t#e %yn!yasmian among t#e &merican aborigines, wit# w#om it remaine! a practice !own to t#e epoc# of t#eir !isco;ery. 3(nal(an marriage is now (n2nown among t#em, b(t t#e system of consang(inity it create! #as s(r;i;e! t#e c(stoms in w#ic# it originate!. "#e plan of family life an! of #abitation among sa;age tribes #as been imperfectly st(!ie!. & 2nowle!ge of t#eir (sages in t#ese respects en! of t#eir mo!e of s(bsistence wo(l! t#row a strong lig#t (pon t#e 5(estions (n!er consi!eration. "wo forms of t#e family #a;e now been explaine! in t#eir origin by two parallel systems of consang(inity. "#e proofs seem to be con!(ci;e. It gi;es t#e starting point of #(man society after man2in! #a! emerge! from a still lower con!ition an! entere! t#e organism of t#e consang(ine family. *rom t#is first form to t#e secon! t#e transition was nat(ral; a !e;elopment from a lower into a #ig#er social con!ition t#ro(g# obser;ation an! experience. It was a res(lt of t#e impro;able mental an! moral 5(alities w#ic# belong to t#e #(man species. "#e con? sang(ine an! p(nal(an families represent t#e s(bstance of #(man progress t#ro(g# t#e greater part of t#e perio! of sa;agery. &lt#o(g# t#e secon! was a great impro;ement (pon t#e first, it was still ;ery !istant from t#e monogamian. &n impression may be forme! by a comparison of t#e se;eral forms of t#e family, of t#e slow rate of progress in sa;agery, w#ere t#e means of a!;ancement wereslig#t, an! t#e obstacles were formi!able. &ges (pon ages of s(bstantially stationary life, wit# a!;ance an! !ecline, (n!o(bte!ly mar2e! t#e co(rse of e;ents; b(t t#e general mo;ement of society was from a lower to a #ig#er con!ition, ot#erwise man2in! wo(l! #a;e remaine! in sa;agery. It is somet#ing to fin! an ass(re! initial point from w#ic# man2in! starte! on t#eir great an! mar;ello(s career of progress, e;en t#o(g# so near t#e bottom of t#e scale, an!

AHt#o(g# limite! to a form of t#e family so pec(liar as t#e consang(ine.

Footnotes
1 "#e Ippais an! 7apotas are marrie! in a gro(p Ippai begets M(rri, an! M(rri in t(rn begets Ippai; in li2e manner 7apota begets Mata, an! Mata in t(rn begets 7apota; so t#at t#e gran!c#il!ren of Ippai an! 7apota are t#emsel;es Ippais an! 7apotas, as well as collateral brot#ers an! sisters; an! as s(c# are born #(sban!s an! wi;es. ! )Historical %2etc# of t#e Missions, etc., in t#e %an!wic# Islan!s,8 etc., p. " )<e /ell. 9all.,8 ;. 1# $ ib., i, c. D1G. ib., i;, c. 1H-.

% HerreraFs )History of &merica.8 1. c,, i. D1G. %pea2ing of t#e coast. tribes of /raBil, Herrera f(rt#er remar2s t#at )t#ey li;e in bohios, or large t#atc#e! cottages; of w#ic# t#ere are abo(t eig#t in e;ery ;illage, f(ll of people, wit# t#eir nests or #ammoc2s to lie in...... "#ey li;e in a beastly manner, wit#o(t any regar! to :(stice or !ecency.8 ? lb., i;, ,-. 9arcilasso !e 1a Iega gi;es an e5(ally (nfa;o(rable acco(nt of t#e marriage relation among some of t#e lowest tribes of 3er(.? )0oyal Com. of 3er(,8 1. c., pp. 1H an! 1HG. & )%ystems of Consang(inity an! &ffinity of t#e H(man *amily,8 %mit#sonian Contrib(tions to 7nowle!ge, ;ol. x;ii.

Co parati/e %able of the Syste of Relationship of Seneca. Iro&uois Indian of ,ew =or1+ and of the people of South India+ spea1ing the %a il dialect of -ra/idian Language. 'nT my
<escription of 3ersons 1 D A 4 G 7 8 , 1H 11 1D 1A 114 My 9 gran!fat#erFs fat#er My 9 gran!fat#erFs mot#er My 9 gran!fat#er My 9 gran!mot#er My gran!fat#er My gran!mot#er My fat#er My mot#er My son My !a(g#ter My gran!son My gran!?!a(g#ter My 9 gran!son My 9 gran!?!a(g#ter My 9 gran!sonFs son 0elations#ip in %eneca?Iro5(ois HocF? sote >cF?sote HocF?sote >cF?sote HocF?sote >cF?sote HaF?ni# =o?ye#F Ha?a#F?w(2 7a?a#F?w(2 Ha?yaF?!a 7a?yaF?!a 7a?yaF?!a 7a?yaF?!a Ha?yaF?!a "ranslation My gran!fat#er My gran!mot#er My gran!fat#er My gran!mot#er My gran!fat#er My gran!mot#er My fat#er My mot#er My son My !a(g#ter My gran!son My gran!?!a(g#ter My gran!son My gran!?!a(g#ter My gran!son 0elations#ip in "amil 'n m(ppa!!an 'n m(ppa!!i 'n p(!!an 'n p(!!i 'n pa!!an 'n pa!!i 'n ta22appan 'n tay 'n ma2an 'n ma2al 'n peran 'n pertti 'n iran!am peran 'n iran!am pertti 'n m(n!am peran "ranslation My Ar! gran!fat#er My Ar! gran!mot#er My Dn! gran!fat#er My Dn! gran!mot#er My gran!fat#er My gran!mot#er My fat#er My mot#er My son My !a(g#ter My gran!son My gran!?!a(g#ter My Dn! gran!son My Dn! gran!? !a(g#ter My Ar! gran!son

AH4
1G 17 18 1, DH D1 DD DA DD4 DG D7 D8 D, AH A1 AD AA AA4 AG A7 A8 A, -H -1 -D -A -My 9 gran!sonFs !a(g#ter My el!er brot#er My el!er sister My yo(nger brot#er My yo(nger sister My brot#ers My sisters My brot#erFs son +M sp. My brot#erFs sonFs wife +M sp. My brot#erFs !a(g#ter +M sp. My brot#erFs !a(g#terFs #(sban! +M sp. My brot#erFs gran!son +M sp. My brot#erFs !a(g#ter gran!?!a(g#ter +M sp. My brot#erFs 9 gran!son +M sp. My brot#erFs 9 gran!? !a(g#ter +M sp. My sisterFs son +M sp. My sisterFs sonFs wife +M sp. My sisterFs !a(g#ter +M sp. My sisterFs !a(g#terFs #(sban! +M sp. My sisterFs gran!son +M sp. My sisterFs gran!? !a(g#ter +M sp. My sisterFs 9 gran!son +M sp. My sisterFs 9 gran!? !a(g#ter +M sp. My brot#erFs son +* sp. My brot#erFs sonFs wife +* sp. My brot#erFs !a(g#ter +* sp. My brot#erFs !a(g#terFs #(sban! +* sp. My brot#erFs gran!son +* sp. My brot#erFs gran!? !a(g#ter +* sp. 7a?yaF?!a HaF?:e &#F?:e HaF?ga 7aF?ga <a?ya?g(a?!anF? no?!a <a?ya?g(a?!anF? no?!a Ha?a#F?w(2 7aF?sa#F 7a?a#F?w(2 >c?naF?#osc Ha?yaF?!a 7a?yaF?!a Ha?yaF?!a 7a?yaF?!a Ha?yaF?wan?!a 7aF?sa 7a?yaF?wan?!a >c?naF?#osc Ha?yaF?!a 7a?yaF?!a Ha?yaF?!a 7a?yaF?!a Ha?so#F?ne# 7aF?sa 7a?so#F?ne# >c?na?#ose Ha?ya?!a 7a?ya?!a My grna!?!a(g#ter My el!er brot#er My el!er sister My yo(nger brot#er My yo(nger sister My brot#ers My sisters My son My !a(g#ter?in?law My !a(g#ter My son?in?law My gran!son My gran!?!a(g#ter My gran!son My gran!?!a(g#ter My nep#ew My !a(g#ter?in?law My niece My son?in?law My gran!son My gran!?!a(g#ter My gran!son My gran!?!a(g#ter My nep#ew My !a(g#ter?in?law My niece My son?in?law My gran!son My gran!?!a(g#ter 'n m(n!am pertti 'n tamalya#, b annan 'n a22ari, b tama2ay 'n tambi 'n tangaic#c#i, b tangay 'n sa2ot#aree 'n sa2ot#are2al 'n ma2an 'n mar(ma2al 'n ma2al 'n mar(ma2an 'n peran 'n pertti 'n iran!am peran 'n iran!am pertti 'n mar(ma2al 'n ma2al 'n mar(ma2al 'n ma2an 'n peran 'n peratti 'n iran!am peran 'n iran!am pertti 'n mar(ma2an 'n ma2al 'n mar(ma2al 'n ma2an 'n peran 'n pertti My Ar! gran!? !a(g#ter My el!er brot#er My el!er sister My yo(nger brot#er My yo(nger sister My brot#ers +%ans2rit. My sisters +%ans2rit. My son My !a(g#ter?in?law & niece My !a(g#ter My son?in?law & nep#ew My gran!son My gran!?!a(g#ter My Dn! gran!son My Dn! gran!? !a(g#ter My nep#ew My !a(g#ter My niece My son My gran!son My My gran!? !a(g#ter My Dn! gran!son My Dn! gran!? !a(g#ter My nep#ew My !a(g#ter My niece My son My gran!son My gran!?!a(g#ter

AHG
-4 -G -7 -8 -, 4H 41 4D 4A 444 My brot#erFs 9 gran!son +* sp. My brot#erFs 9 grna!? !a(g#ter +* sp. My sisterFs son +* sp. My sisterFs sonFs wife +* sp. My sisterFs !a(g#ter +* sp. My sisterFs !a(g#terFs #(sban! +* sp. My sisterFs gran!son +* sp. My sisterFs gran!? !a(g#ter +* sp. My sisterFs 9 gran!son +* sp. My sisterFs 9 gran!? !a(g#ter +* sp. My fat#erFs brot#er +* sp. My fat#erFs brot#erFs wife My fat#erFs brot#erFs son +ol!er t#an myself. My fat#erFs brot#erFs son +yo(nger t#an myself My fat#erFs brot#erFs sonFs wife My fat#erFs brot#erFs !a(g#ter +ol!er t#an My myself. My fat#erFs brot#erFs !a(g#ter +yo(nger t#an myself. My fat#erFs brot#erFs !a(g#terFs #(sban! My fat#erFs brot#erFs sonFs son +M %p. My fat#erFs brot#erFs sonFs son +* sp. My fat#erFs brot#erFs sonFs !a(g#ter +M sp. My fat#erFs brot#erFs sonFs !a(g#ter +* %p. My fat#erFs brot#erFs !a(g#terFs son P My fat#erFs brot#erFs my !a(g#terFs son T My fat#erFs brot#erFs !a(g#terFs !a(g#ter P Ha?ya?!a 7a?ya?!a Ha?a#F?w(2 7aF?sa 7a?a#?w(2 >c?naF?#ose Ha?ya?!a 7a?yaF?!a Ha?ya?!a 7a?yaF?!a HaF?ni# My gran!son My gran!?!a(g#ter My son My son?in?law My !a(g#ter My son?in?law My gran!son My gran!?!a(g#ter My gran!son My gran!?!a(g#ter My fat#er 'n iran!am peran 'n iran!am pertti 'n ma2an 'n mar(ma2al 'n ma2al 'n ma2an 'n peran 'n pertti 'n iran!am peran 'n pertti 'n periya ta22appan 'n seriya 'n tay 'n tamaiyan 'n tambi 'n maitt(ni +o. anni +y. 'n a22ari b, tama2ay 'n tangaic#c#i b, tangay 'n maitt(nan 'n ma2an 'n mar(ma2an 'n ma2al 'n mar(ma2al 'n mar(ma2an 'n ma2an 'n mar(ma2al My Dn! gran!son My Dn! gran!? !a(g#ter My son My !a(g#ter?in?law & niece My !a(g#ter My son My gran!son My gran!?!a(g#ter My Dn! gran!son My Dn! gran!? !a(g#ter My 9 fat#er +if ol!er. ittle fat#er +if yo(nger. My mot#er +t#Fn my fa#Fr My el!er brot#er My yo(nger brot#er My co(sin an! sister?in?law My el!er sister My yo(nger sister My brot#er?in?law & co(sin My son My nep#ew My !a(g#ter My niece My nep#ew My son My niece

4G 47 48 4, GH G1 GD GA GG4 GG G7 G8 G,

$c?noF?ese HaF?:e HaF?ga &#?ge?a#F?ne?a# &#F?:e 7aF?ga Ha?yaF?o Ha?a#F?w(2 Ha?so#F?ne# 7a?a#F?w(2 7a?sonF?ne Ha?yaF?wan?!a Ha?a#F?w(2 7a?yaF?wan?!a

My stepmot#er My el!er brot#er My yo(nger brot#er My sister?in?law My el!er sister My yo(nger sister My brot#er?in?law My son My nep#ew My !a(g#ter My niece My nep#ew My son My niece

AH7
7H 71 7D 7A 774 7G 77 78 7, 8H 81 8D 8A 884 8G 87 88 8, ,H ,1 ,D ,A ,,4 ,G ,7 My fat#erFs brot#erFs !a(g#terFs !a(g#ter T My fat#erFs brot#erFs 9 gran!son My fat#erFs brot#erFs 9 gran!?!a(g#ter My fat#erFs sister My fat#erFs sisterFs #(sban! My fat#erFs sisterFs son P My fat#erFs sisterFs son T My fat#erFs sisterFs sonFs wife My fat#erFs sisterFs !a(g#ter P My fat#erFs sisterFs !a(g#ter T My fat#erFs sisterFs !a(g#terFs #(sban! My fat#erFs sisterFs sonFs son P My fat#erFs sisterFs sonF son T My fat#erFs sisterFs sonFs !a(g#ter P My fat#erFs sisterFs sonFs !a(g#ter T My fat#erFs sisterFs !a(g#terFs son P My fat#erFs sisterFs !a(g#terFs son T My fat#erFs sisterFs !a(g#terFs !a(g#ter P My fat#erFs sisterFs !a(g#terFs !a(g#ter T My fat#erFs sisterFs 9 gran!son My fat#erFs sisterFs 9 gran!?!a(g#ter My mot#erFs brot#er My mot#erFs brot#erFs wife My mot#erFs brot#erFs son P My mot#erFs brot#erFs son T My mot#erFs brot#erFs wife My mot#erFs brot#erFs !a(g#ter P My mot#erFs brot#erFs !a(g#ter T 7a?a#F?w(2 Ha?waF?!a 7a?yaF?!a &#?gaF?#(c Hoc?noF?ese &#?gareF?se# &#?gareF?se# &#?ge?a#F?ne?a# &#?gareF?se# &#?gareF?s#e Ha?wa?oF Ha?a#F?w(2 Ha?so#F?ne# 7a?a#F?w(2 7a?so#?ne# Ha?yaF?wan?!a Ha?a#?w(2 7a?yaF?wan?!a 7a?a#F?w(2 Ha?waF?!a 7a?yaF?!a Hoc?noF?ne# &#?ga?ne?a &#?gare?s#e &#?gareF?s#e &#?ge?a#F?ne?a# &#?gareF?sa# &#?gareF?sa# My !a(g#ter My gran!son My gran!?!a(g#ter My a(nt My step?fat#er My co(sin My co(sin My sister?in?law My co(sin My co(sin My brot#er?in?law My son My nep#ew My !a(g#ter My niece My nep#ew My son My niece My !a(g#ter My gran!son My gran!?!a(g#ter My (ncle My a(nt?mot#er My co(sin My co(sin My sister?in?law My co(sin My co(sin 'n ma2al 'n peran 'n pertti 'n attal 'n maman 'n attan b, maitt(nan 'n mac#c#an 'n tangay 'n maitt(ni 'n mac#c#i, b mac#c#ini 'n annan, b tambi 'n mar(ma2an 'n ma2an 'n mar(ma2al 'n ma2al 'n ma2an 'n mar(ma2an 'n ma2al 'n mar(ma2al 'n peran 'n pertti 'n maman 'n mame 'n maitt(nan 'n mac#c#an 'n tangay 'n maitt(ni 'n mac#c#ari My !a(g#ter My gran!son My gran!?!a(g#ter My a(nt My (ncle My co(sin My co(sin My yo(nger sister My co(sin My co(sin My el!er or yo(nger brot#er My nep#ew My son My niece My !a(g#ter My son My nep#ew My !a(g#ter My niece My gran!son My gran!?!a(g#ter My (ncle My a(nt My co(sin My co(sin My yo(nger sister My co(sin My co(sin

AH8
,8 ,, 1HH 1H1 1HD 1HA 1H1H4 1HG 1H7 1H8 1H, My mot#erFs brot#erFs !a(g#terFs #(sban! My mot#erFs brot#erFs sonFs son P My mot#erFs brot#erFs sonFs son T My mot#erFs brot#erFs sonFs !a(g#ter P My mot#erFs brot#erFs sonFs !a(g#ter T My mot#erFs brot#erFs brot#erFs !a(g#terFs son P My mot#erFs brot#erFs !a(g#terFs son T My mot#erFs brot#erFs !a(g#terF !a(g#ter P My mot#erFs brot#erFs !a(g#terFs !a(g#ter T My mot#erFs brot#erFs 9 gran!son My mot#erFs brot#erFs 9 gran!?!a(g#ter My mot#erFs sisterFs Ha?yaF?o Ha?a#F?w(2 Ha?so#F?ne# 7a?a#F?w(2 7a?so#F?ne# Ha?yaF?wan?!a Ha?a#F?w(2 7a?yaF?wan?!a 7a?a#F?w(2 Ha?yaF?!a 7a?yaF?!a =o?ye#F My brot#er?in?law My son My nep#ew My !a(g#ter My niece My nep#ew My son My niece My !a(g#ter My gran!son My gran!?!a(g#ter My mot#er 'n annan +o. tambi +y. 'n mar(na2an 'n ma2an 'n mar(ma2al 'n ma2al 'n ma2an 'n mar5ma2an 'n ma2al 'n mar(ma2al 'n peran 'n pertti 'n periya tay +if ol!er t#an myself. 'n seriya tay +if yo(nger t#an myself. 'n ta22appan +p. or s.. 'n tamaiyan, b, annan 'n tmbi 'n maitt(ni 'n a22ari b, tama2ay 'n tangaic#c#i, b, tangy 'n maitt(nal 'n ma2an 'n mar(ma2am 'n ma2al 'n mar(ma2al 'n mar(ma2an My el!er or yo(nger brot#er My nep#ew My son My niece My !a(g#ter My son My nep#ew My !a(g#ter My niece My gran!son My gran!?!a(g#ter My mot#er, great or little

11H 111 11D 11A 11114 11G 117 118 11, 1DH 1D1

My mot#erFs sisterFs #(sban! My mot#erFs sisterFs son +ol!er t#an myself. My mot#erFs sisterFs son +yo(nger t#an myself. My mot#erFs sisterFs sonFs wife My mot#erFs sisterFs !a(g#ter +ol!er t#an myself. My mot#erFs sisterFs !a(g#ter +yo(nger t#an myself. My mot#erFs sisterFs !a(g#terFs #(sban! My mot#erFs sisterFs sonFs son P My mot#erFs sisterFs sonFs son T My mot#erFs sisterFs sonFs !a(g#ter P My mot#erFs sisterFs !a(g#ter T My sisterFs !a(g#terFs son P

Hoc?noF?ese HaF?:e HaF?ga &#?ge?a#Fne?a# &#F?:e 7aF?ga Ha?yaF?o Ha?a#F?w(2 Ha?so#F?ne# 7a?a#F?w(2 7a?so#F?ne# Ha?yaF?wan?!a

My stepfat#er My el!er brot#er My yo(nger brot#er My sister?in ?law My el!er sister My yo(nger sister My brot#er?in?law My son My nep#ew My !a(g#ter My niece My nep#ew

My fat#er, great or little My el!er brot#er My yo(nger brot#er My sister?in?law & co(sin My el!e sister My yo(nger sister My brot#er?in?law & co(sin My son My nep#ew My !a(g#ter My niece My nep#ew

AH,
1DD 1DA 1D1D4 1DG 1D7 1D8 1D, 1AH 1A1 1AD 1AA 1A1A4 1AG 1A7 1A8 1A, 1-H 1-1 1-D 1-A My mot#erFs sisterFs !a(g#terFs son T My mot#erFs sisterFs !a(g#terFs !a(g#ter P My mot#erFs sisterFs !a(g#terFs !a(g#ter T My mot#erFs sisterFs My mot#erFs sisterFs 9 gran!son My mot#erFs sisterFs 9 gran!?!a(g#ter My fat#erFs fat#erFs brot#erFs son My fat#erFs fat#erF brot#erFs sonFs son +ol!er t#an myself. My fat#erFs fat#erFs brot#erFs sonFs son +yo(nger t#an myself. My fat#erFs fat#erFs brot#erFs sonFs sonFs son P My fat#erFs fat#erFs brot#erFs sonFs sonFs son T My fat#erFs fat#erFs brot#erFs sonFs sonFs !a(g#ter P My fat#erFs fat#erFs brot#erFs sonFs sonsF !a(g#ter My fat#erFs fat#erFs brot#erFs 9 9 gran!son My fat#erFs fat#erFs brot#er 9 9 gran!? !a(g#ter My fat#erFs fat#erF sister My fat#erFs fat#erF sisterFs !a(g#ter My fat#erFs fat#erF sisterFs !a(g#terFs !a(g#ter P My fat#erFs fat#erF sisterFs !a(g#terFs !a(g#ter T My fat#erFs fat#erF sisterFs !a(g#terFs !a(g#terFs son P My fat#erFs fat#erF sisterFs !a(g#terFs !a(g#terFs son T My fat#erFs fat#erF sisterFs !a(g#terFs !a(g#terFs !a(g#ter P Ha?a#F?w(2 7a?yaF?wan?!a 7a?a#F?w(2 Ha?yaF?!a 7a?yaF?!a HocF?sote HaF?ni# HaF?:e HaF?ga Ha?a#F?w(2 7a?so#F?ne# 7a?a#F?w(2 7a?so#F?ne# Ha?waF?!a 7a?yaF?!a >cF?sote &#?gaF?#(c &#?gareF?s#e &#?gareF?s#e Ha?yaF?wa?!a Ha?a#F?w(2 7a?yaF?wan?!a My son My niece My !a(g#ter My gran!son My gran!?!a(g#ter My gran!fat#er My fat#er My el!er brot#er My yo(nger brot#er My son My nep#ew My !a(g#ter My niece My gran!son My gran!?!a(g#ter My gran!mot#er My a(nt My co(sin My co(sin My nep#ew My son My niece 'n ma2al 'n mar(ma2al 'n ma2al 'n peran 'n pertti 'n pa!!an +p. & s.. 'n ta22appan +p. & s.. 'n annan, b, tamaiyan 'n tambi 'n ma2an 'n mar(ma2an 'n ma2an 'n mar(ma2al 'n teran 'n pertti 'n pa!!i +p. & s.. 'n tay +p. & s.. 'n tama2ay +o. tangay +y. 'n tama2ay +o. tangay +y. 'n mar(ma2anU 'n ma2anU 'n mar(ma2alU My son My niece My !a(t#er My gran!son My gran!?!a(g#ter My gran!fat#er. 9reat or little My fat#er great or little My el!e brot#er My yo(nger brot#er My son My nep#ew My !a(g#ter My niece My gran!son My gran!?!a(g#ter My gran!mot#er, great or little My mot#er great or little My el!er or yo(nger sister My el!er or yo(nger sister My nep#ew My son My niece

A1H
1-1-4 1-G 1-7 1-8 1-, 14H 141 14D 14A 14144 14G 147 148 14, My fat#erFs fat#erF sisterFs !a(g#terFs !a(g#terFs !a(g#ter T My fat#erFs fat#erF sisterFs 9 9 gran!son My fat#erFs fat#erF sisterFs 9 9 gran!? !a(g#ter My mot#erFs mot#erFs brot#er My mot#erFs mot#erFs brot#erFs son My mot#erFs mot#erFs brot#erFs sonFs son P My mot#erFs mot#erFs brot#erFs sonFs son T My mot#erFs mot#erFs brot#erFs sonFs sonFs son P My mot#erFs mot#erFs brot#erFs sonFs sonFs son T My mot#erFs mot#erFs brot#erFs sonFs sonFs !a(g#ter P My mot#erFs mot#erFs brot#erFs sonFs sonFs !a(g#ter T My mot#erFs mot#erFs brot#erFs 9 9 gran!son My mot#erFs mot#erFs brot#erFs 9 9 gran!? !a(g#ter My mot#erFs mot#erFs sister My mot#erFs mot#erFs sisterFs !a(g#ter My mot#erFs mot#erFs sisterFs !a(g#terFs !a(g#ter +ol!er t#an myself. My mot#erFs mot#erFs sisterFs !a(g#terFs !a(g#ter +yo(nger t#an myself. My mot#erFs mot#erFs sisterFs !a(g#terFs !a(g#terFs son P My mot#erFs mot#erFs sisterFs !a(g#terFs !a(g#terFs T My mot#erFs mot#erFs sisterFs !a(g#terFs !a(g#terFs !a(g#ter P My mot#erFs mot#erFs 7a?a#F?w(2 &#?waF?!a 7a?waF?!a HocF?sote Hoc?no?s#e &#?gareF?sa# &#?gareF?sa# Ha?a#F?w(2 Ha?so#F?ne# 7a?a#F?w(2 7a?so#F?ne# Ha?yaF?!a 7a?yaF?!a >cF?sote =o?ye#F &#F?:e My !a(g#ter My gran!son My gran!?!a(g#ter My gran!fat#er My (ncle My co(sin My co(sin My son My nep#ew My !a(#er My niece My gran!son My gran!?!a(g#ter My gran!mot#er My mot#er My el!er sister 'n ma2alU 'n peran 'n pertti 'n pa!!an +p. & s.. 'n maman 'n maitt(nan 'n mac#c#an 'n mar(ma2an 'n ma2an 'n mar(ma2al 'n ma2al 'n peran 'n pertti 'n pa!!i +p. & s.. 'n tay +p.& s.. 'n tama2ay My !a(g#ter My gran!son My gran!?!a(g#ter My gran!fat#er, great or little My (ncle My co(sin My co(sin My nep#ew My son My niece My !a(g#ter My gran!son My gran!?!a(g#ter My gran!mot#er, great or little My mot#er, great or little My el!e sister

1GH

7aF?ga

My yo(nger sister

'n tangay

My yo(nger sister

1G1 1GD 1GA 1G-

Ha?yaF?wan?!a Ha?a#F?w(2 7a?yaF?wan?!a 7a?a#F?w(2

My nep#ew My son My niece My !a(g#ter

'n mar(ma2an 'n ma2an 'n mar(ma2al 'n ma2al

My nep#w My son My niece My !a(g#ter

A11
sisterFs !a(g#terFs !a(g#terFs !a(g#ter T My mot#erFs mot#erFs sisterFs 9 9 gran!son My mot#erFs mot#erFs sisterFs 9 9 gran!? !a(g#ter My fat#erFs fat#erFs fat#erFs brot#er My fat#erFs fat#erFs fat#erFs brot#erFs son My fat#erFs fat#erFs fat#erFs brot#erFs sonFs son +ol!er t#an myself. My fat#erFs fat#erFs fat#erFs brot#erFs sonFs sonFs son P My fat#erFs fat#erFs fat#erFs brot#erFs sonFs sonFs sonFs sonFs son My fat#erFs fat#erFs fat#erFs brot#er My fat#erFs fat#erFs fat#erFs sisterFs !a(g#ter My fat#erFs fat#erFs fat#erFs sisterFs !a(g#terFs !a(g#ter My fat#erFs fat#erFs fat#erFs sisterFs !a(g#terFs !a(g#terFs !a(g#ter P My fat#erFs fat#erFs fat#erFs sisterFs !a(g#terFs !a(g#terFs !a(g#terFs !a(g#ter My fat#erFs fat#erFs fat#erFs sisterFs !a(g#terFs !a(g#terFs !a(g#terFs !a(g#terFs !a(g#ter My mot#erFs mot#erFs mot#erFs brot#er My mot#erFs mot#erFs mot#erFs brot#erFs son My mot#erFs mot#erFs mot#erFs brot#erFs sonFs son My mot#erFs mot#erFs mot#erFs brot#erFs sonFs sonFs sonFs son P My mot#erFs mot#erFs mot#erFs brot#er sonFs sonFs sonFs sonFs T My mot#erFs mot#erFs mot#erFs brot#erFs sonFs

1G4 1GG 1G7 1G8 1G, 17H 171 17D 17A 17174

Ha?yaF?!a 7a?yaF?!a HocF?sote HocF?sote HaF?ni# Ha?a#F?w(2 Ha?yaF?!a >cF?sote >cF?sote =o?ye#F &#F?:e

My gran!son My gran!?!a(g#ter My gran!fat#er My gran!mot#er My fat#er My son My gran!son My gran!mot#er My gran!mot#er My mot#er My el!er sister

'n peran 'n pertti 'n iran!am pa!!an 'n pa!!an +p. & s.. 'n ta22appan +p. & s.. 'n ma2an 'n peran 'n iran!am pa!!i 'n pa!!i +p. & s.. 'n tay +p. & s.. 'n tama2ay b, tangayU 'n mar(ma2al

My gran!son My gran!?!a(g#ter My Dn! gran!fat#er My gran!fat#er, 9 or little My fat#er, 9 or little My son My gran!son My Dn! gran!mot#er My gran!mot#er, 9 or little My mot#er 9 or little My sister, el!er or yo(nger My niece

17G

Ha?so#F?ne#

My niece

177

Ha?yaF?!a

My gran!?!a(g#ter

'n pertti

My gran!?!a(g#ter

178 17, 18H 181 18D 18A

HocF?sote HocF?sote Hoc?noF?se# &#?gareF?s#e Ha?a#F?w(2 Ha?yaF?!a

My gran!fat#er My gran!fat#er My (ncle My co(sin My son My gran!son

'n iran!am pa!!an 'n pa!!an +p. & s.. 'n maman 'n maitt(nan 'n mar(ma2an 'n peran

My Dn! gran!fat#er My gran!fat#er, 9 or little My (ncle My co(sin My nep#ew My my gran!c#il!

A1D
sonFs sonFs sonFs son My mot#erFs mot#erFs mot#erFs sister My mot#erFs mot#erFs mot#erFs sisterFs !a(g#ter My mot#erFs mot#erFs mot#erFs sisterFs !a(g#terFs !a(g#ter My mot#erFs mot#erFs mot#erFs sisterFs !a(g#terFs !a(g#terFs !a(g#ter +ol!er t#an myself. My mot#erFs mot#erFs mot#erFs sisterFs !a(g#terFs !a(g#terFs !a(g#terFs !a(g#ter T My mot#erFs mot#erFs mot#erFs sisterFs !a(g#terFs !a(g#terFs !a(g#terFs !a(g#terFs !a(g#ter My #(sban! My wife My #(sban!Fs fat#er My #(sban!Fs mot#er My wifeFs fat#er My wifeFs mot#er My son?in?law My !a(g#ter?in?law My stepfat#er My stepmot#er My stepson My step?!a(g#ter My stepbrot#er My stepsister My brot#er?in?law +#(sban!Fs brot#er. My brot#er?in?law +sisterFs #(sban!. P My brot#er?in?law +sisterFs #(sban!. T My brot#er?in?law +wifeFs #(sban!.

18184 18G 187

>cF?sote >cF?sote =o?ye#F &#F?:e

My gran!mot#er My gran!mot#er My mot#er My el!er sister

'n iran!am pa!!i 'n pa!!i +p. & s.. 'n tay +p. & s.. 'n a22ari

My Dn! gran!mot#er My gran!mot#er 9 or little My mot#er 9 or little My el!e rsister

188

7a?yaF?wan?!a

My niece

'n ma22al

My !a(t#er

18,

7a?yaF?!a

My gran!?!a(g#ter

'n perrtti

My gran!?!a(g#ter

1,H 1,1 1,D 1,A 1,1,4 1,G 1,7 1,8 1,, DHH DH1 DHD DHA DHDH4 DHG DH7

<a?ya2eF?ne <a?ya2eF?ne Ha?gaF?sa >ng?gaF?sa >cF?naF?#ose >cF?naF?#ose >cF?naF?#ose 7aF?sa Hoc?noF?ese >c?noF?ese HaF?na 7aF?no ? ? Ha?yaF?o &#?ge?a#F?ne?o Ha?yaF?o &#?geF?a#F?ne?o

My #(sban! My wife My fat#er?in?law My mot#er?in?law My fat#er?in?law My mot#er?in?law My son?in?law My !a(g#ter?in?law My stepfat#er My stepmot#er My stepson My step?!a(g#ter ? ? My brot#er?in?law My brot#er?in?law My brot#er?in?law My brot#er?in?law

'n 2ana;an, b, p(rns#an 'n maina;i, b, parnc#atti 'n maman, b, mamanar 'n mami, b, mannai 'n maman 'n mamai 'n mapillai, b, mar(ma2al 'n mar(ma2al ? 'n seriya tay 'n ma2an 'n ma2al 'n annan +o. tambi +y. 'n a22ari +o. tangi +y. 'n maitt(nan 'n maitt(nan 'n attan +o. maic#c#an 'n maitt(nan

My #(sban! My wife My (ncle & fat#er? in?law My a(nt & mot#er? in?law My (ncle & fat#er My a(nt My son?in?law & nep#ew My !a(g#ter?in?law & niece +wi!ows cannot marry. My little mot#er My son My !a(g#ter My brot#er, el!er or yo(nger My sister My brot#er?in?law & co(sin My brot#er?in?law & co(sin My brot#er?in?law & co(sin My brot#er?in?law & co(sin

A1A
DH8 DH, D1H D11 D1D D1A D1D14 D1G D17 D18 My brot#er?in?law +wifeFs sisterFs #(sban! My brot#er?in?law +#(sban!Fs sisterFs #(sban! My sister?in?law +wifeFs sister. My sister?in?law +#(sban!Fs sister. My sister?in?law +brot#erFs wife. P My sister?in?law +brot#erFs wife. T My sister?in?law +#(sban!Fs brot#erFs wife. My sister?in?law +wifeFs brot#erFs wife. My wi!ow My wi!ower My twins =o relation =o relation 7a?yaF?o &#?ge?a#F?ne?o 7a?yaF?o &#?ge?a#F?ne?o =o relation =o relation 9o?no?2wF?yesF? #eF?a# 9o?no?2wF?yesF? #eF?a# "as?gee2F?#a ? ? My sister?in?law My sister?in?law My sister?in?law My sister?in?law ? ? 6i!ow 6i!ower "wins 'n sa2alan 'n sa2otaran 'n 2ari(niti +o. maittinni 'n nattanas 'n anni +o. maitt(ni +y. 'n anni +o. maitt(ni +y. 'n ora2atti 'n tama2ay +o. tanga y +y. 'n 2iemp(n ? 'n !it#ambat#ie My brot#er?in?law & co(sin My brot#er?in?law & co(sin My sister?in?law & co(sin My sister?in?law & co(sin My sister?in?law & co(sin My sister?in?law & co(sin My sister?in?law & co(sin My sister?in?law & co(sin 6i!ow ? "wins +sans2rit.

Chapter IV THE SYNDYASMIAN AND THE PATRIARCHAL FAMILIES

6#en t#e &merican aborigines were !isco;ere!, t#at portion of t#em w#o were in t#e ower %tat(s of barbarism, #a! attaine! to t#e syn!yasmian or pairing family. "#e large gro(ps in t#e marriage relation, w#ic# m(st #a;e existe! in t#e pre;io(s perio!, #a! !isappeare!; an! in t#eir places were marrie! pairs, forming clearly mar2e!, t#o(g# b(t partially in!i;i!(aliBe! families. In t#is family, may be recogniBe! t#e germ of t#e monogamian, b(t it was below t#e latter in se;eral essential partic(lars. "#e %yn!yasmian family was special an! pec(liar. %e;eral of t#em were (s(ally fo(n! in one #o(se, forming a comm(nal #o(se#ol!, in w#ic# t#e principle of comm(nism in li;ing was practice!. "#e fact of t#e con:(nction of se;eral s(c# families in a common #o(se#ol! is of itself an a!mission t#at t#e family was too feeble an organiBation to face alone t#e #ar!s#ips of life. =e;ert#eless it was fo(n!e! (pon marriage between. single pairs, an! possesse! some of t#e c#aracteristics of t#e monogamian family. "#e woman was now somet#ing more t#an t#e principal wife of #er #(sban!; s#e was #is companion, t#e preparer of #is foo!, an! t#e mot#er of c#il!ren w#om #e now began wit# some ass(rance to regar! as #is own. "#e birt# of c#il!ren, of w#om t#ey :ointly care!, ten!e! to cement t#e (nion an! ren!er it permanent. /(t t#e marriage instit(tion was as pec(liar as t#e family. Men !i! not see2 wi;es as t#ey are so(g#t in ci;iliBe! society, from affection, for t#e passion of lo;e; w#ic# re5(ire! a #ig#er

A1!e;elopment t#an t#ey #a! attaine!, was (n2nown among t#em. Marriage, t#erefore, was not fo(n!e! (pon sentiment b(t (pon con;enience an! necessity. It was left to t#e mot#ers, in effect, to arrange t#e marriages of t#eir c#il!ren, an! t#ey were negotiate! generally wit#o(t t#e 2nowle!ge of t#e parties to be marrie!, an! wit#o(t as2ing t#eir pre;io(s consent. It sometimes #appene! t#at entire strangers were t#(s bro(g#t into t#e marriage relation. &t t#e proper time t#ey were notifie! w#en t#e simple n(ptial ceremony wo(l! be performe!. %(c# were t#e (sages of t#e Iro5(ois an! many ot#er In!ian tribes. &c5(iescence in t#ese maternal contracts was a !(ty w#ic# t#e parties sel!om ref(se!. 3rior to t#e marriage, presents to t#e gentile relati;es of t#e bri!e, nearest in !egree, parta2ing of t#e nat(re of p(rc#asing gifts, became a feat(re in t#ese matrimonial transactions. "#e relation, #owe;er, contin(e! !(ring t#e pleas(re of t#e parties, an! no longer. It is for t#is reason t#at it is properly !isting(is#e! as t#e pairing family. "#e #(sban! co(l! p(t away #is wife at pleas(re an! ta2e anot#er wit#? o(t offence, an! t#e woman en:oye! t#e e5(al rig#t of lea;ing #er #(sban! an! accepting anot#er, in w#ic# t#e (sages of #er tribe an! gens were not infringe!. /(t a p(blic sentiment gra!(ally forme! an! grew into strengt# against s(c# separations. 6#en alienation arose between a marrie! pair, an! t#eir separation became imminent, t#e gentile 2in!re! of eac# attempte! a reconciliation of t#e parties, in w#ic# t#ey were often s(ccessf(l; b(t if t#ey were (nable to remo;e t#e !iffic(lty t#eir separation was appro;e!. "#e wife t#en left t#e #ome of #er #(sban!, ta2ing wit# #er t#eir c#il!ren, w#o were regar!e! as excl(si;ely #er own, an! #er personal effects, (pon w#ic# #er #(sban! #a! no claim: or w#ere t#e wifeFs 2in!re! pre!ominate! in t#e comm(nal #o(se#ol!, w#ic# was (s(ally t#e case, t#e #(sban! left t#e #ome of #is wife.[1] "#(s t#e contin(ance of t#e marriage relation remaine! at t#e option of t#e parties. "#ere was anot#er feat(re of t#e relation w#ic# s#ows t#at t#e &merican aborigines in t#e ower %tat(s of barbarism #a! not attaine! t#e moral !e;elopment implie! by monogamy. &mong t#e Iro5(ois, w#o were barbarians of #ig# mental gra!e, an! among t#e (s(ally a!;ance! In!ian tribes generally, c#astity #a! come to be re5(ire! of t#e wife (n!er se;er penalties w#ic# t#e #(sban! mig#t inflict; b(t #e !i! not a!mit t#e reciprocal obligation. "#e one cannot be permanently realiBe! wit#o(t t#e ot#er. Moreo;er, polygamy was (ni;ersally recogniBe! as t#e rig#t of t#e males, alt#o(g# t#e practice was limite! from inability to s(pport t#e in!(lgence. "#ere were ot#er (sages, t#at nee! not be mentione!, ten!ing still f(rt#er to s#ow t#at t#ey were below a conception of monogamy, as t#at great instit(tion is probably !efine!. 'xceptional excesses ;ery li2ely existe!. It will be fo(n! e5(ally tr(e, as I belie;e, !isting(is#e! t#e %yn!yasmian from t#e monogamian family, alt#o(g# liable to n(mero(s exceptions, was #e absence of an excl(si;e co#abitation. "#e ol! con:(gal system, a recor! of w#ic# is still preser;e! in t#eir system of consang(inity, (n!o(bte!ly remaine!, b(t (n!er re!(ce! an! restricte! forms. &mong t#e Iillage In!ians in t#e Mi!!le %tate of barbarism t#e facts were not essentially !ifferent, so far as t#ey can be sai! to be 2nown. & comparison of t#e (sages of t#e &merican aborigines, wit# respect to marriage an! !i;orce, s#ows an existing similarity s(fficiently strong to imply original i!entity of (sages. & few

A14 only can be notice!. Cla;igero remar2s t#at among t#e &Btecs )t#e parents were t#e persons w#o settle! all marriages, an! none were e;er exec(te! wit#o(t, t#eir consent.8[2] )& priest tie! a point of t#e huepilli$ or gown of t#e bri!e, wit# t#e tilmatli$ or mantle of t#e bri!egroom, an! in t#is ceremony t#e matrimonial con!(ct c#iefly consiste!.8[3] Herrera, after spea2ing of t#e same ceremony, obser;es t#at )all t#at t#e bri!e bro(g#t was 2ept in memory, t#at in case t#ey s#o(l! be (nmarrie! again, as was (s(al among t#em, t#e goo!s mig#t be parte!; t#e man ta2ing t#e !a(g#ters, an! t#e wife t#e sons, wit# liberty to marry again.8[4] It will be notice! t#at t#e &Btec In!ian !i! not see2 #is wife personally any more t#an t#e Iro5(ois. &mong bot# it was less an in!i;i!(al t#an a p(blic or gentile affair, an! t#erefore still remaine! (n!er parental control excl(si;ely. "#ere was ;ery little social interco(rse between (nmarrie! persons of t#e two sexes in In!ian life; an! as attac#ments were not contracte!, none were tra;erse! by t#ese marriages, in w#ic# personal wis#es were (nconsi!ere!, an! in fact (nimportant. It appears f(rt#er, t#at t#e personal effects of t#e wife were 2ept !istinct among t#e &Btecs as among t#e Iro5(ois, t#at in case of separation, w#ic# was a common occ(rrence as t#is writer states, s#e mig#t retain t#em in accor!ance wit# general In!ian (sage. *inally, w#ile among t#e Iro5(ois in t#e case of !i;orce t#e wife too2 all t#e c#il!ren, t#e &Btec #(sban! was entitle! to t#e !a(g#ters, an! t#e wife to t#e sons, a mo!ification of t#e ancient (sage w#ic# implies a prior time w#en t#e Iro5(ois In!ian r(le existe! among t#e ancestors of t#e &Btecs. %pea2ing of t#e people of 1(catan generally Herrera, f(rt#er remar2s t#at )formerly t#ey were wont to marry at twenty years of age, an! afterwar!s came to twel;e or fo(rteen, an! #a;ing no affection for t#eir wi;es were !i;orce! for e;ery trifle.8[5] "#e Mayas of 1(catan were s(perior to t#e &Btecs in c(lt(re an! !e;elopment; b(t w#ere marriages were reg(late! on t#e principle of necessity, an! not t#ro(g# personal c#oice, it is not s(rprising t#at t#e relation was (nstable, an! t#at separation was at t#e option of eit#er party. Moreo;er, polygamy was a recogniBe! rig#t of t#e males among t#e Iillage In!ians, an! seems to #a;e been more generally practice! t#an among t#e less a!;ance! tribes. "#ese glimpses at instit(tions p(rely In!ian as well as barbarian re;eal in a forcible manner t#e act(al con!ition of t#e aborigines in relati;e a!;ancement. In a matter so personal as t#e marriage relation, t#e wis#es or preferences of t#e parties were not cons(lte!. =o better e;i!ence is nee!e! of t#e barbarism of t#e people. 6e are next to notice some of t#e infl(ences w#ic# !e;elope! t#is family from t#e p(nal(an, In t#e latter t#ere was more or less of pairing from t#e necessities of t#e social state, eac# man #a;ing a principal wife among a n(mber of wi;es, an! eac# woman a principal #(sban! among a n(mber of #(sban!s; so t#at t#e ten!ency in t#e p(nal(an family, from t#e first, was in t#e !irection of t#e %yn!yasmian. "#e organiBation into gentes was t#e principal instr(mentality t#at accomplis#e! t#is res(lt; b(t t#ro(g# long an! gra!(al processes. *irstly. It !i! not at once brea2 (p intermarriage in t#e gro(p, w#ic# it fo(n! establis#e! by c(stom; b(t t#e pro#ibition of intermarriage in t#e gens excl(!e! own brot#ers an! sisters, an! also t#e c#il!ren of own sisters, since all of t#ese were of t#e same gens. >wn brot#ers co(l! still s#are t#eir wi;es in common, an! own sisters t#eir #(sban!s;

A1G conse5(ently t#e gens !i! not interfere !irectly wit# p(nal(an marriage, except to narrow its range. /(t it wit##el! permanently from t#at relation all t#e !escen!ants in t#e female line of eac# ancestor wit#in t#e gens, w#ic# was a great inno;ation (pon t#e pre;io(s p(nal(an gro(p. 6#en t#e gens s(b!i;i!e!, t#e pro#ibition followe! its branc#es, for long perio!s of time, as #as been s#own was t#e case among t#e Iro5(ois. %econ!ly. "#e str(ct(re an! principles of t#e organiBation ten!e! to create a pre:(!ice against t#e marriage of consang(inei, as t#e a!;antages of marriages between (nrelate! persons were gra!(ally !isco;ere! t#ro(g# t#e practice of marrying o(t of t#e gens. "#is seems to #a;e grown apace (ntil a p(blic sentiment was finally arraye! against it w#ic# #a! become ;ery general among t#e &merican aborigines w#en !isco;ere!.[6] *or example, among t#e Iro5(ois none of t#e bloo! relati;es en(merate! in t#e "able of consang(inity were marriageable. %ince it became necessary to see2 wi;es from ot#er gentes t#ey began to be ac5(ire! -y negotiation an! by p(rc#ase. "#e gentile organiBation m(st #a;e le!, step by step, as its infl(ence became general, to a scarcity of wi;es in place of t#eir pre;io(s ab(n!ance; an! as a conse5(ence, #a;e gra!(ally contracte! t#e n(mbers in t#e p(nal(an gro(p. "#is concl(sion is reasonable, beca(se t#ere are s(fficient gro(n!s for ass(ming t#e existence of s(c# gro(ps w#en t#e "(ranian system of consang(inity was forme!. "#ey #a;e now !isappeare! alt#o(g# t#e system remains. "#ese gro(ps m(st #a;e gra!(ally !ecline!, an! finally !isappeare! wit# t#e general establis#ment of t#e %yn!yasmian family. *o(rt#ly. In see2ing wi;es, t#ey !i! not confine t#em? sel;es to t#eir own, nor e;en to frien!ly tribes, b(t capt(re! t#em by force from #ostile tribes. It f(rnis#es a reason for t#e In!ian (sage of sparing t#e li;es of female capti;es, w#ile t#e males were p(t to !eat#. 6#en wi;es came be ac5(ire! by p(rc#ase an! by capt(re, an! more an! more by effort an! sacrifice, t#ey wo(l! not be as rea!ily s#are! wit# ot#ers. It wo(l! ten!, at least, to c(t off t#at portion of t#e t#eoretical gro(p not imme!iately associate! for s(bsistence; an! t#(s re!(ce still more t#e siBe of t#e family an! t#e range of t#e con:(gal system. 3ractically, t#e gro(p wo(l! en! to limit itself, from t#e first, to own brot#ers w#o s#are! t#eir wi;es in common an! to own sisters w#o s#are! t#eir #(sban!s in common. astly. "#e gens create! a #ig#er organic str(ct(re of society t#an #a! before been 2nown, wit# processes of !e;elopment as a social system a!e5(ate to t#e wants of man2in! (ntil ci;iliBation s(per;ene!. 6it# t#e progress of society (n!er t#e gentes, t#e way was prepare! for t#e appearance of t#e %yn!yasmian family. "#e infl(ence of t#e new practice, w#ic# bro(g#t (nrelate! persons into t#e marriage relation, m(st #a;e gi;en a remar2able imp(lse to society. It ten!e! to create a more ;igoro(s stoc2 p#ysically an! mentally. "#ere is a gain by accretion in t#e coalescence of !i;erse stoc2s w#ic# #as exercise! great infl(ence (pon #(man !e;elopment. 6#en two a!;ancing tribes, wit# strong mental an! p#ysical c#aracters, are bro(g#t toget#er an! blen!e! into one people by t#e acci!ents of barbaro(s life, t#e new s2(ll an! brain wo(l! wi!en an! lengt#en to t#e s(m of t#e capabilities of bot#. %(c# a stoc2 wo(l! be an impro;ement (pon bot#, an! t#is s(periority wo(l! assert itself in an increase of intelligence an! of n(mbers. It follows propensity to pair, now so powerf(lly !e;elope! in t#e ci;iliBe! races, #a! remaine! (nforme! in t#e #(man min! (ntil t#e p(nal(an c(stom began to

A17 !isappear. 'xceptional cases (n!o(bte!ly occ(rre! w#ere (sages wo(l! permit t#e pri;ilege; b(t it faile! to become general (ntil t#e syn!yasmian family appeare!. "#is propensity, t#erefore, cannot be calle! normal to man2in!, b(t is, rat#er, a growt# t#ro(g# experience, li2e all t#e great passions an! powers of t#e min!. &not#er infl(ence may be a!;erte! to w#ic# ten!e! to retar! t#e growt# of t#is family. 6arfare among barbarians is more !estr(cti;e of life t#an among sa;ages, from impro;e! weapons an! stronger incenti;es. "#e males, in all perio!s an! con!itions of society, #a;e ass(me! t#e tra!e of fig#ting, w#ic# ten!e! to c#ange t#e balance of t#e sexes, an! lea;e t#e females in excess. "#is wo(l! manifestly ten! to strengt#en t#e con:(gal system create! by marriages in t#e gro(p. It wo(l!, also retar! t#e a!;ancement, of t#e %yn!yasmian family by maintaining sentiments of low gra!e wit# respect to t#e relations of t#e sexes, an! t#e c#aracter an! !ignity of woman. >n t#e ot#er #an!, impro;ement in s(bsistence, w#ic# followe! t#e c(lti;ation of maiBe an! plants among t#e &merican aborigines, m(st #a;e fa;o(re! t#e general a!;ancement of t#e family. It le! to localiBation, to t#e (se of a!!itional arts, to an impro;e! #o(se arc#itect(re, an! to a more intelligent life. In!(stry an! fr(gality t#o(g# limite! in !egree, wit# increase! protection of life, m(st #a;e accompanie! t#e formation of families consisting of single pairs. "#e more t#ese a!;antages were realiBe!, t#e more stable s(c# a family wo(l! become, an! t#e more its in!i;i!(ality wo(l! increase. Ha;ing ta2en ref(ge in a comm(nal #o(se#ol!, in w#ic# a gro(p of s(c# families s(ccee!e! t#e p(nal(an gro(p, it now !rew its s(pport from itself, from t#e #o(se#ol!, an! from t#e gentes to w#ic# t#e #(sban!s an! wi;es respecti;ely belonge!. "#e great a!;ancement of society in!icate! by t#e transition from sa;agery into t#e ower %tat(s of barbarism wo(l! carry wit# it a correspon!ing impro;ement in t#e con!ition of t#e family, t#e co(rse of !e;elopment of w#ic# was stea!ily (pwar! to t#e monogamian. If t#e existence of t#e %yn!yasmian family were (n2nown, gi;en t#e p(nal(an towar! one extreme, an! t#e monogamian on t#e ot#er, t#e occ(rrence of s(c# an interme!iate form mig#t #a;e been pre!icte!. It #as #a! a long !(ration in #(man experience. %pringing (p on t#e confines of sa;agery an! barbarism, it tra;erse! t#e Mi!!le an! t#e greater part of t#e ater 3erio! of barbarism, w#en it was s(perse!e! by a low form of t#e monogamian. >;ers#a!owe! by t#e con:(gal system of t#e times, it gaine! in recognition wit# t#e gra!(al progress of society. "#e selfis#ness of man2in!, as !isting(is#e! from woman2in!, !elaye! t#e realiBation of strict monogamy (ntil t#at great fermentation of t#e #(man min! w#ic# (s#ere! in ci;iliBation. "wo forms of t#e family #a! appeare! before t#e syn!yasmian an! create! two great systems of consang(inity; or rat#er two !istinct forms of t#e same system; b(t t#is t#ir! family neit#er pro!(ce! a new system nor sensibly mo!ifie! t#e ol!. Certain marriage relations#ips appear to #a;e been c#ange! to accor! wit# t#ose in t#e new family; b(t t#e essential feat(res of t#e system remaine! (nc#ange!. In fact, t#e %yn!yasmian family contin(e! for an (n2nown perio! of time en;elope! in a system of consang(inity, false, in t#e main, to existing relations#ips, an! w#ic# it #a! no power to brea2. It was for t#e s(fficient reason t#at it fell s#ort of monogamy, t#e coming power able to !issol;e t#e fabric. &lt#o(g# t#is family #as

A18 no !istinct system of consang(inity to pro;e its existence, li2e its pre!ecessors, it #as itself existe! o;er large portions of t#e eart# wit#in t#e #istorical perio!, an! still exists in n(mero(s barbaro(s tribes. In spea2ing t#(s positi;ely of t#e se;eral forms of t#e family in t#eir relati;e or!er, t#ere is !anger of being mis(n!erstoo!. I !o not mean to imply t#at one form rises complete in a certain stat(s of society, flo(ris#es (ni;ersally an! excl(si;ely w#ere;er tribes of man2in! are fo(n! in t#e same stat(s, an! t#en !isappears in anot#er, w#ic# is t#e next #ig#er form. 'xceptional cases of t#e p(nal(an family may #a;e appeare! in t#e consang(ine, an! vice versa2 exceptional cases of t#e %yn!yasmian may #a;e appeare! in t#e mi!st of t#e p(nal(an, an! vice versa2 an! exceptional cases of t#e monogamian in t#e mi!st of t#e %yn!yasmian, an! vice versa. ';en exceptional cases of t#e monogamian may #a;e appeare! as low !own as t#e p(nal(an, an! of t#e %yn!yasmian as low !own as t#e consang(ine. Moreo;er, some tribes attaine! to a partic(lar form earlier t#an ot#er tribes more a!;ance!; for example, t#e Iro5(ois #a! t#e %yn!yasmian family w#ile in t#e ower %tat(s of barbarism, b(t t#e /ritons, w#o were in. t#e Mi!!le %tat(s, still #a! t#e p(nal(an. "#e #ig# ci;iliBation on t#e s#ores of t#e Me!iterranean, #a! propagate! arts an! in;entions into /ritain far beyon! t#e mental !e;elopment of its Celtic in#abitants, an! w#ic# t#ey #a! imperfectly appropriate!. "#ey seem to #a;e been sa;ages in t#eir brains, w#ile wearing t#e art apparel of more a!;ance! tribes. "#at w#ic# I #a;e en!ea;o(re! to s(bstantiate, an! for w#ic# t#e proofs seem to be a!e5(ate, is$ t#at t#e family began in t#e consang(ine, low !own in sa;agery, an! grew, by progressi;e !e;elopment, into t#e monogamian, t#ro(g# two well?mar2e! interme!iate forms. 'ac# was partial in its intro!(ction, t#en general, an! finally (ni;ersal o;er large areas; after w#ic# it s#a!e! off into t#e next s(ccee!ing form, w#ic#, in t(rn, was at first partial, t#en general, an! finally (ni;ersal in t#e same areas. In t#e e;ol(tion of t#ese s(ccessi;e forms t#e main !irection of progress was from t#e consang(ine to t#eF monogamian. 6it# !e;iations from (niformity in t#e progress of man2in! t#ro(g# t#ese se;eral forms it will generally be fo(n! t#at t#e consang(ine an! p(nal(an families belong to t#e stat(s of sa;agery ? t#e former to its lowest, an! t#e latter to its #ig#est con!ition ? w#ile t#e p(nal(an contin(e! into t#e ower %tat(s of barbarism; t#at t#e %yn!yasmian belongs to t#e ower an! to t#e Mi!!le %tat(s of barbarism, an! contin(e! into t#e $pper; an! t#at t#e monogamian belongs to t#e $pper %tat(s of barbarism, an! contin(e! to t#e perio! of ci;iliBation. It will not be necessary, e;en if space permitte!, to trace t#e %yn!yasmian family t#ro(g# barbaro(s tribes in general (pon t#e partial !escriptions of tra;ellers an! obser;ers. "#e tests gi;en may be applie! by eac# rea!er to cases wit#in #is information. &mong t#e &merican aborigines in t#e ower %tat(s of barbarism it was t#e pre;ailing form of t#e family at t#e epoc# of t#eir !isco;ery. &mong t#e Iillage In!ians in t#e Mi!!le %tat(s, it was (n!o(bte!ly t#e pre;ailing form, alt#o(g# t#e information gi;en by t#e %panis# writers is ;ag(e an! general. "#e comm(nal c#aracter of t#eir :oint?tenement #o(ses is of itself wrong e;i!ence t#at t#e family #a! not passe! o(t of t#e syn!yasmian form. It #a! neit#er t#e in!i;i!(ality nor t#e excl(si;eness w#ic# monogamy implies.

A1, "#e foreign elements intermingle! wit# t#e nati;e c(lt(re in sections of t#e 'astern #emisp#ere pro!(ce! an abnormal con!ition of society, w#ere t#e arts of ci;iliBe! life were re?loa!e! to t#e aptit(!es an! wants of sa;ages an! barbarians. [7] "ribes strictly noma!ic #a;e also social pec(liarities, growing o(t of t#eir exceptional mo!e of life, w#ic# are not well (n!erstoo!. "#ro(g# infl(ences, !eri;e! from t#e #ig#er races, t#e in!igeno(s c(lt(re of many tribes #as been arreste!, an! so far a!(lterate! as to c#ange t#e nat(ral flow of t#eir progress. "#eir instit(tions an! social state became mo!ifie! in conse5(ence. It is essential to systematic progress in 't#nology t#at t#e con!ition bot# of sa;age an! of barbaro(s tribes s#o(l! be st(!ie! in its normal !e;elopment in areas w#ere t#e instit(tions of t#e people are #omogeneo(s. 3olynesia an! &(stralia, as elsew#ere s(ggeste!, are t#e best areas for t#e st(!y of sa;age society. =early t#e w#ole t#eory of sa;age life may be !e!(ce! from t#eir instit(tions, (sages an! c(stoms, in;entions an! !isco;eries. =ort# an! %o(t# &merica, w#en !isco;ere!, affor!e! t#e best opport(nities for st(!ying t#e con!ition of society in t#e ower an! in t#e Mi!!le %tat(s of barbarism. "#e aborigines, one stoc2 in bloo! an! lineage, wit# t#e exception of t#e 's2imos, ba! gaine! possession of a great continent, more ric#ly en!owe! for #(man occ(pation t#an t#e 'astern continents sa;e in animals capable of !omestication. It affor!e! t#em an ample fiel! for (n!ist(rbe! !e;elopment. "#ey came into its possession apparently in a sa;age state; b(t t#e establis#ment of t#e organiBation into gentes p(t t#em into possession of t#e principal germs of progress possesse! by t#e ancestors of t#e 9ree2s an! 0omans. C(t off t#(s early, an! losing all f(rt#er connection wit# t#e central stream of #(man progress, t#ey commence! t#eir career (pon a new continent wit# t#e #(mble mental an! moral en!owments of sa;ages. "#e in!epen!ent e;ol(tion of t#e primary i!eas t#ey bro(g#t wit# t#em commence! (n!er con!itions ins(ring a career (n!ist(rbe! by foreign infl(ences. It #ol!s tr(e ali2e in t#e growt# of t#e i!ea of go;ernment, of t#e family, of #o(se#ol! life, of property, an! of t#e arts of s(bsistence. "#eir instit(tions, in;entions an! !isco;eries, from sa;agery, t#ro(g# t#e ower an! into t#e Mi!!le %tat(s of barbarism, are #omogeneo(s, an! still re;eal a contin(ity of !e;elopment of t#e same original conceptions. In no part of t#e eart#, in mo!ern times, co(l! a more perfect exemplification of t#e ower %tat(s of barbarism be fo(n! t#an was affor!e! by t#e Iro5(ois, an! ot#er tribes of t#e $nite! %tates east of t#e Mississippi. 6it# t#eir arts in!igeno(s an! (nmixe!, an! wit# t#eir instit(tions p(re an! #omogeneo(s, t#e c(lt(re of t#is perio!, in its range, elements an! possibilities, is ill(strate! by t#em in t#e f(llest manner. & systematic exposition of t#ese se;eral s(b:ects o(g#t to be ma!e, before t#e facts are allowe! to !isappear. In a still #ig#er !egree all t#is was tr(e wit# respect to t#e Mi!!le %tat(s of barbarism, as exemplifie! by t#e Iillage In!ians of =ew Mexico, Mexico, Central &merica, 9rana!a, 'c(a!or, an! 3er(. In no part of t#e eart# was t#ere to be fo(n! s(c# a !isplay of society in t#is %tat(s, in t#e sixteent# cent(ry, wit# its a!;ance! arts an! in;entions, its impro;e! arc#itect(re, its nascent man(fact(res an! its incipient sciences. &merican sc#olars #a;e a poor acco(nt to ren!er of wor2 !one in t#is fr(itf(l fiel!. It was in reality a lost con!ition of ancient society w#ic# was

ADH s(!!enly (n;eile! to '(ropean obser;ers wit# t#e !isco;ery of &merica; b(t t#ey faile! to compre#en! its meaning, or to ascertain its str(ct(re. "#ere is one ot#er great con!ition of society, t#at of t#e $pper %tat(s of barbarism, not now exemplifie! by existing nations; b(t it may be fo(n! in t#e #istory an! tra!itions of t#e 9recian an! 0oman, an! later of t#e 9erman tribes. It m(st be !e!(ce!, in t#e main, from t#eir instit(tions, in;entions an! !isco;eries, alt#o(g# t#ere is a large amo(nt of information ill(strati;e of t#e c(lt(re of t#is perio!, especially in t#e Homeric poems. 6#en t#ese se;eral con!itions of society #a;e been st(!ie! in t#e areas of t#eir #ig#est exemplification, an! are t#oro(g#ly (n!erstoo!, t#e co(rse of #(man !e;elopment from sa;agery, t#ro(g# barbarism to ci;iliBation, will become intelligible as a connecte! w#ole. "#e co(rse of #(man experience will also be fo(n! as before s(ggeste! to #a;e r(n in nearly (niform c#annels. "#e patriarc#al family of t#e %emitic tribes re5(ires b(t brief notice, for reasons elsew#ere state!; an! it will be limite! to little more t#an a !efinition. It belongs to t#e ater 3erio! of barbarism, an! remaine! for a time after t#e commencement of ci;iliBation. "#e c#iefs, at least li;e! in polygamy; b(t t#is was not t#e material principle of t#e patriarc#al instit(tion. "#e organiBation of a n(mber of persons, bon! an! free, into a family, (n!er paternal power, or t#e p(rpose of #ol!ing lan!s, an! for t#e care of floc2s an! #er!s, was t#e essential c#aracteristic of t#is family. "#ose #el! to ser;it(!e, an! t#ose employe! as ser;ants, li;e! in t#e marriage relation, an!, wit# t#e patriarc# as t#eir c#ief, forme! a patriarc#al family. &(t#ority o;er its members an! e;er its property was t#e material fact. It was t#e incorporation of n(mbers in ser;ile an! !epen!ent, relations, before t#at time (n2nown, rat#er t#an polygamy, t#at stampe! t#e patriarc#al family wit# t#e attrib(tes of an original instit(tion. In t#e great mo;ement of %emitic society, w#ic# pro!(ce! t#is family, paternal power o;er t#e gro(p was t#e ob:ect so(g#t; an! wit# it a #ig#er in!i;i!(ality of persons. "#e same moti;e precisely originate! t#e 0oman family (n!er paternal power +!atria potestas.2 wit# t#e power in t#e fat#er of life an! !eat# o;er #is c#il!ren an! !escen!ants, as well as o;er t#e sla;es an! ser;ants w#o forme! its n(cle(s an! f(rnis#e! its name; an! wit# t#e absol(te owners#ip of all t#e property t#ey create!. 6it#o(t polygamy, t#e pater familias was a patriarc# an! t#e family (n!er #im was patriarc#al. In a less !egree t#e ancient family of t#e 9recian tribes #a! t#e same c#aracteristics. It mar2s t#at pec(liar epoc# in #(man progress w#en t#e in!i;i!(ality of t#e person began to rise abo;e t#e gens, in w#ic# it #a! pre;io(sly been merge!, cra;ing an in!epen!ent life, an! a wi!er fiel! of in!i;i!(al action. Its general infl(ence ten!e! powerf(lly to t#e establis#ment of t#e monogamian family, w#ic# was essential to t#e realiBation of t#e ob:ects so(g#t. "#ese stri2ing feat(res of t#e patriarc#al families, so (nli2e any form pre;io(sly 2nown, #a;e gi;en to it a comman!ing position; b(t t#e Hebrew an! 0oman forms were exceptional in #(man experience. In t#e consang(ine an! p(nal(an families, paternal a(t#ority was impossible as well as (n2nown; (n!er t#e syn!yasmian it began to appear as a feeble infl(ence; b(t its growt# stea!ily a!;ance! as t#e family became more an! more in!i;i!(aliBe!, an! became f(lly establis#e! (n!er

AD1 monogamy, w#ic# ass(re! t#e paternity of c#il!ren. In t#e patriarc#al family of t#e 0oman type, paternal a(t#ority passe! beyon! t#e bo(n!s of reason into an excess of !omination. =o new system of consang(inity was create! by t#e Hebrew patriarc#al family. "#e "(ranian system wo(l! #armoniBe wit# a part of its relations#ips; b(t as t#is form of t#e family soon fell o(t, an! t#e monogamian became general, it was followe! by t#e %emitic system of consang(inity, as t#e 9recian an! 0oman were by t#e &ryan. 'ac# of t#e t#ree great systems ? t#e Malayan, t#e "(ranian, an! t#e &ryan ? in!icates a complete! organic mo;ement of society, an! eac# ass(re! t#e presence, wit# (nerring certainty, of t#at form of t#e family w#ose relations#ips it recor!e!.

Footnotes
1 "#e late 0e;. &. 6rig#t, for many years a missionary among t#e %enecas, wrote t#e a(t#or in 187A on t#is s(b:ect as follows: )&s to t#eir family system, w#en occ(pying t#e ol! long?#o(ses, it is probable t#at some one clan pre!ominate!, t#e women ta2ing in #(sban!s, #owe;er, from t#e ot#er clans; an! sometimes, for a no;elty, some of t#eir sons bringing in t#eir yo(ng wi;es (ntil t#ey felt bra;e eno(g# to lea;e t#eir mot#ers. $s(ally, t#e female portion r(le! t#e #o(se, an! were !o(btless clannis# eno(g# abo(t it. "#e stores were in common; b(t woe to t#e l(c2less #(sban! or lo;er w#o was too s#iftless to !o #is s#are of t#e pro;i!ing. =o matter #ow many c#il!ren, or w#ate;er goo!s #e mig#t #a;e in t#e #o(se, #e mig#t at any time be or!ere! to pic2 (p #is blan2et an! b(!ge; an! after s(c# or!ers it wo(l! not be #ealt#f(l for #im to attempt to !isobey. "#e #o(se wo(l! be too #ot for #im; an!, (nless sa;e! by t#e intercession of some a(nt or gran!mot#er, #e m(st retreat to #is own clan; or, as was often !one, go an! start a new matrimonial alliance in some ot#er. "#e women were t#e great power among t#e clans, as e;eryw#ere else. "#ey !i! not #esitate, w#en occasion re5(ire!, Eto 2noc2 off t#e #orns,F as it was tec#nically calle!; from t#e #ea! of a c#ief, an! sen! #im bac2 to t#e ran2s of t#e warriors. "#e original nomination of t#e c#iefs also always reste! wit# t#em.8 "#ese statements ill(strate t#e gyneocracy !isc(sse! by /ac#ofen in )<as M(tterrec#t.8 ! )History of Mexico,8 3#il. e!., 1817, C(llenFs trans., ii, ,,. " lb., ii, 1H1. # )History of &merica,8 1 c., iii, D17. $ )History of &merica,8 i;, 171. % & case among t#e %#yans was mentione! to t#e a(t#or, by one of t#eir c#iefs, w#ere first co(sins #a! marrie! against t#eir (sages. "#ere was no penalty for t#e act; b(t t#ey were ri!ic(le! so constantly by t#eir associates t#at t#ey ;ol(ntarily separate! rat#er t#an face t#e pre:(!ice. & Iron #as been smelte! from t#e ore by a n(mber of &frican tribes, incl(!ing t#e Hottentots, as far bac2 as o(r 2nowle!ge of t#em exten!s. &fter pro!(cing t#e metal by

ADD
r(!e processes ac5(ire! from foreign so(rces, t#ey #a;e s(ccee!e! in fabricating r(!e implements an! weapons. ' "#e &siatic origin of t#e &merican aborigines is ass(me!. /(t it follows as a conse5(ence of t#e (nity of origin of man2in! ?anot#er ass(mption, b(t one towar! w#ic# all t#e facts of ant#ropology ten!. "#ere is a mass of e;i!ence s(staining bot# concl(sions of t#e most con;incing c#aracter. "#eir a!;ent in &merica co(l! not #a;e res(lte! from a !eliberate migration; b(t m(st #a;e been !(e to t#e acci!ents of t#e sea, an! to t#e great ocean c(rrents from &sia to t#e =ort#?west coast.

Chapter V THE MONOGAMIAN FAMILY

"#e origin of society #as been so constantly trace! to t#e monogamian family t#at t#e comparati;ely mo!ern !ate now assigne! to t#is family bears t#e semblance of no;elty. "#ose writers w#o #a;e in;estigate! t#e origin of society p#ilosop#ically, fo(n! it !iffic(lt to concei;e of its existence apart from t#e family as its (nit, or of t#e family itself as ot#er t#an monogamian. "#ey also fo(n! it necessary to regar! t#e marrie! pair as t#e n(cle(s of a gro(p of persons, a part of w#om were ser;ile, an! all of w#om were (n!er power; t#(s arri;ing at t#e concl(sion t#at society began in t#e patriarc#al family, w#en it first became organiBe!. %(c#, in fact, was t#e most ancient form of t#e instit(tion ma!e 2nown to (s among t#e atin, 9recian an! Hebrew tribes. "#(s, by relation, t#e patriarc#al family was ma!e t#e typical family of primiti;e society, concei;e! eit#er in t#e atin or Hebrew form, paternal power being t#e essence of t#e organism. "#e gens, as it appeare! in t#e later perio! of barbarism, was well (n!erstoo!, b(t it was erroneo(sly s(ppose! to be s(bse5(ent in point of time to t#e monogamian family. & necessity for some 2nowle!ge of t#e instit(tions of barbaro(s an! e;en of sa;age tribes is becoming constantly more apparent as a means for explaining o(r own instit(tions. 6it# t#e ass(mption ma!e t#at t#e monogamian family was t#e (nit of organiBation in t#e social system, t#e gens was treate! as an aggregation of families, t#e tribe as an aggregation of gentes an! t#e nation as an aggregate of tribes. "#e error lies in t#e first proposition. It #as been s#own t#at t#e gens entere! entire into t#e p#ratry, t#e p#ratry into t#e tribe, an! t#e tribe into t#e nation; b(t t#e family co(l! not enter entire into t#e gens, beca(se #(sban! an! wife were necessarily of !ifferent gentes. "#e wife, !own to t#e latest perio!, co(nte! #erself of t#e gens of #er fat#er, an! bore t#e name of #is gens among t#e 0omans. &s all t#e parts m(st enter into t#e w#ole, t#e family co(l! not become t#e (nit of t#e gentile organiBation. "#at place was #el! by t#e gens. Moreo;er, t#e patriarc#al family, w#et#er of t#e 0oman or of t#e Hebrew type, was entirely (n2nown t#ro(g#o(t t#e perio! of sa;agery, t#ro(g# t#e >l!er, an! probably t#ro(g# t#e Mi!!le, an! far into t#e ater 3erio! of barbarism. &fter t#e gens #a! appeare!, ages (pon ages, an! e;en perio! (pon perio!, rolle! away before t#e monogamian family came into existence. It was not (ntil after ci;iliBation commence! t#at it became permanently establis#e!.

ADA Its mo!ern appearance among t#e atin tribes may be inferre! from t#e signification of t#e wor! family$ !eri;e! from familia$ w#ic# contains t#e same element as foimulus$ 6 ser;ant, s(ppose! to be !eri;e! from t#e >scan famel$ 6 servus$ a sla;e.[1] In its primary meaning t#e wor! family, #a! no relation to t#e marrie! pair or t#eir c#il!ren, b(t to t#e bo!y of sla;es an! ser;ants w#o labore! for its maintenance, an! were (n!er t#e power of t#e pater familias. amilia in some testamentary !ispositions is (se! as e5(i;alent to patrimonium$ t#e in#eritance w#ic# passe! to t#e #eir.[2] It was intro!(ce! in atin society to !efine a new organism, t#e #ea! of w#ic# #el! wife an! c#il!ren, an! a bo!y of ser;ile persons (n!er paternal power. Mommsen (ses t#e p#rase )bo!y of ser;ants8 as t#e atin signification of femilia.[3] "#is term, t#erefore, an! t#e i!ea it represents, are no ol!er t#an t#e iron?cla! family system of t#e atin tribes, w#ic# came in after fiel! agric(lt(re an! after legaliBe! ser;it(!e, as well as after t#e separation of t#e 9ree2s an! atins. If any name was gi;en to t#e anterior family it is not now ascertainable. In two forms of t#e family, t#e consang(ine an! p(nal(an, paternal power was impossible. 6#en t#e gens appeare! in t#e mi!st of t#e p(nal(an gro(p it (nite! t#e se;eral sisters, wit# t#eir c#il!ren an! !escen!ants in t#e female line, in perpet(ity, in a gens, w#ic# became t#e (nit of organiBation in t#e social system it create!. >(t of t#is state of t#ings t#e syn!yasmian family was gra!(ally e;ol;e!, an! wit# it t#e germ of paternal power, "#e growt# of t#is power, at first feeble an! fl(ct(ating, t#en commence!, an! it stea!ily increase!, as t#e new family more an! more ass(me! monogamian c#aracteristics, wit# t#e (pwar! progress of society. 6#en property began to be create! in masses, an! t#e !esire for its transmission to c#il!ren #a! c#ange! !escent from t#e female line to t#e male, a real fo(n!ation for paternal power was for t#e first time establis#e!. &mong t#e Hebrew an! atin tribes, w#en first 2nown, t#e patriarc#al family of t#e Hebrew type existe! among t#e former, an! of t#e 0oman type among t#e latter; fo(n!e! in bot# cases (pon t#e limite! or absol(te ser;it(!e of a n(mber of persons wit# t#eir families, all of w#om, wit# t#e wi;es an! c#il!ren of t#e patriarc# in one case, an! of t#e pater familias in t#e ot#er, were (n!er paternal power. It was an exceptional, an!, in t#e 0oman family, an excessi;e !e;elopment of paternal a(t#ority, w#ic#, so far from being (ni;ersal, was restricte! in t#e main to t#e people name!. 9ai(s !eclares t#at t#e power of t#e 0oman fat#er o;er #is c#il!ren was pec(liar to t#e 0omans, an! t#at in general no ot#er people #a! t#e same power.[4] It will be s(fficient to present a few ill(strations of t#e early monogamian family from classical writers to gi;e an impression of its c#aracter. Monogamy appears in a !efinite form in t#e ater 3erio! of barbarism. ong prior to t#is time some of its c#aracteristics #a! (n!o(bte!ly attac#e! t#emsel;es to t#e pre;io(s syn!yasmian family; b(t t#e essential element of t#e former, an excl(si;e co? #abitation, co(l! not be asserte! of t#e latter. >ne of t#e earliest an! most interesting ill(strations was fo(n! in t#e family of t#e ancient 9ermans. "#eir instit(tions were #omogeneo(s an! in!igeno(s; an! t#e people were a!;ancing towar! ci;iliBation. "acit(s, in a few lines, states t#eir (sages wit# respect to marriage, wit#o(t gi;ing t#e composition of t#e family or

AD!efining its attrib(tes. &fter stating t#at marriages were strict among t#em, an! prono(ncing it commen!able, #e f(rt#er remar2s, t#at almost alone among barbarians t#ey conten!e! t#emsel;es wit# a single wife ? a ;ery few excepte!, w#o were !rawn into pl(ral marriages, not from passion, b(t on acco(nt of t#eir ran2. "#at t#e wife !i! not bring a !owry to #er #(sban!, b(t t#e #(sban! to #is wife, V. a caparisone! #orse, an! a s#iel!, wit# a spear an! swor!. "#at by ;irt(e of t#ese gifts t#e wife was espo(se!.[5] "#e presents, in t#e nat(re of p(rc#asing gifts, w#ic# probably in an earlier con!ition went to t#e gentile 2in!re! of t#e bri!e, were now presente! to t#e bri!e. 'lsew#ere #e mentions t#e two material facts in w#ic# t#e s(bstance of monogamy is fo(n!:[6] firstly, t#at eac# man was contente! wit# a single wife +singulis u"oribus contenti sunt.2 an!, secon!ly, t#at t#e women li;e! fence! aro(n! wit# c#astity, +septae pudicitia agunt.. It seems probable, from w#at is 2nown of t#e con!ition of t#e family in !ifferent et#nical perio!s, t#at t#is of t#e ancient 9ermans was too wea2 an organiBation to face alone t#e #ar!s#ips of life; an!, as a conse5(ence, s#eltere! itself in, a comm(nal #o(se#ol! compose! of relate! families. 6#en sla;ery became an instit(tion, t#ese #o(se#ol!s wo(l! gra!(ally !isappear. 9erman society was not far eno(g# a!;ance! at t#is time for t#e appearance of a #ig# type of t#e monogamian family. 6it# respect to t#e Homeric 9ree2s, t#e family, alt#o(g# monogamian, was low in type. H(sban!s re5(ire! c#astity in t#eir wi;es, w#ic# t#ey so(g#t to enforce by some !egree of secl(sion; #(t t#ey !i! not a!mit t#e reciprocal obligation by w#ic# alone it co(l! be permanently sec(re!. &b(n!ant e;i!ence appears in t#e Homeric poems t#at woman #a! few rig#ts men were bo(n! to respect. %(c# female capti;es as were swept into t#eir ;essels by t#e 9recian c#iefs, on t#eir way to "roy, were appropriate! to t#eir passions wit#o(t comp(nction an! wit#o(t restraint. It m(st be ta2en as a fait#f(l pict(re of t#e times, w#et#er t#e inci!ents narrate! in t#e poems were real or fictitio(s. &lt#o(g# t#e persons were capti;es, it reflects t#e low estimate place! (pon woman. Her !ignity was (nrecogniBe!, an! #er personal rig#ts were insec(re. "o appease t#e resentment of &c#illes, &gamemnon propose!, in a co(ncil of t#e 9recian c#iefs, to gi;e to #im, among ot#er t#ings, se;en esbian women excelling in personal bea(ty, reser;e! for #imself from t#e spoil of t#at city, /riseis #erself to go among t#e n(mber; an! s#o(l! "roy be ta2en, t#e f(rt#er rig#t to select twenty "ro:an women, t#e fairest of all next to &rgi;e Helen.[7] )/ea(ty an! /ooty8 were t#e watc#wor!s of t#e Heroic &ge (nbl(s#ingly a;owe!. "#e treatment of t#eir female capti;es reflects t#e c(lt(re of t#e perio! wit# respect to women in general. Men #a;ing no regar! for t#e parental, marital or personal rig#ts of t#eir enemies, co(l! not #a;e attaine! to any #ig# conception of t#eir own. In !escribing t#e tent life of t#e (nwe!!e! &c#illes, an! of #is frien! 3atrocl(s, Homer !eeme! it befitting t#e c#aracter an! !ignity of &c#illes as a c#ief to s#ow, t#at #e slept in t#e recess of #is well?constr(cte! tent, an! by #is si!e lay a female, fair c#ee2e! <iome!e, w#om #e #a! bro(g#t from esbos. &n! t#at 3atrocl(s on t#e ot#er si!e recline!, an! by #im also lay fair?waiste! Ip#is w#om noble &c#illes ga;e #im, #a;ing capt(re! #er at %cyros. [8] %(c# (sages an! c(stoms on t#e part of

AD4 (nmarrie! as well as marrie! men, cite! appro;ingly by t#e great poet of t#e perio!, an! s(staine! by p(blic sentiment, ten! to s#ow t#at w#ate;er of monogamy existe!, was t#ro(g# an force! constraint (pon wi;es, w#ile t#eir #(sban!s were not monogamists in t#e prepon!erating n(mber of cases. %(c# a family #as 5(ite as many syn!yasmian as monogamian c#aracteristics. "#e con!ition of woman in t#e Heroic, &ge is s(ppose! to #a;e been more fa;o(rable, an! #er position in t#e #o(se#ol! more #ono(rable t#an it was at t#e commencement of ci;iliBation, an! e;en afterwar!s (n!er t#eir #ig#est !e;elopment. It may #a;e been tr(e in a far anterior perio! before !escent was c#ange! to t#e male line, b(t t#ere seems to be little room for t#e con:ect(re at t#e time name!. & great c#ange for t#e better occ(rre!, so far as t#e means an! mo!e of life were concerne!, b(t it ser;e! to ren!er more conspic(o(s t#e real estimate place! (pon #er t#ro(g# t#e ater 3erio! of barbarism. 'lsew#ere attention #as been calle! to t#e fact, t#at w#en !escent was c#ange! from t#e female line to t#e male, it operate! in:(rio(sly (pon t#e position an! rig#ts of t#e wife an! mot#er. Her c#il!ren were transferre! from #er own gens to t#at of #er #(sban!, an! s#e forfeite! #er agnatic rig#ts by #er marriage wit#o(t obtaining an e5(i;alent. /efore t#e c#ange, t#e members of #er own gens, in all probability, pre!ominate! in t#e #o(se#ol!, w#ic# ga;e f(ll force to t#e maternal bon!, an! ma!e t#e woman rat#er more t#an t#e man t#e centre of t#e family. &fter t#e c#ange s#e stoo! alone in t#e #o(se#ol! of #er #(sban!, isolate! from #er gentile 2in!re!. It m(st #a;e wea2ene! t#e infl(ence of t#e maternal bon!; an! #a;e operate! powerf(lly to lower #er position an! arrest #er progress in t#e social scale. &mong t#e prospero(s classes, #er con!ition of enforce! secl(sion, toget#er wit# t#e a;owe! primary ob:ect of marriage, to beget c#il!ren in lawf(l we!loc2, lea! to t#e inference t#at #er position was less fa;o(rable in t#e Heroic &ge t#an in t#e s(bse5(ent perio!, concerning w#ic# we are m(c# better informe!. *rom first to last among t#e 9ree2s t#ere was a principle of egotism or st(!ie! selfis#ness at wor2 among t#e males, ten!ing to lessen t#e appreciation of woman, scarcely fo(n! among sa;ages. It re;eals itself in t#eir plan of !omestic life, w#ic# in t#e #ig#er ran2s secl(!e! t#e wife to enforce an excl(si;e co#abitation, wit#o(t a!mitting t#e reciprocal obligation on t#e part of #er #(sban!. It implies t#e existence of an antece!ent con:(gal system of t#e "(ranian type, against w#ic# it was !esigne! to g(ar!. %o powerf(lly #a! t#e (sages of cent(ries stampe! (pon t#e min!s of 9recian women a sense of t#eir inferiority, t#at t#ey !i! not reco;er from it to t#e latest perio! of 9recian ascen!ancy. It was, per#aps, one of t#e sacrifices re5(ire! of woman2in! to bring t#is portion of t#e #(man race o(t of t#e syn!yasmian into t#e monogamian family. It still remains an enigma t#at a race, wit# en!owments great eno(g# to impress t#eir mental life (pon t#e worl!, s#o(l! #a;e remaine! essentially barbarian in t#eir treatment of t#e female sex at t#e #eig#t of t#eir ci;iliBation. 6omen were not treate! wit# cr(elty, nor wit# !isco(rtesy wit#in t#e range of t#e pri;ileges allowe! t#em; b(t t#eir e!(cation was s(perficial, interco(rse wit# t#e opposite sex was !enie! t#em, an! t#eir inferiority was inoc(late! as a principle, (ntil it came to be accepte! as a fact by t#e women t#emsel;es. "#e wife was not t#e companion an! t#e e5(al of #er #(sban!, b(t stoo! to #im in t#e relation of a !a(g#ter; t#(s !enying t#e f(n!amental principle of

ADG monogamy, as t#e instit(tion in its #ig#est form must be (n!erstoo!. "#e wife is necessarily t#e e5(al of #er #(sban! in !ignity, in personal rig#ts an! in social position. 6e may t#(s !isco;er at w#at a price of experience an! en!(rance t#is great instit(tion of mo!ern society #as been won. >(r information is 5(ite ample an! specific wit# respect to t#e con!ition of 9recian women an! t#e 9recian family !(ring t#e #istorical perio!. /ec2er, wit# t#e mar;ello(s researc# for w#ic# #is wor2s are !isting(is#e!, #as collecte! t#e principal facts an! presente! t#em wit# !earness an! force. [9] His statements, w#ile t#ey !o not f(rnis# a complete pict(re of t#e family of t#e #istorical perio!, are 5(ite s(fficient to in!icate t#e great !ifference between t#e 9recian an! t#e mo!ern ci;iliBe! family, an! also to s#ow t#e con!ition of t#e monogamian family in t#e early stages of its !e;elopment. &mong t#e facts state! by /ec2er, t#ere are two t#at !eser;e f(rt#er notice: first, t#e !eclaration t#at t#e c#ief ob:ect of marriage was t#e procreation of c#il!ren in lawf(l we!loc2; an! secon!, t#e secl(sion of women to ins(re t#is res(lt. "#e two are intimately connecte!, an! t#row some reflecte! lig#t (pon t#e pre;io(s con!ition from w#ic# t#ey #a! emerge!. In t#e first place, t#e passion of lo;e was (n2nown among t#e barbarians. "#ey are below t#e sentiment, w#ic# is t#e offspring of ci;iliBation an! s(pera!!e! refinement. "#e 9ree2s in general, as t#eir marriage c(stoms s#ow, #a! not attaine! to a 2nowle!ge of t#is passion, alt#o(g# t#ere were, of co(rse, n(mero(s exceptions. 3#ysical wort#, in 9recian estimation, was t#e meas(re of all t#e excellences of w#ic# t#e female sex were capable. Marriage, t#erefore, was not gro(n!e! (pon sentiment, b(t (pon necessity an! !(ty. "#ese consi!erations are t#ose w#ic# go;erne! t#e Iro5(ois an! t#e &Btecs; in fact t#ey originate! in barbarism, an! re;eal t#e anterior barbaro(s con!ition of t#e ancestors of t#e 9recian tribes. It seems strange t#at t#ey were s(fficient to answer t#e 9ree2 i!eal of t#e family relation in t#e mi!st of 9recian ci;iliBation. "#e growt# of property an! t#e !esire for its transmission to c#il!ren was, in reality, t#e mo;ing power w#ic# bro(g#t in monogamy to ins(re legitimate #eirs, an! to limit t#eir n(mber to t#e act(al progeny of t#e marrie! pair. & 2nowle!ge of t#e paternity of c#il!ren #a! beg(n to be realiBe! (n!er t#e syn!yasmian family, from w#ic# t#e 9recian form was e;i!ently !eri;e!, b(t it #a! not attaine! t#e re5(isite !egree of certainty beca(se of t#e s(r;i;al of some portion of t#e ancient 3ura con3ugialia. It explains t#e new (sage w#ic# ma!e its appearance in t#e $pper %tat(s of barbarism; namely, t#e secl(sion of wi;es. &n implication to t#is effect arises from t#e circ(mstance t#at a necessity for t#e secl(sion of t#e wife m(st #a;e existe! at t#e time, an! w#ic# seems to #a;e been so formi!able t#at t#e plan of !omestic life among t#e ci;iliBe! 9ree2s was, in reality, a system of female confinement an! restraint. &lt#o(g# t#e partic(lars cite! relate more especially to t#e family among t#e prospero(s classes, t#e spirit it e;inces was !o(btless general. "(rning next to t#e 0oman family, t#e con!ition of woman is more fa;o(rable, b(t #er s(bor!ination t#e same. %#e was treate! wit# respect in 0ome as in &t#ens, b(t in t#e 0oman family #er infl(ence an! a(t#ority were, greater. &s mater familias$ s#e was mistress of t#e family. %#e went into t#e streets freely wit#o(t restraint on t#e part of #er #(sban!,

AD7 an! fre5(ente! wit# t#e men t#e t#eatres an! festi;e ban5(ets. In t#e #o(se s#e was not confine! to partic(lar apartments, neit#er was s#e excl(!e! from t#e table of t#e men. "#e absence of t#e worst restrictions place! (pon 9recian females was fa;o(rable to t#e growt# of a sense of personal !ignity an! of in!epen!ence among 0oman women. 3l(tarc#?remar2s t#at after t#e peace wit# t#e %abines, effecte! t#ro(g# t#e inter;ention of t#e %abine women, many #ono(rable pri;ileges were conferre! (pon t#em; t#e men were to gi;e t#em t#e way w#en t#ey met on t#e street, t#ey were not to (tter a ;(lgar wor! in t#e presence of females, nor appear n(!e before t#em. Marriage, #owe;er, place! t#e wife in t#e power of #er #(sban! +in man(m ;iri.; t#e notion t#at s#e m(st remain (n!er power following, by an apparent necessity, #er emancipation by #er marriage from paternal power. "#e #(sban! treate! #is wife as #is !a(g#ter, an! not as #is e5(al. Moreo;er, #e #a! t#e power of correction an! of life an! !eat# in ease of a!(ltery; b(t t#e exercise of t#is last power seems to #a;e been s(b:ect to t#e conc(rrence of t#e co(ncil of #er gens. $nli2e ot#er people, t#e 0omans possesse! t#ree forms of marriage. &ll ali2e place! t#e wife in t#e #an! of #er #(sban!, an! recogniBe! as t#e c#ief en! of marriage t#e procreation of c#il!ren in lawf(l we!loc2 +liberorum >uerendorum causa..[11] "#ese forms +coeferreatio$ coemptio$ an! usns. laste! t#ro(g# t#e 0ep(blic, b(t fell o(t (n!er t#e 'mpire, w#en a fo(rt# form, t#e free marriage, was generally a!opte!, beca(se it !i! not place t#e wife in t#e power of #er #(sban!. <i;orce, from t#e earliest perio!, was at t#e option of t#e parties, a c#aracteristic of t#e syn!yasmian family, an! transmitte! probably from t#at so(rce. "#ey rarely occ(rre!, #owe;er, (ntil near t#e !ose of t#e 0ep(blic. [12] "#e licentio(sness w#ic# pre;aile! in 9recian an! 0oman cities at t#e #eig#t of ci;iliBation #as generally been regar!e! as a lapse from a #ig#er an! p(rer con!ition of ;irt(e an! morality. /(t t#e fact is capable of a !ifferent, or at least of a mo!ifie! explanation. "#ey #a! ne;er attaine! to a p(re morality in t#e interco(rse of t#e sexes from w#ic# to !ecline. 0epresse! or mo!erate! in t#e mi!st of war an! strife en!angering t#e national existence, t#e license re;i;e! wit# peace an! prosperity, beca(se t#e moral elements of society #a! not risen against it for its extirpation. "#is licentio(sness was, in all probability, t#e remains of an ancient con:(gal system, ne;er f(lly era!icate!, w#ic# #a! followe! !own from barbarism as a social, taint, an! now expresse! its excesses in t#e new c#annel of #etaerism. If t#e 9ree2s an! 0omans #a! learne! to respect t#e e5(ities of monogamy, instea! of secl(!ing t#eir wi;es in t#e gynaeconitis in one case, an! of #ol!ing t#em (n!er power in t#e ot#er, t#ere is reason to belie;e t#at society among t#em wo(l! #a;e presente! a ;ery !ifferent aspect. %ince neit#er one nor t#e ot#er #a! !e;elope! any #ig#er morality t#ey #a! b(t little occasion to mo(rn o;er a !ecay of p(blic morals. "#e s(bstance of t#e explanation lies in t#e fact t#at neit#er recogniBe! in its integrity t#e principle of monogamy, w#ic# alone was able to place t#eir respecti;e societies (pon a moral basis. "#e premat(re !estr(ction of t#e et#nic life of t#ese remar2able races is !(e in no small meas(re to t#eir fail(re to !e;elop an! (tiliBe t#e mental, moral an! conser;ati;e forces of t#e female intellect, w#ic# were not less essential t#an t#eir own correspon!ing forces to t#eir progress an! preser;ation. &fter a long protracte! experience in barbarism, !(ring w#ic# t#ey won t#e remaining elements of ci;iliBation, t#ey peris#e! politically, at t#e en! of a brief career, seemingly from

AD8 t#e ex#ilaration of t#e new life t#ey #a! create!. &mong t#e Hebrews, w#ist t#e patriarc#al family in t#e early perio! was common wit# t#e c#iefs, t#e monogamian, into w#ic# t#e patriarc#al soon s(bsi!e!, was common among t#e people. /(t wit# respect to t#e constit(tion of t#e latter, an! t#e relations of #(sban! an! wife in t#e family, t#e !etails are scanty. 6it#o(t see2ing to m(ltiply ill(strations, it is plain t#at t#e monogamian family #a! grown into t#e farm in w#ic# it appeare!, at t#e commencement of t#e #istorical perio!, from a lower type; an! t#at, !(ring t#e classical perio! if, a!;ance! sensibly, t#o(g# wit#o(t attaining its #ig#est form. It e;i!ently sprang from a pre;io(s syn!yasmian family as its imme!iate germ; an! w#ile impro;ing wit# #(man progress it fell s#ort of its tr(e i!eal in t#e classical perio!. Its #ig#est 2nown perfection, at least, was not attaine! (ntil mo!ern times. "#e portrait(re of society in t#e $pper %tat(s of barbarism by t#e early writers implies t#e general practice of monogamy, b(t wit# atten!ing circ(mstances in!icating t#at it was t#e monogamian family of t#e f(t(re str(ggling into existence (n!er a!;erse infl(ences, feeble in ;itality, rig#ts an! imm(nities, an! still en;irone! wit# t#e remains of an ancient con:(gal system. &s t#e Malayan system expresse! t#e relations#ips t#at existe! in t#e consang(ine family, an! as t#e "(ranian expresse! t#ose w#ic# existe! in t#e p(nal(an, so t#e &ryan expresse! t#ose w#ic# existe! in t#e monogamian; eac# family resting (pon a !ifferent an! !istinct form of marriage. It cannot be s#own absol(tely, in t#e present state of o(r 2nowle!ge, t#at t#e &ryan, %emitic an! $ralian families of man2in! formerly possesse! t#e "(ranian system of consang(inity, an! t#at it fell into !es(et(!e (n!er monogamy. %(c#, #owe;er, wo(l! be t#e pres(mption from t#e bo!y of ascertaine! facts. &ll t#e e;i!ence points in t#is !irection so !ecisi;ely as to excl(!e any ot#er #ypot#esis. *irstly. "#e organiBation into gentes #a! a nat(ral origin in t#e p(nal(an family, w#ere a gro(p of sisters marrie! to eac# ot#erFs #(sban!s f(rnis#e!, wit# t#eir c#il!ren an! !escen!ants in t#e female line, t#e exact circ(mscription as well as t#e bo!y of a gens in its arc#aic form. "#e principal branc#es of t#e &ryan family were organiBe! in gentes w#en first 2nown #istorically, s(staining t#e inference t#at, w#en one (n!i;i!e! people, t#ey were t#(s organiBe!. *rom t#is fact t#e f(rt#er pres(mption arises t#at t#ey !eri;e! t#e organiBation t#ro(g# a remote ancestry w#o li;e! in t#at same p(nal(an con!ition w#ic# ga;e birt# to t#is remar2able an! wi!esprea! instit(tion. /esi!es t#is, t#e "(ranian system of consang(inity is still fo(n! connecte! wit# t#e gens in its arc#aic form among t#e &merican aborigines. "#is nat(ral connection wo(l! remain (nbro2en (ntil a c#ange of social con!ition occ(rre!, s(c# as monogamy wo(l! pro!(ce, #a;ing power to wor2 its o;ert#row. %econ!ly. In t#e &ryan system of consang(inity t#ere is some e;i!ence pointing to t#e same concl(sion. It may well be s(ppose! t#at a large portion of t#e nomenclat(re of t#e "(ranian system wo(l! fall o(t (n!er monogamy, if t#is system #a! pre;io(sly pre;aile! among t#e &ryan nations. "#e application of its terms to categories of persons, w#ose relation? s#ips wo(l! now be !iscriminate! from eac# ot#er, wo(l! compel t#eir aban!onment. It is impossible to explain t#e impo;eris#e! con!ition of t#e original nomenclat(re of t#e &ryan system except on

AD, t#is #ypot#esis. &ll t#ere was of it common to t#e se;eral &ryan !ialects are t#e terms for fat#er an! mot#er, brot#er an! sister, an! son an! !a(g#ter; an! a common term +%an., naptar2 at., nepos2 9r., anepsios2. applie! in!iscriminately to nep#ew, gran!son, an! co(sin. "#ey co(l! ne;er #a;e attaine! to t#e a!;ance! con!ition implie! by monogamy wit# s(c# a scanty nomenclat(re of bloo! relations#ips, /(t wit# a pre;io(s system, analogo(s to t#e "(ranian, t#is impo;eris#ment can be explaine!. "#e terms for brot#er an! sister were not in t#e abstract, an! new creations, beca(se t#ese relations#ips (n!er t#e "(ranian system were concei;e! (ni;ersally as el!er an! yo(nger; an! t#e se;eral terms were applie! to categories of persons, incl(!ing persons not own brot#ers an! sisters. In t#e &ryan system t#is !istinction is lai! asi!e, an! for t#e first time t#ese relations#ips were concei;e! in t#e abstract. $n!er monogamy t#e ol! terms were inapplicable beca(se t#ey were applie! to collaterals. 0emains of a prior "(ranian system, #owe;er, still appear in t#e system of t#e $ralian family, as among t#e H(ngarians, w#ere brot#ers an!, sisters are classifie! into el!er an! yo(nger by special terms. In *renc#, also, besi!es frere$ an! soeur$ we fin! aine$ el!er brot#er, pune an! cadet$ yo(nger brot#er, an! ainee an! cadette$ el!er an! yo(nger sister. %o also in %ans2rit we fin! agra3ar$ an! amu3ar$ an! agra3ri$ an! amu3ri for t#e same relations#ips; b(t w#et#er t#e latter are from %ans2rit or aboriginal so(rces, I am (nable to state. In t#e &ryan !ialects t#e terms for brot#er an! sister are t#e same wor!s !ialectically c#ange!, t#e 9ree2 #a;ing s(bstit(te! adelphos for phrater. If common terms once existe! in t#ese !ialects for el!er an! yo(nger brot#er an! sister, t#eir pre;io(s application to categories of persons wo(l! ren!er t#em inapplicable, as an excl(si;e !istinction, to own brot#ers an! sisters. "#e falling o(t from t#e &ryan system of t#is stri2ing an! bea(tif(l feat(re of t#e "(ranian re5(ires a strong moti;e for its occ(rrence, w#ic# t#e pre;io(s existence an! aban!onment of t#e "(ranian system wo(l! explain. It wo(l! be !iffic(lt to fin! any ot#er. It is not s(pposable t#at t#e &ryan nations were wit#o(t a term for gran!fat#er in t#e original speec#, a relations#ip recogniBe! (ni;ersally among sa;age an! barbaro(s tribes; an! yet t#ere is no common term for t#is relations#ip in t#e &ryan !ialects. In %ans2rit we #a;e pitameha$ in 9ree2 poppos$ in atin ovus$ in 0(ssian d3ed$ in 6els# hendad$ w#ic# last is a compo(n! li2e t#e 9erman gross(ader an! t#e 'nglis# gran!fat#er. "#ese terms are ra!ically !ifferent. /(t wit# a term (n!er a pre;io(s system, w#ic# was applie! not only to t#e gran!fat#er proper, #is brot#ers, an! #is se;eral male co(sins, b(t also to t#e brot#ers an! se;eral male co(sins of #is gran!mot#er, it co(l! not be ma!e to signify a lineal gran!fat#er an! progenitor (n!er monogamy. Its aban!onment wo(l! be apt to occ(r in co(rse of time. "#e absence of a term for t#is relations#ip in t#e original speec# seems to fin! in t#is manner a s(fficient explanation. astly. "#ere is no term for (ncle an! a(nt in t#e abstract, an! no special terms for (ncle an! a(nt on t#e fat#erFs si!e an! on t#e mot#erFs si!e r(nning t#ro(g# t#e &ryan !ialects. 6e fin! pitroya$ patros$ an! patruus for paternal (ncle in %ans2rit, 9ree2, an! atin; stryc in %la;onic for t#e same, an! a common term, eam$ oom$ an! oheim in &nglo? %axon, /elgian, an! 9erman, an! none in t#e Celtic. It is e5(ally inconcei;able t#at t#ere was no term in t#e original &ryan speec# for maternal (ncle, a relations#ip ma!e so conspic(o(s by t#e gens among barbaro(s tribes. If t#eir pre;io(s system

AAH was "(ranian, t#ere was necessarily a term for t#is (ncle, b(t restricte! to t#e own brot#ers of t#e mot#er, an! to #er se;eral male co(sins. Its application to s(c# a n(mber of persons in a category, many of w#om co(l! not be (ncles (n!er monogamy, wo(l!, for t#e reasons slate!, compel its aban!onment. It is e;i!ent t#at a pre;io(s system of some 2in! m(st #a;e gi;en place to t#e &ryan. &ss(ming t#at t#e nations of t#e &ryan, %emitic an! $ralian families formerly possesse! t#e "(ranian system of consang(inity, t#e transition from it to a !escripti;e system was simple an! nat(ral, after t#e ol! system, t#ro(g# monogamy, #a! become (ntr(e to !escents as t#ey wo(l! t#en exist. ';ery relations#ip (n!er monogamy is specific. "#e new system, forme! (n!er s(c# circ(mstances, wo(l! !escribe t#e persons by means of t#e primary terms or a combination of t#em: as brot#erFs son for nep#ew, fat#erFs brot#er for (ncle, an! fat#erFs brot#erFs son for co(sin. %(c# was t#e original of t#e present system of t#e &ryan, %emitic an! $ralian families. "#e generaliBations t#ey now contain were of later intro!(ction. &ll t#e tribes possessing t#e "(ranian system !escribe t#eir 2in!re! by t#e same form(la, w#en as2e! in w#at manner one person was relate! to anot#er. & !escripti;e system precisely li2e t#e &ryan always existe! bot# wit# t#e "(ranian an! t#e Malayan, not as a system of consang(inity, for t#ey ba! a permanent system, b(t as a means of tracing relations#ips. It is plain from t#e impo;eris#e! con!itions of t#eir nomenclat(res t#at t#e &ryan, %emitic an! $ralian nations m(st #a;e re:ecte! a prior system of consang(inity of some 2in!. "#e concl(sion, t#erefore, is reasonable t#at w#en t#e monogamian family became generally establis#e! t#ese nations fell bac2 (pon t#e ol! !escripti;e form, always in (se (n!er t#e "(ranian system, an! allowe! t#e pre;io(s one to !ie o(t as (seless an! (ntr(e to !escents. "#is wo(l! be t#e nat(ral an! ob;io(s mo!e of transition from t#e "(ranian into t#e &ryan system; an! it explains, in a satisfactory manner, t#e origin as well as pec(liar c#aracter of t#e latter. In or!er to complete t#e exposition of t#e monogamian family in its relations to t#e &ryan system of consang(inity, it will be necessary to present t#is system somew#at in !etail, as #as been !one in t#e two pre;io(s cases. & comparison of its forms in t#e se;eral &ryan !ialects s#ows t#at t#e original of t#e present system was p(rely !escripti;e.[13] "#e 'rse, w#ic# is t#e typical &ryan form, an! t#e 'st#onian, w#ic# is t#e typical $ralian, are still !escripti;e. In t#e 'rse t#e only terms for t#e bloo! relations#ips are t#e primary, namely, t#ose for fat#er an! mot#er, brot#er an! sister, an! son an! !a(g#ter. &ll t#e remaining 2in!re! are !escribe! by means of t#ese terms, b(t commencing in t#e re;erse or!er; t#(s, brot#er, son of brot#er, an! son of son of brot#er. "#e &ryan system ex#ibits t#e act(al relations#ips (n!er monogamy, an! ass(mes t#at t#e paternity of c#il!ren is 2nown. In co(rse of time a met#o! of !escription, materially !ifferent from t#e Celtic, was engrafte! (pon t#e new system; b(t wit#o(t c#anging its ra!ical creat(res. It was intro!(ce! by t#e 0oman ci;ilians to perfect t#e framewor2 of a co!e of !escents, to t#e necessity for w#ic# we are in!ebte! for its existence. "#eir impro;e! met#o! #as been a!opte! by t#e se;eral &ryan nations among w#om t#e 0oman infl(ence exten!e!. "#e %la;onic system #as some feat(res entirely pec(liar an! e;i!ently of

AA1 "(ranian origin.8[14] "o obtain a 2nowle!ge #istorically of o(r present system it is necessary to resort to t#e 0oman, as perfecte! by t#e ci;ilians. [15] "#e a!!itions were slig#t, b(t t#ey c#ange! t#e met#o! of !escribing 2in!re!. "#ey consiste! c#iefly, as elsew#ere state!, in !isting(is#ing t#e relations#ips of (ncle an! a(nt on t#e fat#erFs si!e from t#ose on t#e mot#erFs si!e, wit# t#e in;ention of terms to express t#ese relations#ips in t#e concrete; an! in creating a term for gran!fat#er to be (se! as t#e correlati;e of nepos. 6it# t#ese terms an! t#e primary, in connection wit# s(itable a(gments, t#ey were enable! to systematiBe t#e relations#ips in t#e lineal an! in t#e first fi;e collateral lines, w#ic# in!(cle! t#e bo!y of t#e 2in!re! of e;ery in!i;i!(al. "#e 0oman is t#e most perfect an! scientific system of consang(inity (n!er monogamy w#ic# #as yet appeare!; an! it #as been ma!e more attracti;e by t#e in;ention of an (n(s(al n(mber of terms to express t#e marriage relations#ips. *rom it we may learn o(r own system, w#ic# #as a!opte! its impro;ements, better t#an from t#e &nglo? %axon or Celtic. In a table, at t#e en! of t#is c#apter, t#e atin an! &rabic forms are place! si!e by si!e as representati;es, respecti;ely, of t#e &ryan an! %emitic systems. "#e &rabic seems to #a;e passe! t#ro(g# processes similar to t#e 0oman, an! wit# similar res(lts. "#e 0oman only will be explaine!. *rom Ego to tritavus$ in t#e lineal line, are six generations of ascen!ants, an! from t#e same to trinepos are t#e same n(mber of !eca!ents, in t#e !escription of w#ic# b(t fo(r ra!ical terms are (se!. If it were !esirable to ascen! abo;e t#e sixt# ancestor, tritavus wo(l! become a new starting?point of !escription; t#(s, tritavi pater$ t#e fat#er of tritaus$ an! so (pwar! to tritavi tritavus$ w#o is t#e twelft# ancestor of Ego in t#e lineal rig#t line, male. In o(r r(!e nomenclat(re t#e p#rase gran!fat#erFs gran!? fat#er m(st be repeate! six times to express t#e same relations#ip, or rat#er to !escribe t#e same person. In li2e manner trinepotis triEepos carries (s to t#e twelft# !escen!ant of Ego in t#e rig#t lineal male line. "#e first collateral line, male, w#ic# commences wit# brot#er, frater$ r(ns as follows: fratris filius$ son of brot#er, fratris nepos$ gran!son of brot#er, fratris pronepos$ greatgran!son of brot#er, an! on to fratris pronepos$ t#e great?gran!son of t#e great?gran!son of t#e brot#er of Ego. If it were necessary to exten! t#e !escription to t#e twelft# !escen!ant, fratris trinepos wo(l! become a secon! starting?point; from w#ic# we s#o(l! #a;e fratris trinepotis trinepos$ as t#e en! of t#e series. /y t#is simple met#o! frater is ma!e t#e root of !escent in t#is line, an! e;ery person belonging to it is referre! to #im by t#e force of t#is term in t#e !escription; an! we 2now at once t#at eac# person t#(s !escribe! belongs to t#e first collateral line, male. It is t#erefore specific an! complete. In li2e manner, t#e same line, female, commences wit# sister, soror$ gi;ing for t#e series, sororis filia$ sisterFs !a(g#ter, sororis neptis$ sisterFs gran!?!a(g#ter, sororis proneptis$ sisterFs great?gran!!a(g#ter, an! on to sororis trineptis$ #er sixt# !escen!ant, an! to sororis trineptis trineptis$ #er twelft# !escen!ant. 6#ile t#e two branc#es of t#e first collateral line originate, in strictness, in t#e fat#er, pater$ t#e common bon! of connection between t#em, yet, by ma2ing t#e brot#er an! sister t#e root of !escent in t#e !escription, not only t#e line b(t its two branc#es are maintaine! !istinct, an! t#e relations#ip of eac# person to Ego is specialiBe!. "#is is one of t#e c#ief excellences of t#e system, for it is carrie! into all t#e lines, as a p(rely scientific

AAD met#o! of !isting(is#ing an! !escribing 2in!re!. "#e secon! collateral line, male, on t#e fat#erFs si!e, commences wit# fat#erFs brot#er, patruus$ an! is compose! of #im an! #is !escen!ants, 'ac# person, by t#e terms (se! to !escribe #im, is referre! wit# entire precision to: #is proper position in t#e line, an! #is relations#ip is in!icate! specifically; t#(s, patrui filius$ son of paternal (ncle, patrui nepos$ gran!son of an! patrui pronepos$ great gran!son of paternal (ncle, an! on to patrui trinepos$ t#e sixt# !escen!ant of patruus. If it became necessary to exten! t#is line to t#e twelft# generation we s#o(l! #a;e, after passing t#ro(g# t#e interme!iate !egrees, patrui trinepotis$ trme!os$ w#o is t#e great?gran!son.of t#e great? gran!son of patrui trinepos$ t#e great?gran!son of t#e great?gran!son of patruus. It will #e obser;e! t#at t#e term for co(sin is re:ecte! in t#e formal met#o! (se! in t#e 3an!ects. He is !escribe! as patrui filius$ b(t #e was also calle! a brot#er patr(al, frater patruelis$ an! among t#e people at large by t#e common term consobrinus$ from w#ic# o(r term co(sin is !eri;e!. [16] "#e secon! collateral line, female, on t#e fat#erFs si!e, commences wit# fat#erFs sister, amita, paternal a(nt; an! #er !escen!ants are !escribe! accor!ing to t#e same general plan; t#(s, amitae filia$ paternal a(ntFs !a(g#ter, amitae neptis$ paternal a(ntFs gran!!a(g#ter, an! on to amitae trineptis$ an! to amitae trineptis trineptis. In t#is branc# of t#e line t#e special term for t#is co(sin, amitina$ is also set asi!e for t#e !escripti;e p#rase amitae filia. In li2e manner t#e t#ir! collateral line, male, on t#e fat#erFs si!e commences wit# gran!fat#erFs brot#er, w#o is style! patruus magnus$ or great paternal (ncle. &t t#is point in t#e nomenclat(re, special terms fail, an! compo(n!s are resorte! to, alt#o(g# t#e relations#ip itself is in t#e concrete. It is e;i!ent t#at t#is relations#ip was not !iscriminate! (ntil a comparati;ely mo!ern perio!. =o existing lang(age, so far as t#e in5(iry #as been exten!e!, possesses an original term for t#is relations#ip, alt#o(g# wit#o(t it t#is line cannot be !escribe! except by t#e Celtic met#o!. If #e were calle! simply grandfatherFs brother t#e p#rase wo(l! !escribe a person, lea;ing t#e relations#ip to implication; b(t if #e is style! a great?(ncle, it expresses a relations#ip in t#e concrete. 6it# t#e first person in t#is branc# of t#e line t#(s ma!e !efinite, all of #is !escen!ants are referre! to #im, by t#e form of t#e !escription, as t#e root of !escent; an! t#e line, t#e si!e, t#e partic(lar branc#, an! t#e !egree of t#e relations#ip of eac# person are at once f(lly expresse!. "#is line also may be exten!e! to t#e twelft# !escen!ant, w#ic# wo(l! gi;e for t#e series patrui magni filius$ son of t#e paternal great?(ncle, patrui magni nepos$ an! on to patrui magni trinepos$ an! en!ing wit# patrui magni trinepotis trinepos. "#e same line, female, commences wit# gran!fat#erFs sister, amita magna$ great paternal a(nt; an! #er !escen!ants are similarly !escribe!. "#e fo(rt# an! fift# collateral lines, male, on t#e fat#erFs si!e, commence, respecti;ely, wit# great?gran!fat#erFs brot#er, w#o is style! patruus ma3or$ greater paternal (ncle, an! wit# great?great?gran!fat#erFs brot#er, patruus ma"imus$ greatest paternal (ncle. In exten!ing t#e series we #a;e in t#e fo(rt# patrui ma3oris filius$ an! on to patrui ma3oris trinepos2 an! in t#e fift# patrui ma"imi filius$ an! on to patrui ma"imi trinepos. "#e female branc#es commence, respecti;ely, wit# amita ma3or$ greater, an! amita ma"ima$ greatest paternal a(nt; an! t#e !escription of persons in eac# follows in t#e same or!er.

AAA "#(s far t#e lines #a;e been on t#e fat#erFs si!e only. "#e necessity for in!epen!ent terms for (ncle an! a(nt on t#e mot#erFs si!e to complete t#e 0oman met#o! of !escription is now apparent; t#e relati;es on t#e mot#erFs si!e being e5(ally n(mero(s, an! entirely !istinct. "#ese terms were fo(n! in avunculus$ maternal (ncle, an! matertera$ maternal a(nt. In !escribing t#e relati;es on t#e mot#erFs si!e, t#e lineal female line is s(bstit(te! for t#e male, b(t t#e first collateral line remains t#e same. In t#e secon! collateral line, male, on t#e mot#erFs si!e, we #a;e for t#e series avunculus$ maternal (ncle, avunculi filius$ avunculi nepos$ an! on to avunculi triEepos$ an! en!ing wit# avF+.ncsdi trmepotis trinepos. In t#e female branc#, matertera$ maternal a(nt, materterae filia$ an! on as before. "#e t#ir! collateral line, male an! female, commence, respecti;ely, wit# avunculus magnus$ an! matertera magna$ great maternal (ncle an! a(nt; t#e fo(rt# wit# avunculus ma3or$ and matertera ma3or$ greater maternal (ncle, an! a(nt; an! t#e fift# wit# avunculus ma"imus$ and matertera ma"ima$ greatest maternal (ncle, an! a(nt. "#e !escriptions of persons in eac# line an! branc# are in form correspon!ing wit# t#ose pre;io(sly gi;en. %ince t#e first fi;e collateral lines embrace as wi!e a circle of 2in!re! as it was necessary to incl(!e for t#e practical ob:ects of a co!e of !escents, t#e or!inary form(la of t#e 0oman ci;ilians !i! not exten! beyon! t#is n(mber. In terms for t#e marriage relations#ips, t#e atin lang(age is remar2ably op(lent, w#ilst o(r mot#er 'nglis# betrays its po;erty by t#e (se of s(c# (nseemly p#rases as fat#er?in?law, son?in?law, brot#er?in?law, step?fat#er, an!. step?son, to express some twenty ;ery common, an! ;ery near relations#ips, nearly all of w#ic# are pro;i!e! wit# special terms in t#e atin nomenclat(re. It will not be necessary to p(rs(e f(rt#er t#e !etails of t#e 0oman system of consang(inity. "#e principal an! most important of its feat(res #a;e been presente!, an! in s manner s(fficiently special to ren!er t#e w#ole intelligible. *or simplicity of met#o!, felicity of !escription, !istinctness of arrangement by lines an! branc#es, an! bea(ty of nomenclat(re, it is incomparable. It stan!s in its met#o! pre?eminently at t#e #ea! of all t#e systems of relations#ip e;er perfecte! by man, an! f(rnis#es one of many ill(strations t#at to w#ate;er t#e 0oman min! #a! occasion to gi;e organic form, it place! once for all (pon a soli! fo(n!ation. =o reference #as been ma!e to t#e !etails of t#e &rabic system; b(t, as t#e two forms are gi;en in t#e "able, t#e explanation ma!e of one will s(ffice or t#e ot#er, to w#ic# it is e5(ally applicable. 6it# its a!!itional special terms, an! its perfecte! met#o!, consang(inei are ass(me! to be connecte!, in ;irt(e of t#eir !escent, t#ro(g# marrie! pairs, from common ancestors. "#ey arrange t#emsel;es in a lineal an! !i;ergent from t#e former. "#ese are se;eral collateral lines; an! t#e latter are necessary conse5(ences of monogamy. "#e relations#ips of eac# person to t#e central Ego is acc(rately !efine! an!, except as to t#ose w#o stan! in an i!entical relations#ip, is 2ept !istinct from e;ery ot#er by means of a special term or !escripti;e p#rase. It also implies t#e certainty of t#e parentage of e;ery in!i;i!(al, w#ic# monogamy alone co(l! ass(re. Moreo;er, it !escribes t#e relations#ips in t#e monogamian family as t#ey act(ally exist. =ot#ing can be plainer t#an t#at t#is form of marriage ma!e t#is

AAform of t#e family, an! t#at t#e latter create! t#is system of consang(inity. "#e t#ree are necessary parts of a w#ole w#ere t#e !escripti;e system is excl(si;e. 6#at we 2now by !irect obser;ation to be tr(e wit# respect to t#e monogamian family, its law of marriage an! its system of consang(inity, #as been s#own to be e5(ally tr(e wit# respect to t#e p(nal(an family, its law of marriage an! its system of consang(inity; an! not less so of t#e consang(ine family, its form of marriage an! its system of consang(inity. &ny of t#ese t#ree parts being gi;en, t#e existence of t#e ot#er two wit# it, at some one time, may be !e!(ce! wit# certainty. If any !ifference co(l! be ma!e in fa;o(r of t#e s(perior materiality of any one of t#e t#ree, t#e preference wo(l! belong to systems of consang(inity. "#ey #a;e crystalliBe! t#e e;i!ence !eclaring t#e marriage law an! t#e form of t#e family in t#e relations#ip of e;ery in!i;i!(al person; t#(s preser;ing not, only t#e #ig#est e;i!ence of t#e fact, b(t as many conc(rring !eclarations t#ereto as t#ere are members (nite! by t#e bon! of consang(inity. It f(rnis#es a test of t#e #ig# ran2 of a !omestic instit(tion, w#ic# m(st be s(ppose! incapable of !esign to per;ert t#e tr(t#, an! w#ic#, t#erefore, may be tr(ste! implicitly as to w#ate;er it necessarily teac#es. *inally, it is wit# respect to systems of consang(inity t#at o(r information is most complete. "#e fi;e s(ccessi;e forms of t#e family, mentione! at t#e o(tset, #a;e now been presente! an! explaine!, wit# s(c# e;i!ence of t#eir existence, an! s(c# partic(lars of t#eir str(ct(re as o(r present 2nowle!ge f(rnis#es. &lt#o(g# t#e treatment of eac# #as been general, it #as to(c#e! t#e essential facts an! attrib(tes, an! establis#e! t#e main proposition, t#at t#e family commence! in t#e consang(ine, an! grew, t#ro(g# s(ccessi;e stages of, !e;elopment, into t#e monogamian. "#ere is not#ing in t#is general concl(sion w#ic# mig#t not #a;e been anticipate! from a priori consi!erations; b(t t#e !iffic(lties an! t#e #in!rances w#ic# obstr(cte! its growt# are seen to #a;e been far greater t#an wo(l! #a;e been s(ppose!. &s a growt# wit# t#e ages of time, it #as s#are! in all t#e ;icissit(!es of #(man experience, an! now re;eals more expressi;ely, per#aps, t#an any ot#er instit(tion, t#e gra!(ate! scale of #(man progress from t#e abyss of primiti;e sa;agery, t#ro(g# barbarism, to ci;iliBation. It brings (s near to t#e !aily life of t#e #(man family in t#e !ifferent epoc#s of its progressi;e !e;elopment, in!icating, in: some meas(re, its #ar!s#ips, its str(ggles an! also its ;ictories, w#en !ifferent perio!s are contraste!. 6e s#o(l! ;al(e t#e great instit(tion of t#e family, as it now exists, in some proportion to t#e expen!it(re of time an! of intelligence in its pro!(ction; an! recei;e it as t#e ric#est legacy transmitte! to (s by ancient society, beca(se it embo!ie! an! recor!s t#e #ig#est res(lts of its ;arie! an! prolonge! experience. 6#en t#e fact is accepte! t#at t#e family #as passe! t#ro(g# fo(r s(ccessi;e forms, an! is now in a fift#, t#e 5(estion at once arises w#et#er t#is form can be permanent in t#e f(t(re. "#e only answer t#at can be gi;en is, t#at it m(st a!;ance as society a!;ances, an! c#ange as society c#anges, e;en as it #as !one in t#e past. It is t#e c(lt(re of t#e social system, an! will reflect its c(lt(re. &s t#e monogamian family #as impro;e! greatly since t#e commencement of ci;iliBation, an! ;ery sensibly in mo!ern times, it is at least s(pposable t#at it is capable of still f(rt#er impro;ement (ntil t#e e5(ality of t#e sexes is attaine!. %#o(l! t#e monogamian family in t#e !istant f(t(re fail to answer t#e re5(irements of society, ass(ming t#e

AA4 contin(o(s progress of ci;iliBation, it is impossible to pre!ict t#e nat(re of its s(ccessor.

Footnotes
1 *am(li origo ab >scis !epen!et, ap(! 5(o ser;(s *am(l nominab(nt(r, (n!e )fami1ia8 ;ocata.?8 *est(s,8 p. 87. ! &mico familiam s(am, i! est patrimoni(m s((m mancipio !abat.? 9ai(s )Inst.,8 ii, 1HD. " )History of 0ome,8 1. c., 1, ,4. # Item in potestate nostra s(nt liberi nostri, 5(os :(stis n(ptiis procrea(im(s, 5(o! :(s propri(m ci(i(m 0omanor(m est: fere enim n(lli alii s(nt #omines, 5(i talem in fi1ios s(os #abent potestatem, 5(alem nos #abem(s.? )Inst.,8 1, 00. &mong ot#er t#ings t#ey #a! t#e power of life an! !eat# ? :(s ;itae necisp(e. $ )9ermania,8 c. 18. % Ib., c. 1,. & )Ilia!,8 ix, 1D8. ' )Ilia!,8 GGA. ( "#e following con!ense! statement, ta2en from C#aricles +)'xc(rs(s,8 xii, ongmanFs e!;, MetcalfeFs trans.., contains t#e material facts ill(strati;e of t#e s(b:ect. &fter expressing t#e opinion t#at t#e women of Homer occ(pie! a more #ono(rable position in t#e #o(se#ol! t#an t#e women of t#e #istorical perio!, #e ma2es t#e following statements wit# respect to t#e con!ition of women, partic(larly at &t#ens an! %parta, !(ring t#e #ig# perio! of 9recian c(lt(re. He obser;es t#at t#e only excellence of w#ic# a woman was t#o(g#t capable !iffere! b(t little from t#at of a fait#f(l sla;e +p. -G-.: t#at #er (tter want of in!epen!ence le! to #er being consi!ere! a minor all #er lifelong; t#at t#ere were neit#er e!(cational instit(tions for girls, nor any pri;ate teac#ers at #ome, t#eir w#ole instr(ction being left to t#e mot#ers, an! to n(rses, an! limite! to spinning an! wea;ing an! ot#er female a;ocations +p. -G4.; t#at t#ey were almost entirely !epri;e! of t#at most essential promoter of female c(lt(re, t#e society of t#e ot#er sex; strangers as well as t#eir nearest relati;es being entirely excl(!e!; e;en t#eir fat#ers an! #(sban!s saw t#em b(t little, t#e men being more abroa! t#an at #ome, an! w#en at #ome in#abiting t#eir own apartments; t#at t#e gynaeconitis, t#o(g# not exactly a prison, nor yet a loc2e! #arem, was still t#e confine! abo!e allotte! for life to t#e female portion of t#e #o(se#ol!; t#at it was partic(larly t#e case wit# t#e mai!ens, w#o li;e! in t#e greatest secl(sion (ntil t#eir marriage, an!, so to spea2, reg(larly (n!er loc2 an! 2ey +p. -G4.; t#at it was (nbecoming for a yo(ng wife to lea;e t#e #o(se wit#o(t #er #(sban!Fs 2nowle!ge, an! in fact s#e sel!om 5(itte! it; s#e was t#(s restricte! to t#e society of #er female sla;es; an! #er #(sban!, if #e c#ose to exercise it, #a! t#e power of 2eeping #er in confinement +p. -GG.; t#at at t#ose festi;als, from w#ic# men were excl(!e!, t#e women #a! an opport(nity of

AAG
seeing somet#ing of eac# ot#er, w#ic# t#ey en:oye! all t#e more from t#eir or!inary secl(sion; t#at women fo(n! it !iffic(lt to go o(t of t#eir #o(ses from t#ese special restrictions; t#at no respectable la!y t#o(g#t of going wit#o(t t#e atten!ance of a female sla;e assigne! to #er for t#at p(rpose by #er #(sban! +p. -G,.; t#at t#is met#o! of treatment #a! t#e effect of ren!ering t#e girls excessi;ely bas#f(l an! e;en pr(!is#, an! t#at e;en a marrie! woman s#r(n2 bac2 an! bl(s#e! if s#e c#ance! to be seen at, t#e win!ow by a man +p. -71.; t#at marriage in reference to t#e procreation of c#il!ren was consi!ere! by t#e 9ree2s a necessity, enforce! by t#eir !(ty to t#e go!s, to t#e state an! to t#eir ancestors; t#at (ntil a ;ery late perio!, at least, no #ig#er consi!eration attac#e! to matrimony, nor was strong attac#ment a fre5(ent ca(se of marriage +p. -7A.; t#at w#ate;er attac#ment existe! sprang from t#e soil of sens(ality, an! none ot#er t#an sens(al lo;e was ac2nowle!ge! between man an! wife +p. -7A.; t#at at &t#ens, an! probably in t#e ot#er 9recian states as well, t#e generation of c#il!ren was consi!ere! t#e c#ief en! of marriage, t#e c#oice of t#e bri!e sel!om !epen!ing on pre;io(s, or at least intimate ac5(aintance; an! more attention was pai! to t#e position of t#e !amselFs family, an! t#e amo(nt of #er !owry t#an to #er personal 5(alities; t#at s(c# marriages were (nfa;o(rable to t#e existence of real affection w#erefore col!ness, in!ifference, an! !iscontent fre5(ently pre;aile! +p -37.; t#at t#e #(sban! an! wife too2 t#eir meals toget#er, pro;i!e! no ot#er were !ining wit# t#e master of t#e #o(se, for no woman w#o !i! not wis# to be acco(nte! a co(rtesan, wo(l! t#in2 e;en, in #er own #o(se of participating in t#e symposia of t#e men or of being present w#en #er #(sban! acci!entally bro(g#t #ome a frien! to !inner +p. -,H.; t#at t#e pro;ince of t#e wife, was t#e management of t#e entire #o(se#ol!, an! t#e n(rt(re of t#e c#il!ren ? of t#e boys (ntil t#ey were place! (n!er a master, of t#e girls (ntil t#eir marriage; t#at t#e infi!elity of t#e wife was :(!ge! most #ars#ly; an! w#ile it mig#t be s(ppose! t#at t#e woman, from #er strict secl(sion, was generally precl(!e! from transgressing, t#ey ;ery fre5(ently fo(n! means of !ecei;ing t#eir #(sban!s; t#at t#e law impose! t#e !(ty of continence in a ;ery (ne5(al manner, for w#ile t#e #(sban! re5(ire! from t#e wife t#e strictest fi!elity; an! ;isite! wit# se;erity any !ereliction on #er part, #e allowe! #imself to #a;e interco(rse wit# #etaerae, w#ic# con!(ct t#o(g# not exactly appro;e!, !i! not meet wit# any mar2e! cens(re, an! m(c# less was it consi!ere! any ;iolation of matrimonial rig#ts +p. -,-.. 1) )Iit. 0om.,8 c. DH. 11 J(inctilian. 1! 6it# respect to t#e con:(gal fi!elity of 0oman women, /ec2er remar2s )t#at in t#e earlier times excesses on eit#er si!e sel!om occ(rre!,8 w#ic# m(st be set !own as a mere con:ect(re; b(t )w#en morals began to !eteriorate, we first meet wit# great lapses from t#is fi!elity, an! men an! women o(tbi! eac# ot#er in wanton in!(lgence. "#e original mo!esty of t#e women became gra!(ally more rare, w#ile l(x(ry an! extra;agance waxe! stronger, an! of many women it co(l! be sai!, as Clitip#o complaine! of #is /acc#is, +"er., )Hea(t.;8 ii, 1, 14., )Mea est petax, procax, magnifica, s(mpt(o(s, nobilis.8 Many

AA7
0oman la!ies, to compensate for t#e neglect of t#eir #(sban!s, #a! a lo;er of t#eir own, w#o (n!er t#e pretence of being t#e proc(rator of t#e la!y, accompanie! #er at all times. &s a nat(ral conse5(ence of t#is, celibacy contin(ally increase! amongst t#e men, an! t#ere was t#e greatest le;ity respecting !i;orces.8 ? 9all(s, )'xc(rs(s,8 I, p,; 144 ongmanFs e!., MetcalfFs trans. 1" )%ystems of Consang(inity,8 "able I. p. 7,. 1# ) %ystems of Consang(inity, ) etc., p. -H. 1$ )3an!ects,8 lib xx;iii, tit. x. an! )Instit(tes8 of C(stinian. lib. iii, tit. ;i. 1% Item fratres patr(e1es, sorores patr(eles, i! est 5(i 5(ae?;e ex !(ob(s fratrib(s progenerant(r; item consobrini +consobrinae, i! est 5(i 5(ae?;eex !(ob(s sororib(s nasc(nt(r +5(asi consorini.; item amitini amitinae, i! est 5(i 5(ae?;e ex fratre es sorore propagant(r; se! fere ;(lgos istos omnes comm(ni appellatione consobrin(s ;ocat.? )3an!,8 lib. xxx;iii, tit, x.

Ro an and Arabic syste

<escription of 3ersons 1 D A 4 G 7 8 , 1H 11 1D 1A 114 1G 17 18 1, DH 9 gran!fat#erFs 9 gran!fat#er 9 gran!fat#erFs gran!fat#er 9 gran!fat#erFs fat#er 9 gran!fat#erFs mot#er 9 gran!fat#er 9 gran!mot#er 9ran!fat#er 9ran!moet#er *at#er Mot#er %on <a(g#ter 9ran!son 9ran!!a(g#ter 9 gran!son 9 gran!mot#er 9 gran!sonFs son 9 gran!sonFs !a(g#ter 9 gran!sonFs gran!son 9 gran!sonFs

of Relationship
"ranslation 9 gran!fat#erFs 9 gran!fat#er 9 gran!fat#erFs gran!fat#er 9 gran!fat#erFs fat#er 9 gran!fat#erFs mot#er 9 gran!fat#er 9 gran!mot#er 9ran!fat#er 9ran!moet#er *at#er Mot#er %on <a(g#ter 9ran!son 9ran!!a(g#ter 9 gran!son 9 gran!mot#er 9 gran!sonFs son 9 gran!sonFs !a(g#ter 9 gran!sonFs gran!son 9 gran!sonFs gran!!a(g#ter 0elations#ip Ci!!, :i!!, :i!!i Ci!!, Ci!!, abi Ci!!, Ci!!i %itt sitti Ci!!, abi %itt abi Ci!! %iiti &bi $mmi Ibni Ibniti b, binti Ibn ibni Ibnet ibni Ibn ibn ibni Ibnt ibnt ibnti Ibn ibn ibn ibni /int bint bint binti Ibn ibn ibn ibn ibni /int bint bint in &rabic

0elations#ip in atin "rita;(s &ta;(s &;a;(s &ba;ia 3roa;(s 3roa;ia &;(s &;ia 3atr Mater *ili(s *ilia =epos =eptis 3ronepos 3roneptis &;nepos a;neptis &tnepos &tneptis

9ran!fat#er of 9* of 9* my 9ran!fat#er of 9* of fat#er my 9ran!fat#er of 9* my 9ran!mot#er of 9M my 9ran!fat#er of fat#er my 9ran!mot#er of fat#er my 9ran!fat#er my 9ran!mot#er my *at#er my Mot#er my %on my <a(g#ter my %om of son my <a(g#ter of son my %on of son of son my <a(g#ter of <a(g#ter <a(g#ter my %on of son of son of so my <a(g#ter of !a(g#ter o !a(g#ter of !a(g#ter my %on of son of son of so of son my <a(g#ter of !a(g#ter o

AA8
gran!!a(g#ter D1 DD 9 gran!sonFs gran!sonFs 9 gran!son 9 gran!sonFs 9 gran!!a(g#ter /rot#ers %isters /rot#er *irst collateral line /rot#erFs son /rot#erFs sonFs wife /rot#erFs !a(g#ter /rot#erFs !a(g#terFs #(sban! /rot#erFs gran!son /rot#erFs gran!!a(g#ter /rot#erFs 9 gran!son /rot#erFs 9 gran!!a(g#ter %ister %isterFs son %isterFs sonFs wife %isterFs !a(g#ter %isterFs !a(g#terFs #(sban! %isterFs gran!son %isterFs gran!!a(g#ter %isterFs 9 gran!son %isterFs 9 gran!!a(g#ter %econ! collateral line *at#erFs brot#er *at#erFs brot#erFs wife *at#erFs brot#erFs son *at#erFs brot#erFs sonFs wife *at#erFs brot#erFs !a(g#ter *at#erFs brot#erFs !a(g#terFs #(sban! *at#erFs brot#erFs gran!son *at#erFs brot#erFs gran!!a(g#ter "rinepos "rineptis 9 gran!sonFs gran!sonFs 9 gran!son 9 gran!sonFs 9 gran!!a(g#ter bint binti Ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibni /int bint bint bint bint binti &#wati a#wati &2#i Ibn a#i &marat ibn a#i /int a#i Ko: bint a#i Ibn ibn a2#i /int ibn a#i Ibn ibn ibn a#i /int bint bint a#i &2#ti Ibn a2#ti &mrat a2#ati /int a2#ti Ko: bint a2#ti Ibn a2#ti /int a2#ti Ibn ibn a2#ti /int bint a2#ti &mmi &mrat ammi Ibn ammi &mrat ibn ami /int ami Ko: bint ammi Ibn ibn ammi /int bint ammi

DA DD4 DG D7 D8 D, AH A1 AD AA AA4 AG A7 A8 A, -H -1 -D -A --4 -G -7 -8 -, 4H

*ratres %orores *rater *ratris fili(s *ratris filii (xor *ratris filia *ratris filiae ;ir *ratris nepos *ratris neptis *ratris pronepos *ratris proneptis %oror sororisfili(s %ororis filii (xor %ororis filia %ororis filiae ;ir %ororis nepos %ororis neptis %ororis pronepos %ororis proneptis 3atr((s 3atr(i (xor 3atr(i fili(s 3atr(i filii (xor 3atr(i filia 3atr(i filiae ir 3atr(i nepos 3atr(i neptis

/rot#ers %isters /rot#er *irst collateral line %on of /rot#er 6ife of son of /rot#er <a(g#ter of /rot#er #(sban! of !a(g#ter of brot#er 9ran!son of /rot#er 9ran!!a(g#ter of /rot#er 9 gran!son /rot#er 9 gran!!a(g#ter brot#er %ister %on of sister 6ife of son of sister <a(g#ter of sister H(sban! of !a(g#ter of sister %isterFs gran!son %isterFs gran!!a(g#ter %isterFs 9 gran!son %isterFs 9 gran!!a(g#ter %econ! collateral line 3aternal (ncle 6ife of paternal (ncle %on of paternal (ncle 6ife of son of paternal (ncle <a(g#ter of paternal (ncle H(sban! of !a(g#ter of paternal (ncle 9ran!son of paternal (ncle 9ran!!a(g#ter of paternal (ncle

!a(g#ter of !a(g#ter o !a(g#ter my %on of son of son of so of son of son my <a(g#ter of !a(g#ter o !a(g#ter of !a(g#ter o !a(g#ter of !a(g#ter my /rot#ers my %isters my brot#er my )irst collateral line %on of /rot#er my 6ife of son of /rot#er my <a(g#ter of /rot#er m H(sban! of !a(g#ter o brot#er my %on of son of brot#er my <a(g#ter of son of brot#er my %on of son of son of brot#er my <a(g#ter of !a(g#ter o !a(g#ter of brot#er my %ister my 6ife of son of sister 6ife of son of sister m <a(g#ter of sister my H(sban! of !a(g#ter o sister my %on of sister my <a(g#ter of sister my %on of son of sister my <a(g#ter of !a(g#ter o sister my

3aternal (ncle 6ife of paternal (ncle my %on of paternal (ncle my 6ife of son of paterna (ncle my <a(g#ter of paternal (ncle my H(sban! of !a(g#ter o paternal (ncle my son of son of paternal (ncle my !a(g#ter of !a(g#ter o paternal (ncle my

AA,
41 4D 4A 444 4G 47 48 4, GH G1 GD GA GG4 GG G7 G8 G, 7H 71 7D 7A 774 7G 77 *at#erFs brot#erFs 9 gran!son *at#erFs brot#erFs 9 gran!!a(g#ter *at#erFs sisterFs *at#erFs sisterFs #(sban! *at#erFs sisterFs son *at#erFs sisterFs sonFs wife *at#erFs sisterFs !a(g#ter *at#erFs sisterFs !a(g#terFs #(sban! *at#erFs sisterFs gran!son *at#erFs sisterFs gran!!a(g#ter *at#erFs sisterFs 9 gran!son *at#erFs sisterFs 9 gran!!a(g#ter Mot#erFs brot#er Mot#erFs brot#erFs wife /ot#erFs brot#erFs son Mot#erFs brot#erFs sonFs wife Mot#erFs brot#erFs !a(g#ter Mot#erFs brot#erFs !a(g#terFs #(sban! Mot#erFs brot#erFs gran!son Mot#erFs brot#erFs gran!!a(g#ter Mot#erFs brot#erFs 9 gran!son Mot#erFs brot#erFs 9 gran!!a(g#ter Mot#erFs sister Mot#erFs sisterFs #(sban! Mot#erFs sisterFs son Mot#erFs sisterFs sonFs wife Mot#erFs sisterFs 3atr(i pronepos 3atr(i propneptis &mita &mitae ;ir &mitae fili(s &mitae filii (xor &mitae filia &mitae filiae ;ir &mitae nepos &mitae neptis &mitae pronepos &mitae proneptis &;(nc(l(s a;(nc(li &;(nc(li (xor &;(nc(li fili(s &;(nc(li filii (xor &;(nc(li filia &;(nc(li filiae ;ir &;(nc(li nepos &;(nc(li neptis &;(nc(li pronepos &;(nc(li proneptis Matertera Materterae ;ir Materterae fil(s Materterae filii (xor Materterae *ilia 9 gran!son of paternal (ncle 9 gran!!a(g#ter of paternal (ncle 3aternal a(nt H(sban! of paternal a(nt %on of paternal a(nt 6ife of son of paternal a(nt <a(g#ter of paternal a(nt H(sban! of !a(g#ter of paternal a(nt 9ran!son of paternal a(nt 9ran!!a(g#ter of paternal a(nt 9 gran!son of paternal a(nt 9 gran!!a(g#ter of paternal a(nt Maternal (ncle 6ife of maternal (ncle %on of maternal (ncle 6ife of son of maternal (ncle <a(g#ter of maternal (ncle H(sban! of !a(g#ter of maternal (ncle 9ran!son of maternal (ncle 9ran!!a(g#ter of maternal (ncle 9 gran!son of maternal (ncle 9 gran!!a(g#ter of maternal (ncle Maternal a(nt H(sba! of maternal a(nt %on of maternal a(nt 6ife of son of maternal a(nt <a(g#ter of maternal a(nt Ibn ibn ibn ammi /int bint bint ammi &mmeti &rat ammeti Ibn ammeti &mrat ibn ammeti /int ammeti Ko: bint ammeti Ibn ibn ammeti /int bint ammeti Ibn ibn ibn ammeti /int bint bint ammeti 7#ali &mrat 2#ali Ibn 2#ali &mrat ibn 2#ali /int 2#ali Ko: bint 2#ali Ibn ibn 2#ali /int bint 2#ali Ibn ibn ibn 2#ali /int bint bint 2#ali 7#aleti Ko: 7#aleti Ibn 7#aleti &mrat ibn 7#aleti /int 7#aleti

%on of son of son of paternal (ncle my <a(g#ter of !a(g#ter o !a(g#ter of paternal (ncle my 3aternal a(nt my H(sban! of paternal a(nt my %on of paternal a(nt m 6ife of son of paterna a(nt my <a(g#ter of paternal a(nt my H(sban! of !a(g#ter o paternal a(nt my %on of son of paternal a(nt my <a(g#ter of !a(g#ter o paternal a(nt my %on of son of son of paternal a(nt my <a(g#ter of !a(g#ter o !a(g#ter fo paternal a(nt my Maternal (ncle my

6ife of maternal (ncle my %on of maternal (ncle my 6ife of son of materna (ncle my <a(g#ter of maternal (ncle my H(sban! of !a(g#ter o maternal (ncle my %on of son of maternal (ncle my <a(g#ter of !a(g#ter o maternal (ncle my %on of son of son of maternal (ncle my <a(g#ter of !a(g#ter o !a(g#ter of maternal (ncle my Maternal a(nt my H(sba! of maternal a(nt my %on of maternal a(nt my 6ife of son of materna a(nt my <a(g#ter of maternal

A-H
!a(g#ter Mot#erFs sisterFs !a(g#terFs #(sban! Mot#erFs sisterFs gran!son Mot#erFs sisterFs gran!!a(g#ter Mot#erFs sisterFs 9 gran!son Mot#erFs sisterFs 9 gran!!a(g#ter %hird collateral line *at#erFs fat#erFs brot#er *at#erFs fat#erFs brot#erFs son *at#erFs brot#erFs gran!son *at#erFs brot#erFs 9 gran!son *at#erFs fat#erFs sister *at#erFs fat#erFs sisterFs !a(g#ter *at#erFs fat#erFs sisterFs gran!!a(g#ter *at#erFs fat#erFs sisterFs 9 gran!!a(g#ter Mot#erFs mot#erFs brot#er Mot#erFs mot#erFs brot#erFs son Mot#erFs mot#erFs brot#erFs gran!son Mot#erFs mot#erFs brot#erFs 9 gran!son Mot#erFs mot#erFs sister Mot#erFs mot#erFs sisterFs !a(g#ter Mot#erFs mot#erFs sisterFs gran!!a(g#terr Mot#erFs mot#erFs sister )ourth collateral line *at#erFs fat#erFs fat#erFs brot#er *at#erFs fat#erFs

78 7, 8H 81 8D 8A 884 8G 87 88 8, ,H ,1 ,D ,A ,,4 ,G ,7 ,8 ,, 1HH

Materterae filiae ;ir Materterae nepos Materterae neptis Materterae pronepos Materterae proneptis 3atr((s magn(s 3atr((s magni filli(s 3atr((s magni nepos 3atr((s magni pronepos &mita Magana &mitae magnae filia &mitae magnae neptis &mitae magnae proneptis &;(np(l(s magn(s &;(nc(li magni *ilia &;(nc(li magni nepos &;(nc(li magni pronepos Matertera magna Materterae magnae filia Materterae magnae neptis Materterae magnae pro neptis 3ater((s ma:or 3apr(i ma:oris

H(sban! of !a(g#ter of maternal a(nt 9ran!son of maternal a(nt 9ran!!a(g#ter of maternal a(nt 9 gran!son of maternal a(nt 9 gran!!a(g#ter of maternal a(nt 9 paternal (ncle %on of 9 paternal (ncle 9ran!son of 9 paternal (ncle 9 gran!son of 9 paternal (ncle 9 paternal a(nt <a(g#ter of 9 paternal a(nt 9ran!!a(g#ter of 9 paternal a(nt 9 gran!!a(g#ter of 9 paternal a(nt 9 maternal (ncle %on of 9 maternal (ncle 9ran!son of 9 maternal (ncle 9 gran!son of 9 maternal (ncle 9 maternal a(nt <a(g#ter of 9 maternal a(nt 9ran!!a(g#ter of 9 maternal a(nt 9 gran!!a(g#ter of 9 maternal a(nt 3aternal 9 9 (ncle %on of paternal 9 9 (ncle

Ko: bint 7#aleti Ibn ibn 7#aleti /int bint 7#aleti Ibn ibn ibn 7#aleti /int bint bint 7#aleti &mm abi Ibn amm abi Ibn ibn amm abi Ibn ibn ibn amm abi &mmet abi /int amm abi /int bint amm abi /int bint bint amm abi 7#al (mmi Ibn 2#al (mmi Ibn ibn 2#al (mmi Ibn ibn ibn 2#al (mmi 7#alat (mmi /int 2#alat (mmi /int bint 2#alat (mmi /int bint bint 2#alat (mmi &mm :i!!i Ibn &mm :i!!i

a(nt my H(sban! of !a(g#ter o maternal a(nt my %on of son of maternal a(nt my <a(g#ter of !a(g#ter o maternal a(nt my %on of son of son of maternal a(nt my <a(g#ter of !a(g#ter o !a(g#ter of my maternal a(nt my 3aternal (ncle of fat#e my %on of paternal (ncle o fat#er my %on of son of paternal (ncle of fat#er my %on of son of son of paternal (ncle of fat#er my 3aternal a(nt of fat#er my <a(g#ter of paternal a(nt of fat#er my <a(g#ter of !a(g#ter o paternal a(nt of fat#er my <a(g#ter of !a(g#ter o !a(g#ter of paternal a(nt of fat#er my Maternal (ncle of mot#er my %on of maternal (ncle of mot#er my %on of son of maternal (ncle of mot#er my %on of son of son of maternal (ncle of mot#er my Maternal a(nt of mot#er my <a(g#ter of maternal a(nt of mot#er my <a(g#ter of !a(g#ter o maternal a(nt of mot#e my <a(g#ter of !a(g#ter o !a(g#ter of maternal a(nt of mot#er my 3aternal (ncle of gran!fat#er my %on of paternal (ncle o

A-1
fat#erFs brot#erFs son *at#erFs fat#erFs fat#erFs brot#erFs gran!son *at#erFs fat#erFs fat#erFs brot#erFs 9 gran!son *at#erFs fat#erFs fat#erFs sister *at#erFs fat#erFs fat#erFs sisterFs !a(g#ter *at#erFs fat#erFs fat#erFs sisterFs gran!!a(g#ter *at#erFs fat#erFs fat#erFs sisterFs 9 gran!!a(g#ter Mot#erFs mot#erFs mot#erFs brot#er Mot#erFs mot#erFs mot#erFs brot#erFs son Mot#erFs mot#erFs mot#erFs brot#erFs gran!son Mot#erFs mot#erFs mot#erFs brot#erFs 9 gran!son Mot#erFs mot#erFs mot#erFs sisterer Mot#erFs mot#erFs mot#erFs sistererFs !a(g#ter Mot#erFs mot#erFs mot#erFs sistererFs gran!!a(g#ter Mot#erFs mot#erFs mot#erFs sistererFs 9 gran!!a(g#ter )ifth collateral line *at#erFs fat#erFs fat#erFs fat#erFs brot#er *at#erFs fat#erFs fat#erFs fat#erFs brot#erFs son *at#erFs fat#erFs fat#erFs fat#erFs brot#erFs gran!son *at#erFs fat#erFs fat#erFs fat#erFs brot#erFs 9 gran!son *at#erFs fat#erFs fili(s 3apr(i ma:oris nepos 3apr(i ma:oris pro nepos &mita ma:or &mitae ma:oris filia &mitae ma:oris neptis &mitae ma:oris pro neptis &;(nc(l(s ma:or &;(nc(li ma:oris fili(s &;(nc(li ma:oris nepos &;(nc(li ma:oris pro nepos Matertera ma:oris filia Materterae ma:oris filia Materterae ma:oris neptis Mater ma:or pro neptis 3atr((s maxim(s 3atr(i maximi fili(s 3atr(i maximi nepos 3atr(i maximi pro nepos &mita maxima

1H1 1HD 1HA 1H1H4 1HG 1H7 1H8 1H, 11H 111 11D 11A 11-

9ran!son of paternal 9 9 (ncle 9 gran!son of paternal 9 9 (ncle 3aternal 9 9 a(nt <a(g#ter of paternal 9 9 a(nt 9ran!!a(g#ter of paternal 9 9 a(nt 9 gran!!a(g#ter of paternal 9 9 a(nt Maternal 9 9 (ncle %on of maternal 9 9 (ncle 9ran!son of maternal 9 9 (ncle 9 gran!son of maternal 9 9 (ncle Maternal 9 9 a(nt <a(g#ter of maternal 9 9 a(nt 9ran!!a(g#ter of maternal 9 9 a(nt 9 gran!!a(g#ter of maternal 9 9 a(nt 3aternal 9 9 (ncle %on of paternal 9 9 (ncle 9ran!son of paternal 9 9 (ncle 9 gran!son of 3aternal 9 9 (ncle 3aternal 9 9 9 a(nt

Ibn ibn amm :i!!i Ibn ibn ibn amm :i!!i &mmat :i!!i /int ammat :i!!i /int bint bint ammet :i!!i 7#al sitti Ibn 2#al sitti Ibn 2#al sitti Ibn ibn 2#al sitti Ibn ibn ibn 2#al sitti 7#alet sitti /int 2#alet sitti /int bint 2#alet sitti /int bint 2#alet sitti &mm :i!! abi Ibn amm :i!! abi Ibn ibn amm :i!! abi Ibn ibn ibn amm :i!! abi &mmet :i!!

gran!fat#er my %on of son of paternal (ncle of gran!fat#er m

%on of son of son of paternal (ncle of gran!fat#er my 3aternal a(nt of gran!fat#er my <a(g#ter of paternal a(nt of gran!fat#er my

<a(g#ter of !a(g#ter o paternal a(nt of gran!fat#er my <a(g#ter of !a(g#ter o !a(g#ter of paternal a(nt of gran!fat#er my Maternal (ncle of gran!fat#er my %on of maternal (ncle of gran!fat#er my %on of son of maternal (ncle of gran!fat#er m

%on of son of son of maternal (ncle of gran!fat#er my Maternal a(nt of gran!fat#er my <a(g#ter of maternal a(nt of gran!fat#er my

<a(g#ter of !a(g#ter o maternal a(nt of gran!fat#er my <a(g#ter of !a(g#ter o !a(g#ter of maternal a(nt of gran!fat#er my

114 11G 117 118

11,

3aternal (ncle of gran!fat#er of fat#er my %on of paternal (ncle o gran!fat#er of fat#er my %on of son of paternal (ncle of gran!fat#er of fat#er my %on of son of son of paternal (ncle of gran!fat#er of fat#er my 3aternal a(nt of

A-D
fat#erFs fat#erFs sister 1DH 1D1 *at#erFs fat#erFs fat#erFs fat#erFs sisterFs !a(g#ter *at#erFs fat#erFs fat#erFs fat#erFs sisterFs gran!!a(g#ter *at#erFs fat#erFs fat#erFs fat#erFs sisterFs 9 gran!!a(g#ter Mot#erFs mot#erFs mot#erFs mot#erFs brot#er Mot#erFs mot#erFs mot#erFs mot#erFs brot#erFs son Mot#erFs mot#erFs mot#erFs mot#erFs brot#erFs gran!son Mot#erFs mot#erFs mot#erFs mot#erFs brot#erFs 9 gran!son Mot#erFs mot#erFs mot#erFs mot#erFs sister Mot#erFs mot#erFs mot#erFs mot#erFs sisterFs !a(g#ter Mot#erFs mot#erFs mot#erFs mot#erFs sisterFs gran!!a(g#ter Mot#erFs mot#erFs mot#erFs mot#erFs sisterFs 9 gran!!a(g#ter > arriage relation? H(sban! H(sban!Fs fat#er H(sban!Fs mot#er H(sban!Fs gran!fat#er H(sban!Fs gran!mot#er 6ife 6ifeFs fat#er 6ifeFs mot#er 6ifeFs gran!fat#er 6ifeFs gran!mot#er &mitae maximae filia &mitae maximae neptis &mitae maximae pro neptis &;(nc(l(s maxim(s &;(nc(li maximi fili(s &;(nc(li maximi nepos &;(nc(li maximi pro nepos Matertera maxima Materterae maximae filia Materterae maximae neptis Materterae maximae pro neptis Iir bF marit(s %ocer %ocr(s %ocer magn(s %ocr(s magn(s $xor bF marita %ocer %ocer %ocer magn(s %ocer(s magn(s <a(g#ter of paternal 9 9 9 a(nt 9ran!!a(g#ter of paternal 9 9 9 a(nt 9 9ran!!a(g#ter of paternal 9 9 9 a(nt Maternal 9 9 9 (ncle %on of maternal 9 9 9 (ncle 9ran!son of maternal 9 9 9 (ncle 9 gran!son of maternal 9 9 9 (ncle Maternal 9 9 a(nt <a(g#ter of maternal 9 9 a(nt 9ran!!a(g#ter of maternal 9 9 a(nt 9 gran!!a(g#ter of Maternal 9 9 a(nt abi /int ammet :i!! abi /int bint ammet :i!! abi /int bint bint ammet :i!! abi 7#al sit (mmi Ibn 2#al sit (mmi Ibn ibn 2#al sit (mmi Ibn ibn ibn 2#al sit (mmi 7#alet sitt (mmi /int 2#alet sitt (mmi /int bint 2#alet sitt (mmi /int bint bint 2#alet sitt (mmi Ko:i &mmi &mrat ammi Ci!! Bo:i %itt Bo:i &mrati &mmi &mrat ammi Ci!! amrati %itt amrati

1DD

1DA 1D1D4 1DG

1D7 1D8 1D,

1AH

gran!fat#er of fat#er my <a(g#ter of paternal a(nt of gran!fat#er of fat#er my <a(g#ter of !a(g#ter o paternal a(nt of gran!fat#er of fat#er my <a(g#ter of !a(g#ter o !a(g#ter of paternal a(nt of gran!fat#er of fat#er my Maternal (ncle of gran!mot#er of mot#er my %on of maternal (ncle of gran!mot#er of mot#er my %on of son of maternal (ncle of gran!mot#er o mot#er my %on of son of son of maternal (ncle of gran!mot#er of mot#er my Maternal a(nt of gran!mot#er of mot#er my <a(g#ter of maternal a(nt of gran!mot#er of mot#er my <a(g#ter of !a(g#ter o Maternal a(nt of gran!mot#er of mot#er my <a(g#ter of !a(g#ter o !a(g#ter of maternal a(nt of gran!mot#er of mot#er my

1A1 1AD 1AA 1A1A4 1AG 1A7 1A8 1A, 1-H

H(sban! *at#er?in?law Mot#er ?in?law 9 fat#er?in?law 9 mot#er?in?law wife *at#er?in?law Mot#er?in?law 9 fat#er?in?law 9 mot#er?in?law

H(sban! my $ncle my 6ife of (ncle my 9ran!fat#er of #(sban! my 9ran!mot#er of #(sban! my 6ife $ncle my 6ife of (ncle my 9ran!fat#er of wife my 9ran!mot#er of wife my

A-A
1-1 1-D 1-A 1-1-4 1-G 1-7 1-8 1-, 14H 141 14D 14A 14144 14G 147 148 %tepfat#er %tepmot#er %tepson %tep!a(g#ter %on?in?law <a(g#ter ?in?law /rot#er?in?law +#(sban!Fs brot#er. /rot#er?in?law +sisterFs #(sban!. /rot#er?in?law +wifeFs brot#er. %ister?in?law +wifeFs sister. %ister?in?law +#(sban!Fs sister. %ister?in?law +brot#erFs wife. 6i!ow 6i!ower 0elations by fat#erFs si!e 0elations by mot#erFs si!e 0elations by marriage Iitric(s =o;erca 3ri;ign(s 3ri;igna 9ener =(r(s e;er Marit(s sororis >xors frater >xoris soror 9loss *ratria Ii!(a Ii!((s &gnati Cognate &ffines %tepfat#er %tepmot#er %tepson <a(g#ter son?in?law <a(g#ter?in?law /rot#er?in?law /rot#er?in?law /rot#er?in?law %ister?in?law %ister?in?law %ister?in?law wi!ow 6i!ower &gnates Cognates 0elations by marriage &mmi 7#aleti 7ar(ti 7ar(teti 7#tan ;, saba 2innet Ibn ammi Ko: a2#ti Ibn ammi /int ammi /int ammi &mrat a2#i &rmelet &rmei ? ? ? ? $ncle my &(nt my %tepson my %tep!a(g#ter my %on?in?law my <a(g#ter?in?law my %on of (ncle my H(sban! of sister my %on of (ncle my

<a(g#ter of (ncle my

<a(g#ter of (ncle my 6ife of brot#er my 6i!ow 6i!ower ? ? ? ?

Chapter VI SEQUENCE OF INSTITUTIONS CONNECTED WITH THE FAMILY

It remains to place in t#eir relations t#e c(stoms an! instit(tions w#ic# #a;e contrib(te! to t#e growt# of t#e family t#ro(g# s(ccessi;e forms. "#eir artic(lation in a se5(ence is in part #ypot#etical; b(t t#ere is an intimate an! (n!o(bte! connection between t#em. "#is se5(ence embo!ies t#e principal social an! !omestic instit(tions w#ic# #a;e infl(ence! t#e growt# of t#e family from t#e consang(ine to t#e monogamian. [1] "#ey are to be (n!erstoo! as originating in t#e se;eral branc#es of t#e #(man family s(bstantially in t#e or!er name!, an! as existing generally in t#ese branc#es w#ile in t#e correspon!ing stat(s. *irst %tage of %e5(ence. I. !romiscuous %ntercourse. II. %ntermarriage of Brothers and Sisters$ o(n and collateral$ in a GroupD Giving,? III. The ?onsanguine Giving,? amily. G irst Stage of the amilyHD

A-II. The 'alayan System of ?onsanguinity and Affinity. %econ! %tage of %e5(ence. I. The &rganisation upon the basis of Se"$ and the !unaluan ?ustom tending to chec+ the intermarriage of brothers and sistersD Giving,? II. The !unaluan amily. GSecond Stage of the amilyHI Giving,? III. The &rgani#ation into Gentes$ (hich e"cluded brothers and sisters from the marriage relationsD Giving,? IIII. The Turanian and Gano(anian System of ?on sanguinity and Affinity. "#ir! %tage of %e5(ence. IL. %ncreasing %nfluence of Gentile &rgani#ation and improvement in the arts of life$ advancing a portion of man+ind into the Lo(er StatEs of barbarismD Giving,? L. 'arriage bet(een Single !airs$ but (ithout an e"clusive cohabitationD Giving,? LI. The Syndyasmian amily. +"#ir! %tage of t#e *amily.. *o(rt# %tage of %e5(ence. LII. !astoral life on the plains in limited areasD Giving,? LIII. The !atriarchal amily +*ort#, b(t exceptional %tage of t#e *amily.. *ift# %tage of %e5(ence. LII. Rise of !roperty$ and settlement of lineal succession to estatesD Giving,? LI. The 'onogamian Giving,? amily. G ifth Stage of the amilyHD

LII. The Aryan$ Semitic and )ralian system of ?onsanguinity and Affinity2 and causing the overthro( of the Turanian. & few obser;ations (pon t#e foregoing se5(ence of c(stoms an! instit(tions, for t#e p(rpose of tracing t#eir connection an! relations, will close t#is !isc(ssion of t#e growt# of t#e family. i2e t#e s(ccessi;e geological fo(n!ations, t#e tribes of man2in! may be arrange!, accor!ing to t#eir relati;e con!itions, into s(ccessi;e strata. 6#en t#(s arrange!, t#ey re;eal wit# some !egree of certainty t#e entire range of #(man progress from sa;agery to ci;iliBation. & t#oro(g# st(!y of eac# s(ccessi;e strat(m will !e;elop w#ate;er is special in its c(lt(re an! c#aracteristics, an! yiel! a !efinite conception of t#e w#ole, in t#eir !ifferences an! in t#eir relations. 6#en, t#is #as been accomplis#e!, t#e s(ccessi;e stages of #(man progress will be !efinitely (n!erstoo!. "ime #as been an important factor in t#e formation of t#ese strata; an!

A-4 it m(st be meas(re! o(t to eac# et#nical perio! in no stinte! meas(re. 'ac# perio! anterior to ci;iliBation necessarily represents many t#o(san!s of years. !romiscuous %ntercourse.* "#is expresses t#e lowest concei;able stage of sa;agery ? it represents t#e bottom of t#e scale. Man in t#is con!ition co(l! scarcely be !isting(is#e! from t#e m(te animals by w#om #e was s(rro(n!e!. Ignorant of marriage, an! li;ing probably in a #or!e, #e was not only a sa;age, b(t possesse! a feeble intellect an! a feebler moral sense. His #ope of ele;ation reste! in t#e ;igo(r of #is passions, for #e seems always to #a;e been co(rageo(s; in t#e possession of #an!s p#ysically liberate!, an! in t#e impro;able c#aracter of #is nascent mental an! moral powers. In corroboration of t#is ;iew, t#e lessening ;ol(me of t#e s2(ll an! its increasing animal c#aracteristics, as we rece!e from ci;iliBe! to sa;age man, !eli;er some testimony concerning t#e necessary inferiority of primiti;e man. 6ere it possible to reac# t#is earliest representati;e of t#e species, we m(st !escen! ;ery far below t#e lowest sa;age now li;ing (pon t#e eart#. "#e r(!er flint implements fo(n! o;er parts of t#e eart#Fs s(rface, an! not (se! by existing sa;ages, attest t#e extreme r(!eness of #is con!ition after #e #a! emerge! from #is primiti;e #abitat, an! commence!, as a fis#erman, #is sprea! o;er continental areas. It is wit# respect to t#is primiti;e sa;age, an! wit# respect to #im alone, t#at promisc(ity may be inferre!. It will be as2e! w#et#er any e;i!ence exists of t#is antece!ent con!ition. &s an answer, it may be remar2e! t#at t#e consang(ine family an! t#e Malayan system of consang(inity pres(ppose antece!ent promisc(ity. It was limite!, not (nli2ely, to t#e perio! w#en man2in! were fr(gi;oro(s ! wit#in t#eir primiti;e #abitat, since its contin(ance wo(l! #a;e been improbable after t#ey became fis#ermen an! commence! t#eir sprea! o;er t#e eart# in !epen!ence (pon foo! artificially ac5(ire!. Consang(ine gro(ps wo(l! t#en form, wit# intermarriage in t#e gro(p as a necessity, res(lting in t#e formation of consang(ine families. &t all e;ents, t#e ol!est form of society w#ic# meets (s in t#e past t#ro(g# !e!(ction from systems of consang(inity is t#is family. It wo(l! be in t#e nat(re of a compact on t#e part of se;eral males for t#e :oint s(bsistence of t#e gro(p, an! for t#e !efence of t#eir common wi;es against t#e ;iolence of society. In t#e secon! place, t#e consang(ine family is stampe! wit# t#e mar2s of t#is s(ppose! antece!ent state. It recogniBe! promisc(ity wit#in !efine! limits, an! t#ose not t#e narrowest, an! it points t#ro(g# its organism to a worse con!ition against w#ic# it interpose! a s#iel!. /etween t#e consang(ine family an! t#e #or!e li;ing in promisc(ity, t#e step, t#o(g# a long one, !oes not re5(ire an interme!iate con!ition. If s(c# existe!, no 2nown trace of it remains. "#e sol(tion of t#is 5(estion, #owe;er, is not material. It is s(fficient, for t#e present at least, to #a;e gaine! t#e !efinite starting?point far !own in sa;agery mar2e! o(t by t#e consang(ine family, w#ic# carries bac2 o(r 2nowle!ge of t#e early con!ition of man2in! well towar! t#e primiti;e perio!. "#ere were tribes of sa;ages an! e;en of barbarians 2nown to t#e 9ree2s an! 0omans w#o are represente! as li;ing in promisc(ity. &mong t#em were t#e &(seans of =ort# &frica, mentione! by Hero!ot(s, [2] t#e 9aramantes of &et#iopia, mentione! by 3liny, [3] an! t#e Celts of Irelan!, mentione! by %trabo. [4] "#e latter repeats a similar statement concerning t#e &rabs. It is not, probable t#at any people

A-G wit#in t#e time of recor!e! #(man obser;ation #a;e li;e! in a state of promisc(o(s interco(rse li2e t#e gregario(s animals. "#e perpet(ation of s(c# a people from t#e infancy of man2in! wo(l! e;i!ently #a;e been impossible. "#e cases cite!, an! many ot#ers t#at mig#t be a!!e!, are better explaine! as arising (n!er t#e p(nal(an family, w#ic# to t#e foreign obser;er, wit# limite! means of obser;ation, wo(l! affor! t#e external in!ications name! by t#ese a(t#ors. 3romisc(ity may be !e!(ce! t#eoretically as a necessary con!ition antece!ent to t#e consang(ine family; but it lies conceale! in t#e misty anti5(ity of man2in! beyon! t#e reac# of positi;e 2nowle!ge. II. %ntermarriage of Brothers and Sisters$ own and collateral$ in a Group.* In t#is form of marriage t#e family #a! its birt#. It is t#e root of t#e instit(tion, "#e Malayan system of consang(inity affor!s concl(si;e e;i!ence of its ancient pre;alence. 6it# t#e ancient existence of t#e con? sang(ine family establis#e!, t#e remaining forms can be explaine! as s(ccessi;e !eri;ations from eac# ot#er. "#is form of marriage gi;es +III.. t#e consang(ine family an! +II.. t#e Malayan system of consang(inity, w#ic# !isposes of t#e t#ir! an! fo(rt# members of t#e se5(ence. "#is family belongs to t#e ower %tat(s of sa;agery, I. The !unaluan ?ustom.* In t#e &(stralian male an! female classes (nite! in marriage, p(nal(an gro(ps are fo(n!. &mong t#e Hawaiians, t#e same gro(p is also fo(n!, wit# t#e marriage c(stom it expresses. It #as pre;aile! among t#e remote ancestors of all t#e tribes of man2in! w#o now possess or #a;e possesse! t#e "(ranian system of consang(inity, beca(se t#ey m(st #a;e !eri;e! it from p(nal(an ancestors. "#ere is seemingly no ot#er explanation of t#e origin of t#is system. &ttention #as been calle! to t#e fact t#at t#e p(nal(an family incl(!e! t#e same persons fo(n! in t#e pre;io(s consang(ine, wit# t#e exception of own brot#ers an! sisters, w#o were t#eoretically if not in e;eryF case excl(!e!. It is a fair inference t#at t#e p(nal(an c(stom wor2e! its wa; into general a!option t#ro(g# a !isco;ery of its beneficial infl(ence. >(t of p(nal(an marriage came +II.. t#e p(nal(an family, w#ic# !isposes of t#e sixt# n(mber of t#e se5(ence. "#is family originate!, probably, in t#e Mi!!le %tat(s of sa;agery. III.: The &rgani#ation into Gentes.* "#e position of t#is instit(tion in t#e se5(ence is t#e only 5(estion #ere to be consi!ere!. &mong t#e &(stralian classes, t#e p(nal(an gro(p is fo(n! on a broa! an! systematic scale. "#e people are also organiBe! in gentes. Here t#e p(nal(an family is ol!er t#an t#e gens, beca(se it reste! (pon t#e classes w#ic# prece!e! t#e gentes. "#e &(stralians also #a;e t#e "(ranian system of consang(inity, for w#ic# t#e classes lai! t#e fo(n!ation by excl(!ing own brot#ers an! sisters from t#e p(nal(an gro(p (nite! in marriage. "#ey were born members of classes w#o co(l! not intermarry. &mong t#e Hawaiians, t#e p(nal(an family was (nable to create t#e "(ranian system of consang(inity. >wn brot#ers an! sisters were fre5(ently in;ol;e! in t#e p(nal(an gro(p, w#ic# t?#e c(stom !i! not pre;ent, alt#o(g# it ten!e! to !o so. "#is system re5(ires bot# t#e p(nal(an family an! t#e gentile organiBation to bring it into existence. It follows t#at t#e latter came in after an! (pon t#e former. In its relati;e or!er it belongs to t#e Mi!!le %tat(s of sa;agery. IIII. an! IL. "#ese #a;e been s(fficiently consi!ere!.

A-7 L. an! LI. 'arriage bet(een Single !airs$ and the Syndyasmian amily.* &fter man2in! #a! a!;ance! o(t of sa;agery an! entere! t#e ower %tat(s of barbarism, t#eir con!ition was immensely impro;e!. More t#an #alf t#e battle for ci;iliBation was won. & ten!ency to re!(ce t#e gro(ps of marrie! persons to smaller proportions m(st #a;e beg(n to manifest itself before t#e close of sa;agery, beca(se t#e syn!yasmian family became a constant p#enomenon in t#e ower %tat(s of barbarism. "#e c(stom w#ic# le! t#e more a!;ance! sa;age to recogniBe one among a n(mber of wi;es as #is principal wife, ripene! in time into t#e practice of pairing, an! in ma2ing t#is wife a companion an! associate in t#e maintenance of a family. 6it# t#e growt# of t#e propensity to pair came an increase! certainty of t#e paternity of c#il!ren. /(t t#e #(sban! co(l! p(t away #is wife, an! t#e wife co(l! lea;e #er #(sban!, an! eac# see2 a new mate at pleas(re. Moreo;er, t#e man !i! not recogniBe, on #is part, t#e obligations of t#e marriage tie, an! t#erefore #a! no rig#t to expect its recognition by #is wife. "#e ol! con:(gal system, now re!(ce! to narrower limits by t#e: gra!(al !isappearance of t#e p(nal(an gro(ps, still en;irone! t#e a!;ancing family, w#ic# is was to follow to t#e ;erge of ci;iliBation, Its re!(ction to Bero was a con!ition prece!ent to t#e intro!(ction of monogamy. It finally !isappeare! in t#e new form of #etaerism, w#ic# still follows man2in! in ci;iliBation as a !ar2 s#a!ow (pon t#e family. "#e contrast between t#e p(nal(an an! syn!yasmian families was greater t#an between t#e latter an! t#e monogamian. It was s(bse5(ent in time to t#e gens w#ic# was largely instr(mental in its pro!(ction. "#at it was a transitional stage of t#e family between t#e two is ma!e e;i!ent by its inability to c#ange materially t#e "(ranian system of consang(inity, w#ic# monogamy alone was able to o;ert#row. *rom t#e Col(mbia 0i;er to t#e 3arag(ay, t#e In!ian family was syn!yasmian in general, p(nal(an in exceptional areas, an! monogamian per#aps in none. LII. an! LIII. !astoral Life and the !atriarchal amily. ? It #as been remar2e! elsew#ere t#at polygamy was not t#e essential feat(re of t#is family, w#ic# represente! a mo;ement of society to assert t#e in!i;i!(ality of persons, &mong t#e %emitic tribes, it was an organiBation of ser;ants an! sla;es (n!er a patriarc# for t#e care of floc2s an! #er!s, for t#e c(lti;ation of lan!s, an! for m(t(al protection an! s(bsistence. 3olygamy was inci!ental. 6it# a single male #ea! an! an excl(si;e co#abitation, t#is family was an a!;ance (pon t#e syn!yasmian, an! t#erefore not a retrogra!e mo;ement. Its infl(ence (pon t#e #(man race was limite!; b(t it carries wit# it a confession of a state of society in t#e pre;io(s perio! against w#ic# it was !esigne! to form a barrier. LII. Rise of !roperty and the establishment of lineal succession to Estates.* In!epen!ently of t#e mo;ement w#ic# c(lminate! in t#e patriarc#al family of t#e Hebrew an! atin types, property, as it increase! in ;ariety an! amo(nt, exercise! a stea!y an! constantly a(gmenting infl(ence in t#e !irection of monogamy. It is impossible to o;erestimate t#e infl(ence of property in t#e ci;iliBation of man2in!. It was t#e power t#at bro(g#t t#e &ryan an! %emitic nations o(t of barbarism into ci;iliBation. "#e growt# of t#e i!ea of property in t#e #(man min! commence! in feebleness an! en!e! in becoming its master passion. 9o;ernments an! laws are instit(te! wit# primary reference to its creation, protection an! en:oyment. It intro!(ce! #(man sla;ery as an instr(ment in its pro!(ction; an!, after t#e

A-8 experience of se;eral t#o(san! years, it ca(se! t#e abolition of sla;ery (pon t#e !isco;ery t#at a freeman was a better property?ma2ing mac#ine. "#e cr(elty in#erent in t#e #eart of man, w#ic# ci;iliBation an! C#ristianity #a;e softene! wit#o(t era!icating, still betrays t#e sa;age origin of man2in!, an! in no way more pointe!ly t#an in t#e practice of #(man sla;ery, t#ro(g# all t#e cent(ries of recor!e! #istory. 6it# t#e establis#ment of t#e in#eritance of property in t#e c#il!ren of its owner, came t#e first possibility of a strict monogamian family. 9ra!(ally, t#o(g# slowly, t#is form of marriage, wit# an excl(si;e co#abitation, became t#e r(le rat#er t#an t#e exception; b(t it was not (ntil ci;iliBation #a! commence! t#at it became permanently establis#e!. LI. The 'onogamian amily.* &s finally constit(te!, t#is family ass(re! t#e paternity of c#il!ren, s(bstit(te! t#e in!i;i!(al owners#ip of real as well as personal property for :oint owners#ip, an! an excl(si;e in#eritance by c#il!ren in t#e place of agnatic in#eritance. Mo!ern society reposes (pon t#e monogamian family. "#e w#ole pre;io(s experience an! progress of man2in! c(lminate! an! crystalliBe! in t#is pre?eminent instit(tion. It was a slow growt#, planting its roots far bac2 in t#e perio! of sa;agery ? a final res(lt towar! w#ic# t#e experience of t#e ages stea!ily ten!e!. &lt#o(g# essentially mo!ern, it was t#e pro!(ct of a ;ast an! ;arie! experience. LII. "#e &ryan, %emitic an! $ralian system of consang(inity, w#ic# are essentially i!entical, were create! by t#e monogamian family. Its relations#ips are t#ose w#ic# act(ally existe! (n!er t#is form of marriage an! of t#e family. & system of consang(inity is not an arbitrary enactment, b(t a nat(ral growt#. It expresses, an! m(st of necessity express, t#e act(al facts of consang(inity as t#ey appeare! to t#e common min! w#en t#e system was forme!. &s t#e &ryan system establis#es t#e antece!ent existence of a monogamian family, so t#e "(ranian establis#es t#e antece!ent existence of a p(nal(an family, an! t#e Malayan t#e antece!ent existence of a consang(ine family. "#e e;i!ence t#ey contain m(st be regar!e! as concl(si;e, beca(se of its con;incing c#aracter in eac# case. 6it# t#e existence establis#e! of t#ree 2in!s of marriage, of t#ree forms of t#e family, an! of t#ree systems of consang(inity, nine of t#e sixteen members of t#e se5(ence are s(staine!. "#e existence an! relations of t#e remain!er are warrante! by s(fficient proof. "#e ;iews #erein presente! contra;ene, as I am aware, an ass(mption w#ic# #as for cent(ries been generally accepte!. It is t#e #ypot#esis of #(man !egra!ation to explain t#e existence of barbarians an! of sa;ages, w#o were fo(n! p#ysically an! mentally, too far below t#e concei;e! stan!ar! of a s(ppose! original man. It was ne;er a scientific proposition s(pporte! by facts. It is ref(te! by t#e connect e! series of in;entions an! !isco;eries, by t#e progressi;e !e;elopment of t#e social system, an! by t#e s(ccessi;e forms of t#e family. "#e &ryan an! %emitic peoples !escen!e! from barbaro(s ancestors. "#e 5(estion t#en meets (s, #ow co(l! t#ese barbarians #a;e attaine! to t#e $pper %tat(s of barbarism, in w#ic# t#ey first appear, wit#o(t pre;io(sly passing t#ro(g# t#e experience an! ac5(iring t#e arts an! !e;elopment of t#e Mi!!le %tat(s; an!, f(rt#er t#an t#is, #ow co(l! t#ey #a;e attaine! to t#e Mi!!le %tat(s wit#o(t first passing t#ro(g# t#e experience of t#e

A-, ower. /ac2 of t#ese is t#e f(rt#er 5(estion, #ow a barbarian co(l! exist wit#o(t a pre;io(s sa;age. "#is #ypot#esis of !egra!ation lea!s to anot#er necessity, namely; t#at of regar!ing all t#e races of man2in! wit#o(t t#e &ryan an! %emitic connections as abnormal races ? races fallen away by !egeneracy from t#eir normal state. "#e &ryan an! %emitic nations, it is tr(e, represent t#e main streams of #(man progress, beca(se t#ey #a;e carrie! it to t#e #ig#est point yet attaine!; b(t t#ere are goo! reasons for s(pposing: t#at?:before t#ey became !ifferentiate! into &ryan an! %emitic tribes, t#ey forme! a part of t#e in!isting(is#able mass of barbarians. &s t#ese tribes t#emsel;es sprang remotely from barbaro(s, an! still more remotely from sa;age ancestors, t#e !istinction of normal an! abnormal races falls to t#e gro(n!. "#is se5(ence, moreo;er, contra;enes some of t#e concl(sions of t#at bo!y of eminent sc#olars w#o, in t#eir spec(lations (pon t#e origin of society, #a;e a!opte! t#e patriarc#al family of t#e Hebrew an! atin types as t#e ol!est form of t#e family, an! as pro!(cing t#e earliest organiBe! society. "#e #(man race is t#(s in;este! from its infancy wit# a 2nowle!ge of t#e family (n!er paternal power. &mong t#e latest, an! #ol!ing foremost ran2 among t#em, is %ir Henry Maine, w#ose brilliant researc#es in t#e so(rces of ancient law, an! in t#e early #istory of instit(tions, #a;e a!;ance! so largely o(r 2nowle!ge of t#em. "#e patriarc#al family, it is tr(e, is t#e ol!est ma!e 2nown to (s by ascen!ing along t#e lines of classical an! %emitic a(t#orities; b(t an in;estigation along t#ese lines is (nable to penetrate beyon! t#e $pper %tat(s of barbarism, lea;ing at least fo(r entire et#nical perio!s (nto(c#e!, an! t#eir connection (nrecogniBe!. It m(st be a!mitte!, #owe;er, t#at t#e facts wit# respect to t#e early con!ition of man2in! #a;e been b(t recently pro!(ce!, an! t#at :(!icio(s in;estigators are :(stly caref(l abo(t s(rren!ering ol! !octrines for new. $nfort(nately for t#e #ypot#esis of !egra!ation, in;entions an! !isco;eries wo(l! come one by one; t#e 2nowle!ge of a cor! m(st prece!e t#e bow an! arrow, as t#e 2nowle!ge of g(npow!er prece!e! t#e m(s2et, an! t#at of t#e steam? engine prece!e! t#e railway an! t#e steams#ip; so t#e arts of s(bsistence followe! eac# ot#er at long inter;als of time, an! #(man tools passe! t#ro(g# forms of flint an! stone before t#ey were forme! of iron. In li2e manner instit(tions of go;ernment are a growt# from primiti;e germs of t#o(g#t. 9rowt#, !e;elopment an! transmission, m(st explain t#eir existence among ci;iliBe! nations. =ot less clearly was t#e monogamian family !eri;e!, by experience, t#ro(g# t#e syn!yasmian from t#e p(nal(an, an! t#e still more ancient consang(ine family. If, finally, we are oblige! to s(rren!er t#e anti5(ity of t#e monogamian family, we gain a 2nowle!ge of its !eri;ation, w#ic# is of more importance, beca(se it re;eals t#e price at w#ic# it was obtaine!. "#e anti5(ity of man2in! (pon t#e eart# is now establis#e! by a bo!y of e;i!ence s(fficient to con;ince (npre:(!ice! min!. "#e existence of t#e race goes bac2 !efinitely to t#e glacial perio! in '(rope, an! e;en bac2 of it into t#e anterior perio!. 6e are now compelle! to recogniBe t#e prolonge! an! (nmeas(re! ages of manFs existence. "#e #(man min! is nat(rally an! :(stly c(rio(s to 2now some? t#ing of t#e life of man !(ring t#e last #(n!re! t#o(san! or more years, now t#at we are ass(re! #is !ays #a;e been so long (pon t#e eart#. &ll t#is time co(l! not #a;e been spent in ;ain, His great an! mar;ello(s ac#ie;ements

A4H pro;e t#e contrary, as well as imply t#e expen!it(re of long protracte! et#nical perio!s. "#e fact t#at ci;iliBation was so recent s(ggests t#e !iffic(lties in t#e way of #(man progress, an! affor!s some intimation of t#e lowness of t#e le;el from w#ic# man2in! starte! on t#eir career. "#e foregoing se5(ence may re5(ire mo!ification, ari! per#aps essential c#ange in some of its members; b(t it affor!s bot# a rational an! a satisfactory explanation of t#e facts of #(man experience, so far as t#ey are 2nown, an! of t#e co(rse of #(man progress, in !e;eloping t#e i!eas of t#e family an! of go;ernment in t#e tribes of man2in!.

Footnotes
1 It is a re;ision of t#e se5(ence presente! in )%ystems of Consang(inity,8 etc., p. -8H. ! ib, i;, c. 18H.

" 9aramantes matrimoni(m exsortes passim c(m femines !eg(nt.? )=at. Hist.,8 Iib. ;. c. 8. # $ ib. i;, c. 4, par. -. ib. x;i, c. -, par. D4.

A NOTE On Mr. J. F. McLennans Primitive Marriage.

&s t#ese pages are passing t#ro(g# t#e press, I #a;e obtaine! an enlarge! e!ition of t#e abo;e?name! wor2. It is a reprint of t#e original, wit# se;eral 'ssays appen!e!; an! is now style! )%t(!ies in &ncient History Comprising a 0eprint of 3rimiti;e Marriage.8 In one of t#ese 'ssays, entitle! )"#e Classificatory %ystem of 0elations#ips$I Mr. Mc ennan !e;otes one section +-1 pages. to an attempte! ref(tation of my explanation of t#e origin of t#e classificatory system; an! anot#er +AG. pages. to an explanation of #is own of t#e origin of t#e same system. "#e #ypot#esis first referre! to is containe! in my wor2 on t#e )%ystems of Consang(inity an! &ffinity of t#e H(man *amily8 +pp. -7,? -8G.. "#e facts an! t#eir explanation are t#e same, s(bstantially, as t#ose presente! in prece!ing c#apters of t#is ;ol(me +C#aps. II, an! III, 3art III.. )3rimiti;e Marriage8 was first p(blis#e! in /;:0$ an! )%ystems of Consang(inity,8 etc., in 1871 Ha;ing collecte! t#e facts w#ic# establis#e! t#e existence of t#e classificatory system of consang(inity, I ;ent(re! to s(bmit wit# t#e "ables, an #ypot#esis explanatory of its origin. "#at #ypot#eses are (sef(l, an! often in!ispensable to t#e attainment of tr(t#, will not be 5(estione!. "#e ;ali!ity, of t#e sol(tion presente! in t#at wor2, an! repeate! in t#is, will !epen! (pon its s(fficiency in explaining all t#e facts of t#e case. $ntil it is s(perse!e! by one better entitle! to acceptance on t#is gro(n!, its position in my wor2 is legitimate, an! in accor!ance wit# t#e met#o! of scientific in5(iry.

A41 Mr. Mc ennan #as criticise! t#is #ypot#esis wit# great free!om. His concl(sion is state! generally as follows +%t(!ies, etc. p$ A71.: )"#e space I #a;e !e;ote! to t#e consi!eration of t#e sol(tion may seem !isproportione! to its importance; b(t iss(ing from t#e press of t#e %mit#sonian Instit(tion, an! its preparation #a;ing been ai!e! by t#e $nite! %tates 9o;ernment, Mr. MorganFs wor2 #as been ;ery generally 5(ote! as a wor2 of a(t#ority, an! it seeme! wort# w#ile to ta2e t#e tro(ble necessary to s#ow its (tterly (nscientific c#aracter.8 =ot t#e #ypot#esis alone, b(t t#e entire wor2 is co;ere!; by t#e c#arge. "#at wor2 contains 187 pages of )"ables of Consang(inity an! &ffinity,8 ex#ibiting t#e systems of 1A, tribes an! nations of man2in! representing fo(r? fift#s, n(merically, of t#e entire #(man family. It is sing(lar t#at t#e bare facts of consang(inity an! affinity expresse! by terms of relations#ip, e;en w#en place! in tab(lar form, s#o(l! possess an )(tterly (nscientific c#aracter.8 "#e bo!y of t#e wor2 is ta2en (p wit# t#e !ry !etails of t#ese se;eral systems. "#ere remains a final c#apter, consisting of -A o(t of 4,H pages, !e;ote! to a comparison of t#ese se;eral systems of consang(inity, in w#ic# t#is sol(tion or #ypot#esis appears. It was t#e first !isc(ssion of a large mass of new material, an! #a!, Mr. Mc ennanFs c#arge been limite! to t#is c#apter, t#ere wo(l! #a;e been little nee! of a !isc(ssion #ere. /(t #e #as !irecte! #is main attac2 against t#e "ables; !enying t#at t#e systems t#ey ex#ibit are systems of consang(inity an! affinity, t#(s going to t#e bottom of t#e s(b:ect.[1] Mr. Mc ennanFs position fin!s an explanation in t#e fact, t#at as systems of consang(inity an! affinity t#ey antagoniBe an! ref(te t#e principal opinions an! t#e principal t#eories pro? po(n!e! in )3rimiti;e Marriage.8 "#e a(t#or of )3rimiti;e Marriage8 wo(l! be expecte! to stan! by #is preconcei;e! opinions. &s systems of consang(inity, for example: +1. "#ey s#ow t#at Mr. Mc ennanFs new terms, )'xogamy an! 'n!ogamy8 are of 5(estionable (tility ? t#at as (se! in )3rimiti;e Marriage8 t#eir positions are re;erse!, an! t#at )en!ogamy8 #as ;ery little application to t#e facts treate! in t#at wor2 w#ile )exogamy8 is simply a r(le of a gens, an! s#o(l! be state! as s(c#. +D. "#ey ref(te Mr. Mc ennanFs p#rase, )2ins#ip t#ro(g# females only,8 by s#owing t#at 2ins#ip t#ro(g# males was recogniBe! as constantly as 2ins#ip t#ro(g# females by t#e same people. +A. "#ey s#ow t#at t#e =air an! "ibetan polyan!ry co(l! ne;er #a;e been general in t#e tribes of man2in!. +-. "#ey !eny bot# t#e necessity an! t#e extent of )wife stealing8 as propo(n!e! in )3rimiti;e Marriage.8 &n examination of t#e gro(n!s, (pon w#ic# Mr. Mc ennanFs c#arge is ma!e, will s#ow not only t#e fail(re of #is criticisms b(t t#e ins(fficiency of t#e t#eories on w#ic# t#ese criticisms are base!. %(c# an examination lea!s to res(lts !isastro(s to #is entire wor2, as will be ma!e e;i!ent by t#e !isc(ssion of t#e following propositions$ namely: I. "#at t#e principal terms an! t#eories employe! in )3rimiti;e Marriage8 #a;e no ;al(e in 't#nology. II "#at Mr. Mc ennanFs #ypot#esis to acco(nt for t#e origin of t#e classificatory system of relations#ip !oes not acco(nt far its

A4D origin. III. "#at Mr. Mc ennanFs ob:ections to t#e #ypot#esis presente! in )%ystems of Consang(inity,8 etc., are of no force. "#ese propositions will be consi!ere! in t#e or!er name!; I. "#at t#e principal terms an! t#eories employe! in )3rimiti;e Marriage8 #a;e no ;al(e in 't#nology. 6#en t#is wor2 appeare! it was recei;e! wit# fa;o(r by et#nologists, beca(se as a spec(lati;e treatise it, to(c#e! a n(mber of 5(estions (pon w#ic# t#ey #a! long been wor2ing. & caref(l rea!ing, #owe;er, !isclose! !eficiencies in !efinitions, (nwarrante! ass(mptions, cr(!e spec(lations an! erroneo(s concl(sions. Mr. Herbert %pencer in #is )3rinciples of %ociology8 +&!;ance %#eets, 3op(lar %cience Mont#ly, O Can., 1877, p;.D7D., #as pointe! o(t a n(mber of t#em, &t t#e same time #e re:ects t#e larger part of Mr. Mc ennanFs t#eories respecting )*emale Infantici!e,8 )6ife %tealing,8 an! )'xogamy an! 'n!ogamy.8 6#at #e lea;es of t#is wor2, beyon! its collocation of certain et#nological facts, it is !iffic(lt to fin!. It will be s(fficient (n!er t#is #ea! to consi!er t#ree points. l. Mr. Mc ennanFs (se of t#e terms )'xogamy8 an! )'n!ogamy.8 )'xogamy8 an! )en!ogamy8 ? terms of #is own coinage ? imply, respecti;ely, an obligation to 8marry out$I an! an obligation to )marry in,8 a partic(lar gro(p of persons. "#ese terms are applie! so loosely an! so imprecisely by Mr. Mc ennan to t#e organiBe! gro(ps ma!e 2nown to #im by t#e a(t#ors #e cites, t#at bot# #is terms an! #is concl(sions are of little ;al(e. It is a f(n!amental !iffic(lty wit# )3rimiti;e Marriage8 t#at t#e gens an! t#e tribe, or t#e gro(ps t#ey represent, are not !isting(is#e! from eac# ot#er as members of an organic series, so t#at it mig#t be 2nown of w#ic# gro(p )exogamy8 or )en!ogamy8 is asserte!. >ne of eig#t gentes of a tribe, for example, may be )exogamo(s8 wit# respect to itself$ an! )en!ogamo(s8 wit# respect to t#e se;en remaining gentes. Moreo;er, t#ese terms, in s(c# a case, if correctly applie!, are mislea!ing. Mr. Mc ennan seems to be presenting two great principles, representing !istinct con!itions of society w#ic# #a;e infl(ence! #(man affairs. In point of fact, w#ile )en!ogamy8 #as ;ery little application to con!itions of society treate! in )3rimiti;e Marriage,8 )exogamy8 #as reference to a r(le or law of a gens ? an instit(tion ? an! as s(c# t#e (nit of organiBation of a social system. It is t#e gens t#at #as infl(ence! #(man affairs, an! w#ic# is t#e primary fact. 6e are at once concerne! to 2now its f(nctions an! attrib(tes wit# t#e rig#ts, pri;ileges an! obligations of its members. >f t#ese material circ(mstances Mr. Mc ennan ma2es on acco(nt, nor !oes #e seem to #a;e #a! t#e slig#test conception of t#e gens as a go;erning instit(tion of ancient society. "wo of its r(les are t#e following: +1. Intermarriage in t#e gens is pro#ibite!. "#is is Mr. Mc ennanFs )exogamy8 ? restricte! as it always is to a gens, b(t state! by #im wit#o(t any reference to a gens. +D. In t#e arc#aic form of t#e gens !escent is limite! to t#e female line, w#ic# is Mr. Mc ennanFs )2ins#ip t#ro(g# females only,8 an! w#ic# is also state! by #im wit#o(t any reference to a

A4A gens. et (s follow t#is matter f(rt#er. %e;en !efinitions of tribal system, an! of tribe are gi;en +%t(!ies, etc. 11A?114..
)'xogamy 3(re. ? 1. "ribal +or family. system.? "ribes separate. &ll t#e members of eac# tribe of t#e same bloo! or feigning t#emsel;es to be so. Marriage pro#ibite! between t#e members of t#e tribe. )D. "ribal system.? "ribe a congeries of family gro(ps, falling into !i;isions clans, t#(ms, etc. =o conn(bi(m between members of same !i;ision: conn(bi(m between all t#e !i;isions. )A. "ribal system.? "ribe a congeries of family gro(ps.

[ [ [ =o conn(bi(m between persons w#ose family name points t#em o(t as being of t#e same stoc2.
)-. "ribal system.? "ribe in !i;isions. =o conn(bi(m between members of t#e same !i;isions?: conn(bi(m between some of t#e !i;isions; only partial conn(bi(m between ot#ers. [ [ [ )4. "ribal system.? "ribe into !i;isions. =o conn(bi(m between persons of t#e same stoc2: conn(bi(m between eac# !i;ision an! some ot#er. =o conn(bi(m between some of t#e !i;isions. Caste. )'n!ogamy 3(re. ? G. "ribal +or family. system.? "ribes separate. &ll t#e members of eac# tribe of t#e same bloo!, or feigning t#emsel;es to be so. Conn(bi(m between members of t#e tribe: marriage wit#o(t t#e tribe forbi!!en an! p(nis#e!. )7. "ribal system in!istinct. ? %e;en !entitions of t#e tribal system o(g#t to !efine t#e gro(p calle! a tribe, wit# s(fficient !istinctness to be recogniBe!. "#e first !efinition, #owe;er, is a p(BBle. "#ere are se;eral tribes in a tribal system, b(t no term for t#e aggregate of tribes. "#ey are not s(ppose! to form a (nite! bo!y. How t#e separate tribes fall into a tribal system or are #el! toget#er !oes not appear. &ll t#e members of eac# tribe are of t#e same bloo!, or preten! to be, an! t#erefore cannot intermarry. "#is mig#t answer for a !escription of a gens; b(t t#e gens is ne;er fo(n! alone, separate from ot#er gentes. "#ere are se;eral gentes intermingle! by marriage in e;ery tribe compose!: of gentes. /(t Mr. Mc ennan co(l! not #a;e (se! tribe #ere as e5(i;alent to gens, nor as a congeries of family gro(ps. &s separate bo!ies of consang(inei #el! toget#er in a tribal system, t#e bo!ies (n!efine! an! t#e system (nexplaine!, we are offere! somet#ing altoget#er new. <efinition is m(c# t#e same. It is not probable t#at a tribe answering to eit#er of t#ese !efinitions e;er existe! in any part of t#e eart#; for it is neit#er a gens, nor a tribe compose! of gentes, nor a nation forme! by t#e coalescence of tribes.

<efinitions Dn!, Ar!, -t#, an! 4t# are somew#at more intelligible. "#ey s#ow in eac# case a tribe compose! of gentes, or !i;isions base! (pon 2in. /(t it is a gentile rat#er t#an a tribal system. &s marriage is allowe! between t#e clans, t#(ms or !i;isions of t#e same tribe, )exogamy8 cannot be asserte! of t#e tribe in eit#er case. "#e clan, t#(m, or !i;ision is )exogamo(s,8 wit# respect to itself, b(t

A4)en!ogamo(s8 wit# respect to t#e ot#er clans, t#(ms, or !i;isions. 3artic(lar restrictions are state! to exist in some instances. 6#en Mr. Mc ennan applies t#e terms )exogamy8 or )en!ogamy8 to a tribe, #ow is it to be 2nown w#et#er it is one of se;eral separate tribes in a tribal system, w#ate;er t#is map mean or a tribe !efine! as a congeries of family gro(psU >n t#e next page +11G. #e remar2s: )"#e separate en!ogamo(s tribes are nearly as n(mero(s, an! t#ey are in some respects as r(!e, as t#e separate exogamo(s tribes.8 If #e (ses tribe as a congeries of family gro(ps, w#ic# is a tribe compose! of gentes, t#en )exogamy8 cannot be asserte! of t#e tribe. "#ere is not t#e slig#test probability t#at )exogamy8 e;er existe! in a tribe compose! of gentes in any part of t#e eart#. 6#ere;er t#e gentile organiBation #as been fo(n! intermarriage, in t#e gens is forbi!!en. It gi;es w#at Mr. Mc ennan calls )exogamy.8 /(t, as an e5(ally general r(le, intermarriage between t#e members of a gens an! t#e members of all t#e ot#er gentes of t#e same tribe is permitte!. "#e gens is )exogamo(s,8 an! t#e tribe is essentially )en!ogamo(s.8 In t#ese cases, if in no ot#ers, it was material to 2now t#e gro(p co;ere! by t#e wor! tribe. "a2e anot#er ill(stration +p. -D.: )If it can be s#own, firstly, t#at exogamo(s tribes exist, or #a;e existe!; an!, secon!ly, t#at in r(!er times t#e relations of separate tribes were (niformly, or almost (niformly, #ostile, we #a;e fo(n! a set of circ(mstances in w#ic# men co(l! get wi;es only by capt(ring t#em.8 Here we fin! t#e initial point of Mr. Mc ennanFs t#eory of wife stealing. "o ma2e t#e )set of circ(mstances8 +namely, #ostile, an! t#erefore in!epen!ent tribes., tribe as (se! #ere m(st refer to t#e larger gro(p, a tribe compose! of gentes. *or t#e members of t#e se;eral gentes of a tribe are intermingle! by marriage in e;ery family t#ro(g#o(t t#e area occ(pie! by t#e tribe. &ll t#e gentes m(st be #ostile or none. If t#e term is applie! to t#e smaller gro(p, t#e gens, t#en t#e gens is )exogamo(s,8 an! t#e tribe, in t#e gi;en case, is se;en? eig#t#s )en!ogamo(s8 an! w#at becomes of t#e )set of circ(mstances8 necessitating wife?stealingU "#e principal cases cite! in )3rimiti;e Marriage8 to pro;e )exogamy8 are t#e 7#on!s, 7alm(c2s, Circassians, 1(ra2 %amoye!s, certain tribes of In!ia an! &(stralia, an! certain In!ian tribes of &merica, t#e Iro5(ois among t#e n(mber +p.p. 74?1HH.. "#e &merican tribes are generally compose! of gentes. & man cannot marry a woman of t#e same gens wit# #imself; b(t #e may marry a woman of any ot#er gens of #is own tribe. *or example, a man of t#e 6olf gens of t#e %eneca tribe of t#e Iro5(ois is pro#ibite! from marrying a woman of t#e same gens, not only in t#e %eneca tribe, b(t also in eit#er of t#e fi;e remaining Iro5(ois tribes. Here we #a;e Mr. Mc ennanFs )exogamy,8 b(t restricte!, as it always is, to t#e gens of t#e in!i;i!(al. /(t a man may marry a woman in eit#er of t#e se;en remaining %eneca gentes. Here we #a;e )en!ogamy8 in t#e tribe, practice! by t#e members of eac# gens in t#e se;en remaining %eneca gentes. /ot# practices exist si!e by si!e at t#e same time, in t#e same tribe, an! #a;e so existe! from time immemorial "#e same fact is tr(e of t#e &merican In!ian tribes in general. "#ey are cite!, ne;ert#eless, by Mr. Mc ennan, as examples of )exogamo(s tribes8; an! t#(s enter into t#e basis of #is t#eories. 6it# respect to )en!ogamy,8 Mr. Mc ennan wo(l! probably refrain from (sing it

A44 in t#e abo;e case: firstly, beca(se )exogamy8 an! )en!ogamy8 fail #ere to represent two opposite principles as t#ey exist in #is imagination; an!, secon!ly, beca(se t#ere is, in reality, b(t one fact to be in!icate!, namely, t#at intermarriage in t#e gens is pro#ibite!. &merican In!ians generally can marry in t#eir own or in a foreign tribe as t#ey please, #(t not in t#eir gens. Mr. Mc ennan was able to cite one fair case of )en!ogamy,8 t#at of t#e Mantc#( "artars +p. 11G., )w#o pro#ibite! marriage between persons w#ose family names are !ifferent.8 & few ot#er similar cases #a;e been fo(n! among existing tribes. If t#e organiBations, for example, of t#e 1(ra2 %amoye!s of %iberia +8D. t#e Magars of =epa(l +8A., t#e M(nnieporees, 7o(pooees, Mows, M(ram an! M(rring tribes of In!ia +87., were examine! (pon t#e original e;i!ence, it is #ig#ly probable t#at t#ey wo(l! be fo(n! exactly analogo(s to t#e Iro5(ois tribes; t#e )!i;isions8 an! )t#(ms8 being gentes. at#am spea2ing of t#e 1(ra2 or 7aso;o gro(p of t#e %amoye!s, 5(otes from 7laprot#, as follows: )"#is !i;ision of t#e 2insmans#ip is so rigi!ly obser;e! t#at no %amoye! ta2es a wife from t#e 2insmans#ip to w#ic# #e #imself belongs. >n t#e contrary #e see2s #er in one of t#e ot#er two.8 [2] "#e same a(t#or, spea2ing of t#e Magars, remar2s: )"#ere are twel;e t#(ms. &ll in!i;i!(als belonging to t#e same t#(m are s(ppose! to be !escen!e! from t#e same male ancestor; !escent from t#e same great mot#er being by no means necessary. %o #(sban! an! wife m(st belong to !ifferent t#(ms. 6it# one an! t#e same t#ere is no marriage. <o yo( wis# for a wifeU If so, loo2 to t#e t#(m of yo(r neig#bo(r; at any rate loo2 beyon! yo(r own. "#is is t#e first time I #a;e #a! occasion to mention t#is practice. It will not be t#e last: on t#e contrary, t#e principle it s(ggests is so common as to be almost (ni;ersal.8 [3] "#e M(rring an! ot#er tribes of In!ia are in !i;isions, wit# t#e same r(le in respect to marriage. In t#ese cases it is probable t#at we #a;e tribes compose! of gentes, wit# intermarriage in t#e gens pro#ibite!. 'ac# gens is )exogamo(s8 wit# respect to itself, an! )en!ogamo(s8 wit# respect to t#e remaining gentes of t#e tribe. "#ey are cite! by Mr. Mc ennan, ne;ert#eless, as examples of )exogamo(s8 tribes. "#e principal &(stralian tribes are 2nown to be organiBe! in gentes $ wit# intermarriage in t#e gens pro#ibite!. Here again t#e gens is )exogamo(s8 an! t#e tribe )en!ogamo(s.8 6#ere t#e gens is )exogamo(s8 wit# respect to itself, an! )en!ogamo(s8 wit# respect to t#e remaining gentes of t#e same tribe of w#at (se is t#is pair of terms to mar2 w#at is b(t a single fact ? t#e pro#ibition of intermarriage in t#e gensU )'xogamy8 an! )en!ogamy8 are o2 no ;al(e as a pair of terms, preten!ing as t#ey !o to represent or express opposite con!itions of society. "#ey #a;e no application in &merican et#nology, an! probably none in &siatic or '(ropean. )'xogamy,8 stan!ing alone an! applie! to t#e small gro(p +t#e gens., of w#ic# )exogamo(s8 tribes in &merica, b(t a plenty of )exogamo(s8 only it can be asserte!, mig#t be tolerate!. "#ere are no )exogamo(s8 tribes in &merica, b(t a plenty of )exogamo(s8 gentes; an! w#en t#e gens is fo(n!, we are concerne! wit# its r(les an! t#ese s#o(l! always be state! as r(les of a gens. Mr. Mc ennan fo(n!, t#e clan, t#(m, !i;ision, )exogamo(s,8 an! t#e aggregate of clans, t#(ms, !i;isions, )en!ogamo(s8; b(t #e says not#ing abo(t t#e )en!ogamy.8 =eit#er !oes #e say t#e clan, !i;ision or t#(m is )exogamo(s,8 b(t t#at t#e tribe is )exogamo(s.8 6e mig#t s(ppose #e inten!e! to (se tribe as e5(i;alent to clan, t#(m, an! !i;ision; b(t we

A4G are met wit# t#e !iffic(lty t#at #e !efines a )tribe MasN a congeries of family gro(ps, falling into !i;isions, clans, t#(ms, etc.8 +11-., an! imme!iately +11G. #e remar2s t#at )t#e separate en!ogamo(s tribes are nearly as n(mero(s, an! t#ey are in some respects as r(!e, as t#e separate exogamo(s tribes.8 If we ta2e #is principal !efinitions, it can be sai! wit#o(t fear of contra!iction t#at Mr. Mc ennan #as not pro!(ce! a single case of an )exogamo(s8 tribe in #is ;ol(me. "#ere is anot#er ob:ection to t#is pair of terms. "#ey are set o;er against eac# ot#er to in!icate opposite an! !issimilar con!itions of society. 6#ic# of t#e two is t#e r(!er, an! w#ic# t#e more a!;ance!U &b(n!ant ca(tions are #ere t#rown o(t by Mr. Mc ennan. )"#ey may represent a progression. from exogamy to en!ogamy, or from en!ogamy to exogamy8 +114.; )t#ey may be e5(ally arc#aic8 +11G.; an! )t#ey are in some respects8 e5(ally r(!e +11G.; b(t before t#e !isc(ssion en!s, )en!ogamy8 rises to t#e s(perior position, an! stan!s o;er towar! ci;iliBation, w#ile )exogamy8 falls bac2 in t#e !irection of sa;agery. It became con;enient in Mr. Mc ennanFs spec(lations for )exogamy8 to intro!(ce #eterogeneity, w#ic# )en!ogamy8 is employe! to expel, an! bring in #omogeneity; so t#at )en!ogamy8 finally gets t#e better of )exogamy8 as an infl(ence for progress. >ne of Mr. Mc ennanFs mista2es was #is re;ersal of t#e positions of t#ese terms. w#at #e calls )en!ogamy8 prece!es )exogamy8 in t#e or!er of #(man progress, an! belongs to t#e lowest con!ition of man2in!. &scen!ing to t#e time w#en t#e Malayan system. of consang(inity was forme!, an! w#ic# prece!e! t#e gens, we fin! consang(ine gro(ps in t#e marriage relation. "#e system of consang(inity in!icates bot# t#e fact an! t#e c#aracter of t#e gro(ps an! ex#ibits )en!ogamy8 in its pristine force. &!;ancing from t#is state of t#ings, t#e first c#ec2 (pon )en!ogamy8 is fo(n! in t#e p(nal(an gro(p, w#ic# so(g#t to excl(!e own brot#ers an! sisters from t#e marriage relation, w#ile it retaine! in t#at relation first, secon!, an! more remote co(sins, still (n!er t#e name of brot#ers an! sisters. "#e same t#ing precisely is fo(n! in t#e &(stralian organiBation (pon sex. =ext in t#e or!er of time t#e gens appeare!, wit# !escent in t#e female line, an! wit# intermarriage in t#e gens pro#ibite!. It bro(g#t in Mr. Mc ennanFs )exogamy.8 *rom t#is time onwar! )en!ogamy8 may be !ismisse! as an infl(ence (pon #(man affairs. &ccor!ing to Mr. Mc ennan, )exogamy8 fell into !ecay in a!;ancing comm(nities; an! w#en !escent was c#ange! to t#eF male line it !isappeare! in t#e 9recian an! 0oman tribes. +p. DDH.. %o far from t#is being t#e case, w#at #e calls )exogamy8 commence! in sa;agery wit# t#e gens, contin(e! t#ro(g# barbarism, an! remaine! into ci;iliBation. It existe! as completely in t#e gentes of t#e 9ree2s an! 0omans in t#e time of %olon an! of %er;i(s "(lli(s as it now exists in t#e gentes of t#e Iro5(ois. )'xogamy8 an! en!ogamy8 #a;e been so t#oro(g#ly tainte! by t#e manner of t#eir (se in )3rimiti;e Marriage,8 t#at t#e best !isposition w#ic# can now be ma!e of t#em is to lay t#em asi!e. D. Mr. Mc ennanFs p#rase: )"#e system of 2ins#ip t#ro(g# females only.8 )3rimiti;e Marriage8 is !eeply colo(re! wit# t#is p#rase. It asserts t#at t#is 2ins#ip, w#ere it pre;aile!, was t#e only 2ins#ip recogniBe!; an! t#(s #as an error written on its face. "#e "(ranian, 9anowanian an! Malayan systems of consang(inity s#ow plainly an! concl(si;ely t#at 2ins#ip t#ro(g# males was recogniBe! as

A47 constantly as 2ins#ip t#ro(g# females. & man #a! brot#ers an! sisters, gran!fat#ers an! gran!mot#ers, gran!sons an! gran!!a(g#ters, trace! t#ro(g# males as well as t#ro(g# females. "#e maternity of c#il!ren was ascertain? able wit# certainty, w#ile t#eir paternity was not; b(t t#ey !i! not re:ect 2ins#ip t#ro(g# males beca(se of (ncertainty, b(t ga;e t#e benefit of t#e !o(bt to a n(mber of persons ? probable fat#ers being place! in t#e category of real fat#ers, probable brot#ers in t#at of real brot#ers, an! probable sons in t#at of real sons. &fter t#e gens appeare!, 2ins#ip t#ro(g# females #a! an increase! importance, beca(se it now signifie! gentile 2in, as !isting(is#e! from non?gentile 2in. "#is was t#e 2ins#ip, in a ma:ority of cases, ma!e 2nown to Mr. Mc ennan by t#e a(t#ors #e cites. "#e c#il!ren of t#e female members of t#e gens remaine! wit#in it, w#ile t#e c#il!ren of its male members were excl(!e!. ';ery member of t#e gens trace!: #is or #er !escent t#ro(g# females excl(si;ely w#en !escent was in t#e female line an! t#ro(g# males excl(si;ely w#en !escent was in t#e male line. Its members were an organiBe! bo!y of consang(inei bearing a common gentile name. "#ey were bo(n! toget#er by affinities of bloo!, an! by t#e f(rt#er bon! of m(t(al rig#ts, pri;ileges, an! obligation. 9entile 2in became, in bot# cases, s(perior to ot#er 2in; not beca(se no ot#er 2in was recogniBe!, b(t beca(se it conferre! t#e rig#ts an! pri;ileges of a gens. Mr. Mc ennanFs fail(re to !isco;er t#is !ifference in!icates an ins(fficient in;estigation of t#e s(b:ect #e was treating. 6it# !escent in t#e female line, a man #a! gran!fat#ers an! gran!mot#ers, mot#ers, brot#ers an! sisters, (ncles, nep#ews an! nieces, an! gran!sons an! gran!!a(g#ters in #is gens; come own an! some collateral; w#ile #e #a! t#e same o(t of #is gens wit# t#e exception of (ncles; an! in a!!ition, fat#ers, a(nts, sons an! !a(g#ters, an! co(sins. & woman #a! t#e same relati;es in t#e gens as a man, an! sons an! !a(g#ters, in a!!ition, w#ile s#e #a! t#e same relati;es o(t of t#e gens as a man. 6#et#er in or o(t of t#e gens, a brot#er was recogniBe! as a brot#er, a fat#er as a fat#er, a son as a son, an! t#e same term was applie! in eit#er case wit#o(t !iscrimination between t#em. <escent in t#e female line, w#ic# is all t#at )2ins#ip t#ro(g# females only8 can possibly in!icate, is t#(s seen to be a r(le of a gens an! not#ing more. It o(g#t to be state! as s(c#, beca(se t#e gens is t#e primary fact, an! gentile 2ins#ip is one of its attrib(tes. 3rior to t#e gentile organiBation, 2ins#ip t#ro(g# females was (n!o(bte!ly s(perior to 2ins#ip t#ro(g# males, an! was !o(btless t#e principal basis (pon w#ic# t#e lower tribal gro(ps were organiBe!. /(t t#e bo!y of facts treate! in )3rimiti;e Marriage8 #a;e little or no relation to t#at con!ition of man? 2in! w#ic# existe! prior to t#e gentile system. A. "#ere is no e;i!ence of t#e general pre;alence of t#e =air an! "ibetan polyan!ry. "#ese forms of polyan!ry are (se!. in Mr. Mc ennanFs spec(lations as t#o(g# (ni;ersal in practice. He employs t#em in #is attempte! explanation of t#e origin of t#e classificatory system of relations#ip. "#e =air polyan!ry is w#ere se;eral (nrelate! persons #a;e one wife in common +p. 1-G.. It is calle! t#e r(!est form. "#e "ibetan polyan!ry is w#ere se;eral brot#ers #a;e one wife in common. He t#en ma2es a rapi! flig#t t#ro(g# t#e tribes of man2in! to s#ow t#e general pre;alence of one or t#e ot#er of t#ese forms of polyan!ry, an! fails entirely to

A48 s#ow t#eir pre;alence. It !oes not seem to #a;e occ(rre! to Mr. Mc ennan t#at t#ese forms of polyan!ry are exceptional, an! t#at t#ey co(l! not #a;e been general e;en in t#e =eilg#erry Hills or in "ibet. If an a;erage of t#ree men #a! one wife in common +twel;e #(sban!s to one wife was t#e =air limit, 3. 1-7., an! t#is was general t#ro(g# a tribe, two?t#ir!s of t#e marriageable females wo(l!, be wit#o(t #(sban!s. It may safely be asserte! t#at s(c# a state of t#ings ne;er existe! generally in t#e tribes of man2in!; an! wit#o(t better e;i!ence it cannot be cre!ite! in t#e =eilg#erry Hills or in "ibet. "#e facts in respect to t#e =air polyan!ry are not f(lly 2nown. )& =air may be one in se;eral combinations of #(sban!s; t#at is, #e may #a;e any n(mber of wi;es8 +p. 1-8.. "#is, #owe;er, wo(l! not #elp t#e (nmarrie! females to #(sban!s, alt#o(g# it wo(l! increase t#e n(mber of #(sban!s of one wife. *emale infantici!e cannot be s(fficiently exaggerate! to raise into general pre;alence t#ese forms of polyan!ry. =eit#er can it be sai! wit# tr(t# t#at t#ey #a;e exercise! a general infl(ence (pon #(man affairs. "#e Malayan, "(ranian an! 9anowanian systems of consang(inity an! affinity, #owe;er, bring to lig#t forms of polygyny an! polyan!ry w#ic# #a;e infl(ence! #(man affairs, beca(se t#ey were as (ni;ersal in pre;alence as t#ese systems were, w#en t#ey respecti;ely came into existence. In t#e Malayan system, we fin! e;i!ence of consang(ine gro(ps fo(n!e! (pon brot#er an! sister marriages, b(t incl(!ing collateral brot#ers an! sisters in t#e gro(p. Here t#e men li;e! in polygyny, an! t#e women in polyan!ry. In t#e "(ranian an! 9anowanian system we fin! e;i!ence of a more a!;ance! gro(p ? t#e p(nal(an in two forms. >ne was fo(n!e! on t#e brot#er#oo! of t#e #(sban!s, an! t#e ot#er on t#e sister#oo! of t#e wi;es; own brot#ers an! sisters being now excl(!e! from t#e marriage relation. In eac# gro(p t#e men were polygyno(s, an! t#e women polyan!ro(s. /ot# practices are fo(n! in t#e same gro(p, an! bot# are essential to an explanation of t#eir system of consang(inity. "#e last?name! system of consang(inity an! affinity pres(pposes p(nal(an marriage in t#e gro(p. "#is an! t#e Malayan ex#ibit t#e forms of polygyny an! polyan!ry wit# w#ic# et#nograp#y is concerne!; w#ile t#e =air an! "ibetan forms of polyan!ry are not only ins(fficient to explain t#e systems, b(t are of no general importance. "#ese systems of consang(inity an! affinity, as t#ey stan! in t#e "ables, #a;e committe! s(c# #a;oc wit# t#e t#eories an! opinions a!;ance! in )3rimiti;e Marriage8 t#at I am constraine! to ascribe to t#is fact Mr. Mc ennanFs assa(lt (pon my #ypot#esis explanatory of t#eir origin; an! #is attempt to s(bstit(te anot#er, !enying t#em to be systems of consang(inity an! affinity. II. "#at Mr. Mc ennanFs #ypot#esis to acco(nt for t#e origin of t#e classificatory system !oes not acco(nt for its origin. Mr. Mc ennan sets o(t wit# t#e statement +p. A7D. t#at )t#e p#enomena presente! in all t#e forms Mof t#e classificatory system. are (ltimately referable to t#e marriage law; an! t#at accor!ingly its origin m(st be so also.8 "#is is t#e basis of my explanation; it is b(t partially t#at of #is own. "#e marriage?law, (n!er w#ic# #e attempts to explain t#e origin of t#e Malayan system, is t#at fo(n! in t#e =air polyan!ry; an! t#e marriage?law (n!er w#ic# #e attempts to explain t#e origin of t#e "(ranian an! 9anowanian system is t#at

A4, in!icate! by t#e "ibetan polyan!ry. /(t #e #as neit#er t#e =air nor "ibetan system of consang(inity an! affinity, wit# w#ic# to explain or to test #is #ypot#esis. He starts, t#en, wit#o(t any material from =air or "ibetan so(rces, an! wit# forms of marriage?law t#at ne;er existe! among t#e tribes an! nations possessing t#e classificatory system of relations#ip. 6e t#(s fin! at t#e o(tset t#at t#e explanation in 5(estion is a mere ran!om spec(lation. Mr. Mc ennan !enies t#at t#e systems in t#e "ables +Consang(inity, pp: D,8?A8D; 4DA?4G7. are systems of consang(inity an! affinity. >n t#e contrary, #e asserts t#at toget#er t#ey are )a system of mo!es of a!!ressing persons.8 He is not (ne5(i;ocal in #is !enial, b(t t#e p(rport of #is lang(age is to t#at effect. In my wor2 of Consang(inity I pointe! o(t t#e fact t#at t#e &merican In!ians in familiar interco(rse an! in formal sal(tation a!!resse! eac# ot#er by t#e exact relations#ip in w#ic# t#ey stoo! to eac# ot#er, an! ne;er by t#e personal name; an! t#at t#e O same (sage pre;aile! in %o(t# In!ia an! in C#ina. "#ey (se t#e system in sal(tation beca(se it is a system of consang(inity an! affinity ? a reason paramo(nt. Mr. Mc ennan wis#es (s to belie;e t#at t#ese all? embracing systems were simply con;entional, an! forme! to enable persons to a!!ress eac# ot#er in sal(tation, an! for no ot#er p(rpose. It is a #appy way of !isposing of t#ese systems, an!, of t#rowing away t#e most remar2able recor! in existence respecting t#e early con!ition of man2in!. Mr. Mc ennan imagines t#ere m(st #a;e been a system of consang(inity somew#ere entirely in!epen!ent of t#e system of a!!resses; )for it seems reasonable to belie;e,8 #e remar2s +p. A7A., )t#at t#e system of bloo!?ties an! t#e system of a!!resses wo(l! begin to grow (p toget#er, an! for some little time wo(l! #a;e a common #istory.8 & system of bloo!?ties is a system of consang(inity. 6#ere, t#en, is t#e lost systemU Mr. Mc ennan neit#er pro!(ces it nor s#ows its existence. /(t I fin! #e (ses t#e systems in t#e "ables as systems of consang(inity an! affinity, so far as t#ey ser;e #is #ypot#esis, wit#o(t ta2ing t#e tro(ble to mo!ify t#e assertion t#at t#ey are simply )mo!es of a!!ressing persons.8 "#at sa;age an! barbaro(s tribes t#e worl! o;er, an! t#ro(g# (ntol! ages, s#o(l! #a;e been so solicito(s concerning t#e proper mo!e of a!!ressing relations as to #a;e pro!(ce! t#e Malayan, "(ranian an! 9anowanian systems, in t#eir f(llness an! complexity, for t#at p(rpose an! no ot#er, an! no ot#er systems t#an t#ese two ? t#at in &sia, &frica, 3olynesia, an! &merica t#ey s#o(l! #a;e agree!, for example, t#at a gi;en personFs gran!fat#erFs brot#er s#o(l! be a!!resse! as gran!fat#er t#at brot#ers ol!er t#an oneFs self s#o(l! be a!!resse! as ei!er brot#ers, an! t#ose yo(nger as yo(nger brot#ers, merely to pro;i!e a con;entional mo!e of a!!ressing relati;es ? are coinci!ences so remar2able an! for so small a reason, t#at it will be 5(ite s(fficient for t#e a(t#or of t#is brilliant conception to belie;e it. & system of mo!es of a!!ressing persons wo(l! be ep#emeral, beca(se all con;entional (sages are ep#emeral. "#ey wo(l!, also, of necessity, be as !i;erse as t#e races of man2in!. /(t a system of consang(inity is a ;ery !ifferent t#ing. Its relations#ips spring from t#e family an! t#e marriage?law, an! possess e;en greater permanence t#an t#e family itself, w#ic# a!;ances w#ile t#e system remains (nc#ange!. "#ese relations#ips expresse! t#e act(al facts of t#e social con!ition

AGH w#en t#e system was forme!, an! #a;e #a! a !aily importance in t#e life of man2in!. "#eir (niformity o;er immense areas of t#e? eart#, an! t#eir preser;ation t#ro(g# immense perio!s of time, are conse5(ences of t#eir connection wit# t#e marriage? law. 6#en t#e Malayan system of consang(inity was forme!, it may be s(ppose! t#at a mot#er co(l! percei;e t#at #er own son an! !a(g#ter stoo! to #er in certain relations#ips t#at co(l! be expresse! by s(itable terms; t#at #er own mot#er an! #er mot#erFs own mot#er stoo! to #er in certain ot#er relations#ips; t#at t#e ot#er c#il!ren of #er own mot#er stoo! to #er in still ot#er relations#ips; an! t#at t#e c#il!ren of #er own !a(g#ter stoo! to #er in still ot#ers ? all of w#ic# mig#t be expresse! by s(itable terms. It wo(l! gi;e t#e beginning of a system of consang(inity fo(n!e! (pon ob;io(s bloo!?ties. It. wo(l! lay t#e fo(n!ation of t#e fi;e categories of relations in t#e Malayan system, an! wit#o(t any reference to marriage?law. 6#en marriage in t#e gro(p an! t#e consang(ine family came in, of bot# of w#ic# t#e Malayan system affor!s e;i!ence, t#e system wo(l! sprea! o;er t#e gro(p (pon t#e basis of t#ese primary conceptions. 6it# t#e intermarriage of brot#ers an! sisters, own an! collateral, in a gro(p, t#e res(lting system of consang(inity an! affinity wo(l! be Malayan. &ny #ypot#esis explanatory of t#e origin of t#e Malayan system m(st fail if t#ese facts are ignore!. %(c# a form of marriage an! of t#e family wo(l! create t#e Malayan system. It wo(l! be a system of consang(inity an! affinity from t#e beginning an! explainable only as s(c#. If t#ese ;iews are correct, it will not be necessary to consi!er in !etail t#e points of Mr. Mc ennanFs #ypot#esis, w#ic# is too obsc(re for a p#ilosop#ical !isc(ssion, an! (tterly incapable of affor!ing an explanation of t#e origin of t#ese systems. III. "#at Mr. Mc ennanFs ob:ections to t#e #ypot#esis presente! in )%ystems of Consang(inity,8 etc., are of no force. "#e same misappre#ension of t#e facts, an! t#e same con? f(sion of i!eas w#ic# mar2 #is last 'ssay, also appear in t#is. /e !oes not #ol! !istinct t#e relations#ips by consang(inity an! t#ose by marriage, w#en bot# exist between t#e same persons; an! #e ma2es mista2es in t#e relations#ips of t#e systems also. It will not be necessary to follow step by step Mr. Mc ennanFs criticisms (pon t#is #ypot#esis, some of w#ic# are ;erbal, ot#ers of w#ic# are !istorte!, an! none of w#ic# to(c# t#e essence of t#e 5(estions in;ol;e!. "#e first proposition #e attempts to ref(te is state! by #im as follows: )"#e Malayan system of relations#ips is a system of bloo!?relations#ips. Mr. Morgan ass(mes t#is, an! says not#ing of t#e obstacles to ma2ing t#e ass(mption8 +p. A-D.. It is in part a system of bloo!? relations#ips, an! in part of marriage?relations#ips. "#e fact is patent. "#e relations#ips of fat#er an! mot#er, brot#er an! sister, el!er or yo(nger, son an! !a(g#ter, (ncle an! a(nt, nep#ew an! niece an! co(sin, gran!fat#er an! mot#er, gran!son an! !a(g#ter; an! also of brot#er?in?law an! sister?in?law, son? in?law an! !a(g#ter?in?law, besi!es ot#ers, are gi;en in t#e "ables an! were before Mr. Mc ennan. "#ese systems spea2 for t#emsel;es, an! co(l! say not#ing else b(t t#at t#ey are systems of consang(inity an! affinity. <oes Mr. Mc ennan s(ppose

AG1 t#at t#e tribes name! #a! a system ot#er or !ifferent from t#at presente! in t#e "ablesU If #e !i!, #e was bo(n! to pro!(ce it, or to establis# t#e fact of its existence. He !oes neit#er. "wo or t#ree of #is special points may be consi!ere!. )&n! in!ee!,8 #e remar2s +p. A-G.$ )if a man is calle! t#e son of a woman w#o !i! not bear #im, #is being so calle! clearly !efies explanation on t#e principle of nat(ral !escents. "#e rep(te! relations#ip is not, in t#at case, t#e one act(ally existing as near as t#e parentage of in!i;i!(als co(l! be 2nown; an! accor!ingly Mr. MorganFs proposition is not ma!e o(t.8 >n t#e face of t#e statement t#e 5(estion in;ol;e! is not one of parentage, b(t of marriage?relations#ip. & man calls #is mot#erFs sister #is mot#er, an! s#e calls #im #er son, alt#o(g# s#e !i! not bear #im. "#is is t#e case in t#e Malayan, "(ranian an! 9anowanian systems. 6#et#er we #a;e consang(ine or p(nal(an marriages, a manFs mot#erFs sister is t#e wife of #is rep(te! fat#er. %#e is #is step? mot#er as near as o(r system f(rnis#es an analog(e; an! among o(rsel;es a step? mot#er is calle! mot#er, an! s#e calls #er step?son, son. It !efies explanation, it is tr(e, as a bloo!?relations#ip, w#ic# it !oes not preten! to be, b(t as a marriage? relations#ip, w#ic# it preten!s to be, t#is is t#e explanation. "#e reasoning of Mr. Mc ennan is e5(ally specio(s an! e5(ally fa(lty in a n(mber of cases. 3assing from t#e Malayan to t#e "(ranian system, #e remar2s +p. A4-., )It follows from t#is t#at a manFs son an! #is sisterFs !a(g#ter, w#ile rep(te! brot#er an! sister, wo(l! #a;e been free, w#en t#e )tribal organiBation8 #a! been establis#e!, to intermarry, for t#ey belonge! to !ifferent tribes of !escent.8 *rom t#is #e branc#es o(t in an arg(ment of two or t#ree pages to pro;e t#at )Mr. MorganFs reason, t#en, is ins(fficient.8 If Mr. Mc ennan #a! st(!ie! t#e "(ranian or t#e 9anowanian system of consang(inity wit# ;ery mo!erate attention, #e wo(l! #a;e fo(n! t#at a manFs son an! #is sisterFs !a(g#ter are not )rep(te! brot#er an! sister.8 >n t#e contrary, t#ey are co(sins. "#is is one of t#e most ob;io(s as well as important !ifferences between t#e Malayan an! "(ranian systems, an! t#e one w#ic# expresses t#e !ifference between t#e consang(ine family of t#e Malayan, an! t#e p(nal(an family of #e "(ranian system. "#e general rea!er will #ar!ly ta2e t#e tro(ble necessary to master t#e !etails of t#ese systems. $nless #e can follow t#e relations#ips wit# ease an! free!om, a !isc(ssion of t#e system will be a so(rce of perplexity rat#er t#an of pleas(re. Mr. Mc ennan (ses t#e terms of relations#ip freely, b(t wit#o(t, in all cases, (sing t#em correctly. In anot#er place +p. AGH., Mr. Mc ennan attrib(tes to me a !istinction between marriage an! co#abitation w#ic# I #a;e not ma!e; an! follows it wit# a r#etorical flo(ris# 5(ite e5(al to t#e best in )3rimiti;e Marriage.8 *inally, Mr. Mc ennan plants #imself (pon two allege! mista2es w#ic# ;itiate, in #is opinion, my explanation of t#e origin of t#e classificatory system. )In attempting to explain t#e origin of t#e classificatory system, Mr. Morgan ma!e two ra!ical mista2es. His first mista2e was, t#at #e !i! not stea!ily contemplate t#e main pec(liarity of t#e system ? its classification of t#e connecte! persons; t#at #e !i! not see2 t#e origin of t#e system in t#e origin of t#e classification8 +p. AGH..

AGD 6#at is t#e !ifference in t#is case, between t#e system an! t#e classificationU "#e two mean t#e same t#ing, an! cannot by any possibility be ma!e to mean anyt#ing !ifferent. "o see2 t#e origin of one is to see2 t#e origin of t#e ot#er. )"#e secon! mista2e, or rat#er I s#o(l! say error, was to #a;e so lig#tly ass(me! t#e system to be a system of )bloo!? ties8 +p. AG1.. "#ere is no error #ere since t#e persons name! in t#e "ables are !escen!e! from common ancestors, or connecte! by marriage wit# some one or more of t#em. "#ey are t#e same persons w#o are !escribe! in t#e "able s#owing t#e &ryan, %emitic, an! $ralian systems +Consang(inity, pp. 7,?1D7.. In eac# an! all of t#ese systems t#ey are bo(n! to eac# ot#er in fact by consang(inity an! affinity. In t#e latter eac# relations#ip is specialiBe!; in t#e former t#ey are classifie! in categories; b(t in all ali2e t#e (ltimate basis is t#e same, namely act(al consang(inity an! affinity. Marriage in t#e gro(p in t#e former an! marriage between single pairs in t#e latter, pro!(ce! t#e !ifference between t#em. In t#e Malayan, "(ranian an! 9anowanian systems, t#ere is a soli! basis for t#e bloo!?relations#ips t#ey ex#ibit in t#e common !escent of t#e persons; an! for t#e marriage?relations#ips we m(st loo2 to t#e form of marriage t#ey in!icate. 'xamination an! comparison s#ow t#at two !istinct forms of marriage are re5(isite to explain t#e Malayan an! "(ranian systems; w#ence t#e application, as tests of consang(ine marriage in one case, an! a p(nal(an marriage in t#e ot#er. 6#ile t#e terms of relations#ip are constantly (se! in sal(tation, it is beca(se t#ey are terms ofF relations#ip t#at t#ey are so (se!. Mr. Mc ennanFs attempt to t(rn t#em into con;entional mo!es of a!!ressing persons is f(tile. &lt#o(g# #e lays great stress (pon t#is ;iew #e ma2es no (se of t#em as )mo!es of a!!ress8 in attempting to explain t#eir origin. %o far as #e ma2es any (se of t#em #e employs t#em strictly as terms of consang(inity an! affinity. It was as impossible t#at )a system of mo!es of a!!ressing persons8 s#o(l! #a;e grown (p in!epen!ently of t#e system of consang(inity an! affinity +p. A7A., as t#at lang(age s#o(l! #a;e grown (p in!epen!ently of t#e i!eas it represents an! expresses. 6#at co(l! #a;e gi;en to t#ese terms t#eir significance as (se! in a!!ressing relati;es, #(t t#e relations#ip w#et#er of consang(inity or affinity w#ic# t#ey expresse!U "#e mere want of a mo!e of a!!ressing persons co(l! ne;er #a;e gi;en s(c# st(pen!o(s systems, i!entical in min(te !etails o;er immense sections of t#e eart#. $pon t#e essential !ifference between Mr. Mc ennanFs explanation of t#e origin of t#e classificatory system, an!: t#e one presente! in t#is ;ol(me ? w#et#er it is a system of mo!es of a!!ressing persons, or a system of consang(inity an! affinity ? I am 5(ite content to s(bmit t#e 5(estion to t#e :(!gment of t#e rea!er.

Footnotes
1 )"#e "ables,8 #owe;er, are t#e )main res(lts8 of t#is in;estigation. In t#eir importance an! ;al(e t#ey reac# beyon! any present (se of t#eir contents t#e writer may be able to in!icate.8 ? )%ystems of Consang(inity,8 etc., %mit#sonian Contrib(tions to 7nowle!ge, ;ol. x;ii, p., 8. ! )<escripti;e 't#nology8) on!on e!., 184,, i, -74.

AGA
" Ib., i, 8H.

Part IV G*+,T- F+ T-. ID./ +F P*+P.*T3

Chapter I THE THREE RULES OF INHERITANCE

It remains to consi!er t#e growt# of property in t#e se;eral et#nical perio!s, t#e r(les t#at sprang (p wit# respect to its owners#ip an! in#eritance an! t#e infl(ence w#ic# it exerte! (pon ancient society. "#e earliest i!eas of property were intimately associate! wit# t#e proc(rement of s(bsistence, w#ic# was t#e primary nee!. "#e ob:ects of owners#ip wo(l! nat(rally increase in eac# s(ccessi;e et#nical perio! wit# t#e m(ltiplication of t#ose arts (pon w#ic# t#e means of s(bsistence !epen!e!. "#e growt# of property wo(l! t#(s 2eep pace wit# t#e progress of in;entions an! !isco;eries. 'ac# et#nical perio! s#ows a mar2e! a!;ance (pon its pre!ecessor, not only in t#e n(mber of in;entions, b(t also in t#e ;ariety an! amo(nt of property w#ic# res(lte! t#erefrom. "#e m(ltiplicity of t#e farms of property wo(l! be accompanie! by t#e growt# of certain reg(lations wit# reference to its possession an! in#eritance. "#e c(stoms (pon w#ic# t#ese r(les of proprietary O possession an! in#eritance !epen!, are !etermine! an! mo!ifie! by t#e con!ition an! progress of t#e social organiBation. "#e growt# of property is t#(s closely connecte! wit# t#e increase of in;entions an! !isco;eries, an! wit# t#e impro;ement of social instit(tions w#ic# mar2 t#e se;eral et#nical perio!s of #(man progress.

I. Property in the Status of Sa/agery.

In any ;iew of t#e case, it is !iffic(lt to concei;e of t#e con!ition of man2in! in t#is early perio! of t#eir existence w#en !i;este! of all t#ey #a! gaine! t#ro(g# in;entions an! !isco;eries, an! t#ro(g# t#e growt# of i!eas embo!ie! in instit(tions, (sages an! c(stoms. H(man progress from a state of absol(te ignorance an! inexperience was slow m time, b(t geometrical in ratio. Man2in! may be trace! by a c#ain of necessary inferences bac2 to a time w#en, ignorant of fire, wit#o(t artic(late lang(age, an! wit#o(t artificial weapons, t#ey !epen!e!, li2e t#e wil! animals, (pon t#e spontaneo(s fr(its of t#e eart#, %lowly, almost imperceptibly, t#ey a!;ance! t#ro(g# sa;agery, from gest(re lang(age an! imperfect so(n!s to artic(late speec#; from t#e cl(b, as t#e first weapon, to t#e spear pointe! wit# flint, an! finally to t#e bow an! arrow; from t#e flint?2nife an! c#isel to t#e stone axe an! #ammer, from t#e oBier an! cane bas2et to t#e bas2et coate! wit# clay, w#ic# ga;e a ;essel for boiling foo! wit# fire; an!, finally, to t#e art of pottery, w#ic# ga;e a ;essel able to wit#stan! t#e fire. In t#e means of s(bsistence, t#ey a!;ance! from nat(ral fr(its in a restricte! #abitat, to scale an! s#ell fis# on t#e coasts of t#e sea, an! finally to brea! roots an! game. 0ope an! string?ma2ing from filaments of bar2, a species of clot# ma!e of ;egetable p(lp, t#e

AGtanning of s2ins to be (se! as apparel an! as a co;ering for tents, an! finally t#e #o(se constr(cte! of poles an! co;ere! wit# bar2, or ma!e of plan2 split by stone we!ges, belong, wit# t#ose pre;io(sly name!, to t#e %tat(s of %a;agery. &mong minor in;entions may be mentione! t#e fire?!rill, t#e moccasin an! t#e snow?s#oe. /efore t#e !ose of t#is perio!, man2in! #a! learne! to s(pport t#emsel;es in n(mbers. in comparison wit# primiti;e times; t#ey #a! propagate! t#emsel;es o;er t#e face of t#e eart#, an! come into possession of all t#e possibilities of t#e continents in fa;o(r of #(man a!;ancement. In social organiBation, t#ey #a! a!;ance! from t#e consang(ine #or!e into tribes organiBe! in gentes, an! t#(s became possesse! of t#e germs of t#e principal go;ernmental instit(tions. "#e #(man race was now s(ccessf(lly la(nc#e! (pon its great career for t#e attainment of ci;iliBation, w#ic# e;en t#en, wit# artic(late lang(age among in;entions, wit# t#e art of pottery among arts, an! wit# t#e gentes among instit(tions, was s(bstantially ass(re!. "#e perio! of sa;agery wro(g#t immense c#anges in t#e con!ition of man2in!. "#at portion, w#ic# le! t#e a!;ance, #a! finally organiBe! society an! !e;elope! small tribes wit# ;illages #ere an! t#ere w#ic# ten!e! to stim(late t#e in;enti;e capacities. "#eir r(!e energies an! r(!er arts #a! been c#iefly !e;ote! to s(bsistence. "#ey #a! not attaine! to t#e ;illage stoc2a!e far !efence, nor to farinaceo(s foo!, an! t#e sco(rge of cannibalism still p(rs(e! t#em. "#e arts, in;entions an! instit(tions name! represent nearly t#e s(m of t#e ac5(isitions of man2in! in sa;agery, wit# t#e exception of t#e mar;ello(s progress in lang(age. In t#e aggregate it seems small, b(t it was immense potentially; beca(se it embrace! t#e r(!iments of lang(age, of go;ernment, of t#e family, of religion, of #o(se arc#itect(re an! of property, toget#er wit# t#e principal germs of t#e arts of life. &ll t#ese t#eir !escen!ants wro(g#t o(t more f(lly in t#e perio! of barbarism, an! t#eir ci;iliBe! !escen!ants are still perfecting. /(t t#e property of sa;ages was inconsi!erable. "#eir i!eas concerning its ;al(e, its !esirability an! its in#eritance were feeble. 0(!e weapons, fabrics, (tensils, apparel, implements of flint, stone an! bone, an! personal ornaments represent t#e c#ief items of property in sa;age life. & passion for its possession #a! scarcely been forme! in t#eir min!s, beca(se t#e t#ing itself scarcely existe!. It was left to t#e t#en !istant perio! of ci;iliBation to !e;elop into f(ll ;itality t#at )gree! of gain8 +studium lucri.$ w#ic# is now s(c# a comman!ing force in t#e #(man min!. an!s, as yet #ar!ly a s(b:ect of property, were owne! by t#e tribes in common, w#ile tenement #o(ses were owne! :ointly by t#eir occ(pants. $pon articles p(rely personal w#ic# were increasing wit# t#e slow progress of in;entions, t#e great passion was no(ris#ing its nascent powers. "#ose esteeme! most ;al(able were !eposite! in t#e gra;e of t#e !ecease! proprietor for #is contin(e! (se in t#e spirit lan!. 6#at remaine! was s(fficient to raise t#e 5(estion of its in#eritance. >f t#e manner of its !istrib(tion before t#e organiBation into gentes, o(r information is limite!, or altoget#er wanting. 6it# t#e instit(tion of t#e gens came in t#e first great r(le of in#eritance, w#ic# !istrib(te! t#e effects of a !ecease! person among #is gentiles. 3ractically t#ey were appropriate! by t#e nearest of 2in; b(t, t#e principle was general, t#at t#e property s#o(l! remain in t#e gens of t#e !ece!ent,

AG4 an! be !istrib(te! among its members. "#is principle was maintaine! into ci;iliBation by t#e 9recian an! atin gentes. C#il!ren in#erite! from t#eir mot#er, b(t too2 not#ing from t#eir rep(te! fat#er;

II. Property

the Lower Status of #arbaris .

*rom t#e in;ention of pottery to t#e !omestication of animals, or, as an e5(i;alent, t#e c(lti;ation of maiBe an! plants by irrigation, t#e !(ration of t#e perio! m(st #a;e been s#orter t#an t#at of sa;agery. 6it# t#e exception of t#e art of pottery, finger wea;ing an! t#e art of c(lti;ation, in &merica, w#ic# ga;e farinaceo(s foo!, no great in;ention or !isco;ery signaliBe! t#is et#nical perio!. It was more !isting(is#e! for progress in t#e !e;elopment of instit(tions. *inger wea;ing, wit# warp an! woof, seems to belong to t#is perio!, an! it m(st ran2 as one of t#e greatest of in;entions; b(t it cannot be certainly affirme! t#at t#e art was not attaine! in sa;agery. "#e Iro5(ois an! ot#er tribes of &merica in t#e same stat(s man(fact(re! belts an! b(r!en?straps wit# warp an! woof of excellent 5(ality an! finis#; (sing fine twine ma!e of filaments of elm an! basswoo! bar2. "#e principles of t#is great in;ention, w#ic# #as since clot#e! t#e #(man family, were perfectly realiBe!; b(t t#ey were (nable to exten! it to t#e pro!(ction of t#e wo;en garment. 3ict(re writing also seems to #a;e ma!e its first appearance in t#is perio!. If it originate! earlier, it now recei;e! a ;ery consi!erable !e;elopment. It is interesting as one of t#e stages of an art w#ic# c(lminate! in t#e in;ention of a p#onetic alp#abet. "#e series of connecte! in;entions seem of #a;e been t#e following: 1. 9est(re ang(age, or t#e lang(age of personal symbols; D. 3ict(re 6riting, or i!iograp#ic symbols; A. Hieroglyp#s, or con;entional symbols; -. Hieroglyp#s or p#onetic symbols (se! in a syllab(s; an! 4. & 3#onetic &lp#abet, or written so(n!s. %ince a lang(age of written so(n!s was a growt# t#ro(g# s(ccessi;e stages of !e;elopment, t#e rise of its antece!ent processes is bot# important an! instr(cti;e. "#e c#aracters on t#e Copan mon(ments are apparently #ieroglyp#s of t#e gra!e of con;entional symbols. "#ey s#ow t#at t#e &merican aborigines, w#o practise! t#e first t#ree forms, were procee!ing in!epen!ently in t#e !irection of a p#onetic alp#abet. "#e in;ention of t#e stoc2a!e as a means of ;illage !efence, of a raw?#i!e s#iel! as a !efence against arrow, w#ic# #a! now become a !ea!ly missile, of t#e se;eral ;arieties of t#e war?cl(b, arme! wit# an encase! stone or wit# a point of !eer #orn, seem also to belong to t#is perio!. &t all e;ents t#ey were in common (se among t#e &merican In!ian tribes in t#e ower %tat(s of barbarism w#en !isco;ere!. "#e spear pointe! wit# flint or bone was not a c(stomary weapon wit# t#e forest tribes, [2] t#o(g# sometimes (se!. "#is weapon belongs to t#e perio! of sa;agery, before t#e bow an! arrow were in;ente!, an! reappears as a prominent weapon in t#e $pper %tat(s of barbarism, w#en t#e copper?pointe! spear came into (se, an! close

AGG combat became t#e mo!e of warfare. "#e bow an!?arrow an! t#e war?cl(b were t#e principal weapons of t#e &merican aborigines in t#e ower %tat(s of barbarism. %ome progress was ma!e in pottery in t#e increase! siBe of t#e ;essels pro!(ce!, an! in t#eir ornamentation;[3] b(t, it remaine! extremely r(!e to t#e en! of t#e perio!. "#ere was a sensible a!;ance in #o(se arc#itect(re, in t#e siBe an! mo!e of constr(ction. &mong minor in;entions were t#e air?g(n for bir!?s#ooing, t#e woo!en mortar an! po(n!er for re!(cing maiBe to flo(r, an! t#e stone mortar for preparing paints; eart#en an! stone pipes, wit# t#e (se of tobacco; bone an! stone implements of #ig#er gra!es, wit# stone #ammers an! ma(ls, t#e #an!le an! (pper part of t#e stone being encase! in raw #i!e; an! moccasins an! belts ornamente! wit# porc(pine 5(ills. %ome of t#ese in;entions were borrowe!, not (nli2ely, from tribes in t#e Mi!!le %tat(s; for it was by t#is process constantly repeate! t#at t#e more a!;ance! tribes lifte! (p t#ose below t#em, as fast as t#e latter were able to appreciate an! to appropriate t#e means of progress. "#e c(lti;ation of maiBe an! plants ga;e t#e people (nlea;ene! brea!, t#e In!ian s(ccotas# an! #ominy. It also ten!e! to intro!(ce a new species of property, namely, c(lti;ate! lan!s or gar!ens. &lt#o(g# lan!s were owne! in common by t#e tribe, a possessory rig#t to c(lti;ate! lan! was now recogniBe! in t#e in!i;i!(al, or in t#e gro(p, w#ic# became a s(b:ect of in#eritance. "#e gro(p (nite! in a common #o(se#ol! were mostly of t#e same gens, an! t#e r(le of in#eritance wo(l! not allow it to be !etac#e! from t#e 2ins#ip. "#e property an! effects of #(sban! an! wife were 2ept !istinct, an! remaine! after t#eir !emise in t#e gens to w#ic# eac# respecti;ely belonge!. "#e wife an! c#il!ren too2 not#ing from t#e #(sban! an! fat#er, an! t#e #(sban! too2 not#ing from t#e wife. &mong t#e Iro5(ois, if a man !ie! lea;ing a wife an! c#il!ren, #is property was !istrib(te! among #is gentiles in s(c# a manner t#at #is sisters an! t#eir c#il!ren, an! #is maternal (ncles, wo(l! recei;e t#e most of it. His brot#ers mig#t recei;e a small portion. If a woman !ie!; lea;ing a #(sban! an! c#il!ren, #er c#il!ren, #er sisters, an! #er mot#er an! #er sisters in#erite! #er effects; b(t t#e greater portion was assigne! to #er c#il!ren. In eac# case t#e property remaine! in t#e gens. &mong t#e >:ibwas, t#e effects of a mot#er were !istrib(te! among #er c#il!ren, if ol! eno(g# to (se t#em; ot#erwise, or in !efa(lt of c#il!ren, t#ey went to #er sisters, an! to #er mot#er an! #er sisters, to t#e excl(sion of #er brot#ers. &lt#o(g# t#ey #a! c#ange! !escent to t#e male line, t#e in#eritance still followe! t#e r(le w#ic# pre;aile! w#en !escent was in t#e female line. "#e ;ariety an! amo(nt of property were greater t#an in sa;agery, b(t still not s(fficient to !e;elop a strong sentiment in relation to in#eritance. In t#e mo!e of !istrib(tion abo;e gi;en may be recogniBe!, as elsew#ere state!, t#e germ of t#e secon! great r(le of in#eritance, w#ic# ga;e t#e property to t#e agnatic 2in!re!, to t#e excl(sion of t#e remaining gentiles. &gnation an! agnatic 2in!re!, as now !efine!, ass(me !escent in t#e male line; b(t t#e persons incl(!e! wo(l! be ;ery !ifferent from t#ose wit# !escent in t#e female line. "#e principle is t#e same in bot# cases, an! t#e terms seem as applicable in t#e one as in t#e ot#er. 6it# !escent in t#e female line, t#e agnates are t#ose persons w#o can trace t#eir !escent t#ro(g# females excl(si;ely from t#e same common ancestor wit# t#e intestate; in t#e ot#er

AG7 case, w#o can trace t#eir !escent t#ro(g# males excl(si;ely. It is t#e bloo! connection of persons wit#in t#e gens by !irect !escent, in a gi;en line, from t#e same common ancestor w#ic# lies at t#e fo(n!ation of agnatic relations#ip. &t t#e present time, among t#e a!;ance! In!ian tribes, rep(gnance to gentile in#eritance #as beg(n to manifest itself. In some it #as been o;ert#rown, an! an excl(si;e in#eritance in c#il!ren s(bstit(te! in its place. ';i!ence of t#is rep(gnance #as elsew#ere been gi;en, among t#e Iro5(ois, Cree2s, C#ero2ees, C#octas, Menominees, Crows an! >:ibwas, wit# references to t#e !e;ices a!opte! to enable fat#ers to gi;e t#eir property, now largely increase! in amo(nt, to t#eir c#il!ren. "#e !imin(tion of cannibalism, t#at br(taliBing sco(rge of sa;agery, was ;ery mar2e! in t#e >l!er 3erio! of barbarism. It was aban!one! as a common practice; b(t remaine! as a war practice, as elsew#ere explaine! t#ro(g# t#is, an! into t#e Mi!!le 3erio!. In t#is form it, was fo(n! in t#e principal tribes of t#e $nite! %tates, Mexico an! Central &merica. "#e ac5(isition of farinaceo(s foo! was t#e principal means of extricating man2in! from t#is sa;age c(stom. 6e #a;e now passe! o;er, wit# a mere glance, two et#nical perio!s, w#ic# co;ere! fo(r?fift#s, at least, of t#e entire existence of man2in! (pon t#e eart#. 6#ile in t#e ower %tat(s, t#e #ig#er attrib(tes of man began to manifest t#emsel;es. 3ersonal !ignity, elo5(ence in speec#, religio(s sensibility, rectit(!e, manliness an! co(rage were now common traits of c#aracter; b(t cr(elty, treac#ery an! fanaticism were e5(ally common. 'lement wors#ip in religion, wit# a !im conception of personal go!s, an! of a 9reat %pirit, r(!e ;erse?ma2ing, :oint?tenement #o(ses, an! brea! from maiBe, belong to t#is perio!. It also pro!(ce! t#e syn!yasmian family, an! t#e confe!eracy of tribes organiBe! in gentes an! p#ratries. "#e imagination, t#at great fac(lty w#ic# #as contrib(te! so largely to t#e ele;ation of man2in!, was now pro!(cing an (nwritten literat(re of myt#s, legen!s an! tra!itions, w#ic# #a! alrea!y become a powerf(l stim(l(s (pon t#e race. III. !roperty in the 'iddle Status of Barbarism. "#e con!ition of man2in! in t#is et#nical perio! #as been more completely lost t#an t#at of any ot#er. It was ex#ibite! by t#e Iillage In!ians of =ort# an! %o(t# &merica in barbaric splen!o(r at t#e epoc# of t#eir !isco;ery. "#eir go;ernmental instit(tions, t#eir religio(s tenets, t#eir plan of !omestic life, t#eir arts an! t#eir r(les in relation to t#e owners#ip an! in#eritance of property, mig#t #a;e been completely obtaine!; b(t t#e opport(nity was allowe! to escape. &ll t#at remains are scattere! portions of t#e tr(t# b(rie! in misconceptions an! romantic tales. "#is perio! opens in t#e 'astern #emisp#ere wit# t#e !omestication of animals, an! in t#e 6estern wit# t#e appearance of t#e Iillage In!ians, li;ing in large :oint? tenement #o(ses of a!obe bric2, an!, in some areas, of stone lai! in co(rses. It was atten!e! wit# t#e c(lti;ation of maiBe an! plants by irrigation, w#ic# re5(ire! artificial canals, an! gar!en be!s lai! o(t in s5(ares, wit# raise! ri!ges to contain t#e water (ntil absorbe!. 6#en !isco;ere!, t#ey were well a!;ance! towar! t#e close of t#e Mi!!le 3erio!, a portion of t#em #a;ing ma!e bronBe, w#ic# bro(g#t t#em near t#e #ig#er process of smelting iron ore. "#e :oint?tenement #o(se was in t#e nat(re of a fortress, an! #el! an interme!iate position between t#e stoc2a!e! ;illage of t#e

AG8 ower, an! t#e walle! city of t#e $pper %tat(s. "#ere were no cities, in t#e proper sense of t#e term, in &merica w#en !isco;ere!. In t#e art of war t#ey #a! ma!e b(t little progress, except in !efence, by t#e constr(ction of great #o(ses generally impregnable to In!ian assa(lt. /(t t#ey #a! in;ente! t#e 5(ilte! mantle +escaupiles.$ st(ffe! wit# cotton, as a f(rt#er s#iel! against t#e arrow, [4] an! t#e two?e!ge! swor! +macuahuitl.4 eac# e!ge #a;ing a row of ang(lar flint points imbe!!e! in t#e woo!en bla!e. "#ey still (se! t#e bow an! arrow, t#e spear, an! t#e war?cl(b, flint 2ni;es an! #atc#ets, an! stone implements, [6] alt#o(g# t#ey #a! t#e copper axe an! c#isel, w#ic# for some reason ne;er came into general (se. "o maiBe, beans, s5(as#es an! tobacco, were now a!!e! cotton, pepper, tomato, cacao, an! t#e care of certain fr(its. & beer was ma!e by fermenting t#e :(ice of t#e mag(ey. "#e Iro5(ois, #owe;er, #a! pro!(ce! a similar be;erage by fermenting maple sap. 'art#en ;essels of capacity to #ol! se;eral gallons, of fine text(re an! s(perior ornamentation were pro!(ce! by impro;e! met#o!s in t#e ceramic art. /owls, pots an! water?:ars were man(fact(re! in ab(n!ance. "#e !isco;ery an! (se of t#e nati;e metals first for ornaments, an! finally for implements an! (tensils, s(c# as t#e copper axe an! c#isel, belong to t#is perio!. "#e melting of t#ese metals in t#e cr(cible, wit# t#e probable (se of t#e blow?pipe an! c#arcoal, an! casting t#em in mo(l!s, t#e pro!(ction of bronBe, r(!e stone sc(lpt(res, t#e wo;en garment of cotton,[7] t#e #o(se of !resse! stone, i!eograp#s or #ieroglyp#s c(t on t#e gra;e?posts of !ecease! c#iefs, t#e calen!ar for meas(ring time, an! t#e solstitial stone for mar2ing t#e seasons, cyclopean walls, t#e !omestication of t#e llama, of a species of !og, of t#e t(r2ey an!. ot#er fowls, belong to t#e same perio! in &merica. & priest#oo! organiBe! in a #ierarc#y, an! !isting(is#e! by a cost(me, personal go!s wit# i!ols to represent t#em, an! #(man sacrifices, appear for t#e first time in t#is et#nical perio!. "wo large In!ian p(eblos, Mexico an! C(sco, now appear, containing o;er twenty t#o(san! in#abitants, a n(mber (n2nown in t#e pre;io(s perio!. "#e aristocratic element in society began to manifest itself in feeble forms among t#e c#iefs, ci;il an! military, t#ro(g# increase! n(mbers (n!er t#e same go;ernment, an! t#e growing complexity of affairs. "(rning to t#e 'astern #emisp#ere, we fin! its nati;e tribes, in t#e correspon!ing perio!, wit# !omestic animals yiel!ing t#em a meat an! mil2 s(bsistence, b(t probably wit#o(t #ortic(lt(ral an! wit#o(t farinaceo(s foo!. 6#en t#e great !isco;ery was ma!e t#at, t#e wil! #orse, cow, s#eep, ass, sow an! goat mig#t be tame!, an! w#en pro!(ce! in floc2s an! #er!s, become a so(rce of permanent s(bsistence it m(st #a;e gi;en a powerf(l imp(lse to #(man progress. /(t t#e effect wo(l! not become general (ntil pastoral life for t#e creation an! maintenance of floc2s an! #er!s became establis#e!. '(rope, as a forest area in t#e main, was (n?a!apte! to t#e pastoral state; b(t t#e grass plains of #ig# &sia, an! (pon t#e '(p#rates, t#e "igris an! ot#er ri;ers of &sia, were t#e nat(ral #omes of t#e pastoral tribes. "#it#er t#ey wo(l! nat(rally ten!; an! to t#ese areas we trace o(r own remote ancestors, w#ere t#ey were fo(n! confronting li2e pastoral %emitic tribes. "#e c(lti;ation of cereals an! plants m(st #a;e prece!e! t#eir migration from t#e grass plains into t#e forest areas of 6estern &sia an! of '(rope. It wo(l! be force! (pon t#em by t#e necessities of t#e !omestic animals now incorporate! in t#eir plan of life. "#ere are reasons, t#ere? fore, for s(pposing t#at t#e c(lti;ation of

AG, cereals by t#e &ryan tribes prece!e! t#eir western migration, wit# t#e exception per#aps of t#e Celts. 6o;en fabrics of flax an! wool, an! bronBe implements an! weapons appear in t#is perio! in t#e 'astern #emisp#ere. %(c# were t#e in;entions an! !isco;eries w#ic# signaliBe! t#e Mi!!le 3erio! of barbarism. %ociety was now more #ig#ly organiBe!, an! its affairs were becoming more complex. <ifferences in t#e c(lt(re of t#e two #emisp#eres now existe! in conse5(ence of t#eir (ne5(al en!owments; b(t t#e main c(rrent of progress was stea!ily (pwar! to a 2nowle!ge of iron an! its (ses. "o cross t#e barrier into t#e $pper %tat(s, metallic tools able to #ol! an e!ge an! point were in!ispensable. Iron was t#e only metal able to answer t#ese re5(irements. "#e most a!;ance! tribes were arreste! at t#is barrier, awaiting t#e in;ention of t#e process of smelting iron ore. *rom t#e foregoing consi!erations, it is e;i!ent t#at a large increase of personal property #a! now occ(rre!, an! some c#anges in t#e relations of persons to lan!. "#e territorial !omain still belonge! to t#e tribe in common; b(t a portion was now set apart for t#e s(pport of t#e go;ernment, anot#er for religio(s (ses, an! anot#er an!, more important portion, t#at from w#ic# t#e people !eri;e! t#eir s(bsistence, was !i;i!e! among t#e se;eral gentes, or comm(nities of persons w#o resi!e! in t#e same p(eblo. "#at any person owne! lan!s or #o(ses in #is own rig#t, wit# power to sell an! con;ey in fee ? simple to w#omsoe;er #e please!, is not only (n? establis#e! b(t improbable. "#eir mo!e of owning t#eir lan!s in common, by gentes, or by comm(nities of persons, t#eir :oint tenement #o(ses, an! t#eir mo!e of occ(pation by relate! families, precl(!e! t#e in!i;i!(al owners#ip of #o(ses or of lan!s. & rig#t to sell an interest in s(c# lan!s or in s(c# #o(ses, an! to transfer t#e same to a stranger, wo(l! brea2 (p t#eir plan of life. [8] "#e possessory rig#t, w#ic# we m(st s(ppose existe! in in!i;i!(als or in families, was inalienable, except wit#in t#e gens, an! on t#e !emise of t#e person wo(l! pass by in#eritance to #is or #er gentile #eirs. Coint tenement #o(ses, an! lan!s in common in!icate a plan of life a!;erse to in!i;i!(al owners#ip. "#e Ma5(i Iillage In!ians, besi!es t#eir se;en large p(eblos an! t#eir gar!ens, now #a;e floc2s of s#eep, #orses an! m(les, an! consi!erable: ot#er personal property. "#ey man(fact(re eart#en ;essels of many siBes an! of excellent 5(ality, an! woollen blan2ets in looms, an! wit# yarn of t#eir own pro!(ction. Ma:or C. 6. 3owell notice! t#e fallowing case at t#e p(eblo of >raybe, w#ic# s#ows t#at t#e #(sban! ac5(ires no rig#ts o;er t#e property of t#e wife, or o;er t#e c#il!ren of t#e marriage. & K(nian marrie! an >raybe woman, an! #a! by #er t#ree c#il!ren. He resi!e! wit# t#em at >raybe (ntil #is wife !ie!, w#ic# occ(rre! w#ile Ma:or 3owell was at t#e p(eblo. "#e relati;es of t#e !ecease! wife too2 possession of #er c#il!ren an! of #er #o(se#ol! property; lea;ing to #im #is #orse; clot#ing an! weapons. Certain blan2ets w#ic# belonge! to #im, #e was allowe! to ta2e, b(t t#ose belonging to #is wife remaine!. He left t#e p(eblo wit# Ma:or 3owell, saying #e wo(l! go wit# #im to %anta *e, an! t#en ret(rn to #is own people at K(ni. &not#er case of a similar 2in! occ(rre! at anot#er of t#e Mo5(i p(eblos + She*po(* e*luv*ih., w#ic# also came to t#e notice of my informant. & woman !ie!, lea;ing c#il!ren an! a #(sban!, as well as property. "#e c#il!ren an! t#e property were

A7H ta2en by t#e !ecease! wifeFs relati;es; all t#e #(sban! was allowe! to ta2e was #is elot#ing. 6#et#er #e was a Mo5(i In!ian or from anot#er tribe, Ma:or 3owel, w#o saw t#e person, !i! not learn. 1t appears from t#ese cases t#at t#e c#il!ren belonge! to t#e mot#er, an! not to t#e fat#er, an! t#at #e was not allowe! to ta2e t#em e;en after t#e mot#erFs !eat#. %(c# also was t#e (sage among t#e Iro5(ois an! ot#er nort#ern tribes. *(rt#ermore, t#e property of wife was 2ept !istinct, an! belonge! to #er relati;es after #er !eat#. It ten!s to s#ow t#at t#e wife too2 not#ing from #er #(sban!, as an implication from t#e fact t#at t#e #(sban! too2 not#ing form t#e wife. 'lsew#ere it #as been s#own t#at t#is was t#e (sage among t#e Iillage In!ians of Mexico. 6omen, as well as men, not (nli2ely, #a! a possessory rig#t to s(c# rooms an! sections of t#ese p(eblo #o(ses as t#ey occ(pie!; an! t#ey !o(btless transmitte! t#ese rig#ts to t#eir nearest of 2in, (n!er establis#e! reg(lations. 6e nee! to 2now #ow t#ese sections of eac# p(eblo are owne! an! in#erite!, w#et#er t#e possessor #as t#e rig#t to sell an! transfer to a stranger, an! if not, t#e nat(re an! limits of #is possessory rig#t. 6e also nee! to 2now w#o in#erits t#e property of t#e males, an! w#o in#erits t#e property of t#e females. & small amo(nt of wee !irecte! labo(r wo(l! f(rnis# t#e information now so m(c# !esire!. "#e %panis# writers #a;e left t#e lan! ten(re of t#e so(t#ern tribes in inextricable conf(sion. 6#en t#ey fo(n! a comm(nity of persona owning lan!s in common; w#ic# t#ey co(l! not alienate, an! t#at one person among t#em was recogniBe! as t#eir c#ief, t#ey at once treate! t#ese lan!s as a fe(!al estate, t#e c#ief as a fe(!al lor!, an! t#e people w#o owne! t#e lan!s in common as #is ;assals. &t best, it was a per;ersion of t#e facts. >ne t#ing is plain, namely, t#at t#ese lan!s were owne! in common by a comm(nity of persons; b(t one, not less essential, is not gi;en; namely, t#e bon! of (nion, w#ic# #el! t#ese persons toget#er. If a gens, or a part of a gens, t#e w#ole s(b:ect wo(l! be at once (n!erstoo!. <escent in t#e female line still remaine! in some of t#e tribes of Mexico an! Central &merica, w#ile in ot#ers, an! probably in t#e larger portion, it #a! been c#ange!, to t#e male line. "#e infl(ence of property m(st #a;e ca(se! t#e c#ange, t#at c#il!ren mig#t participate as agnates in t#e in#eritance of t#eir fat#er@s property. &mong t#e Mayas, <escent was in t#e male line, w#ile among t#e &Btecs, "eB(cans, "lacopans an! "lascalans, it is !iffic(lt to !etermine w#et#er it was in t#e male or t#e female line. It is probable t#at !escent was being c#ange! to t#e male line among t#e Iillage In!ian generally, wit# remains of t#e arc#aic r(le manifesting t#emsel;es, as in t#e case of t#e office of "e(ctli. "#e c#ange wo(l! not o;ert#row gentile in#eritance. It is claime! by a n(mber of %panis# writers t#at t#e c#il!ren, an! in some cases t#e el!est son, in#erite! t#e property of a !ecease! fat#er; b(t s(c# statement, apart from an exposition of t#eir system, are of little ;al(e. &mong Iillage In!ians, we s#o(l! expect to fin! t#e secon! great r(le of in#eritance w#ic# !istrib(te! t#e property among t#e agnatic 2in!re!. 6it# !escent in t#e male line, t#e c#il!ren of a !ecease! person wo(l! stan! at t#e bea! of t#e agnates, an! ;ery nat(rally recei;e t#e greater portion of in#eritance. It is not

A71 probable t#at t#e t#ir! great r(le, w#ic# ga;e an excl(si;e in#eritance to t#e c#il!ren of t#e !ecease! owner #a! become establis#e! among t#em. "#e !isc(ssion of in#eritances by t#e earlier an! later writers is (nsatisfactory, an! !e;oi! of acc(rate information. Instit(tions, (sages an! c(stoms still go;erne! t#e 5(estion, an! co(l! alone explain t#e system. 6it#o(t better e;i!ence t#an we now possess, an excl(si;e in#eritance by c#il!ren, cannot be asserte!.

Footnotes
1 ) eag(e of t#e Iro5(ois,8 p. AG-. ! *or example, t#e >:ibwas (se! t#e lance or spear, %#e?ma?g(n, pointe! wit# flint or bone. " "#e 9ree2s ma!e eart#en ;essels #ol!ing from two to ten gallons +&!air@s )History of &merican In!ians,8 p. -D-.. an! t#e Iro5(ois ornamente! t#eir :ars an! pipes wit# miniat(re #(man faces attac#e! as b(ttons. "#is !isco;ery was recently ma!e by Mr. *. &. C(s#ing, of t#e %mit#sonian Instit(tion. # Herrera, 1. c., i;, 1G. $ lb. iii+ 1A; i;, 1G, 1A7. Cla;igero, ii, 1G4. % Cla;igero, ii, DA8. Herrera, ii, 1-4; i;, 1AA. & Ha2l(ytFs )Coll. of Ioyages,8 1, c., iii, A77. ' "#e 0e;. %am(el 9orman, a missionary among t#e ag(na: 3(eblo In!ians, remar2s in an a!!ress before t#e Historical %ociety of =ew Mexico +p. 1D., t#at )t#e rig#t of property belongs to t#e female part of t#e family, an! !escen!s in t#at line from mot#er to !a(g#ter. "#eir lan! is #el! in common as t#e property of t#e comm(nity b(t after a person c(lti;ates a lot #e #as personal claim to it+ w#ic# t#e can sell to one of t#e comm(nity.8 "#eir women, generally, #a;e control of t#e granary, an! t#ey are more pro;i!ent t#an t#eir %panis# neig#bo(rs abo(t t#e f(t(re. >r!inarily t#ey try to #a;e a yearFs pro;isions on #an!. It is only w#en two years of scarcity s(ccee! eac# ot#er, t#at 3(eblos, as a comm(nity, s(ffer #(nger.8

Chapter II THE THREE RULES OF INHERITANCE (CONTINUED)

"#e last great perio! of barbarism was ne;er entere! by t#e &merican aborigines. It commence! in t#e 'astern, accor!ing to t#e sc#eme a!opte!, wit# t#e pro!(ction an! (se of iron. "#e process of smelting iron ore was t#e in;ention of in;entions, as elsew#ere s(ggeste!, besi!e w#ic# all ot#er in;entions an! !isco;eries #ol! a s(bor!inate position. Man2in!, notwit#stan!ing a 2nowle!ge of bronBe, were still arreste! in t#eir progress for t#e want of efficient metallic tools, an! for t#e want of a metal of

A7D s(fficient strengt# an! #ar!ness for mec#anical appliances. &ll t#ese 5(alities were fo(n! for t#e first time in iron. "#e accelerate! progress of #(man intelligence !ates from t#is in;ention. "#is et#nical perio!, w#ic# is ma!e fore;er memorable, was, in many respects, t#e most brilliant an! remar2able in t#e entire experience of man2in!. It is so o;ercrow!e! wit# ac#ie;ements as to lea! to a s(spicion t#at many of t#e wor2s ascribe! to it belong to t#e pre;io(s perio!. II. !roperty in the )pper Status of Barbarism.* =ear t#e en! of t#is perio!, property in masses, consisting of many 2in!s an! #el! by in!i;i!(al owners#ip, began to be common, t#ro(g# settle! agric(lt(re, man(fact(res, local tra!e an! foreign commerce; b(t t#e ol! ten(re of lan!s (n!er w#ic# t#ey were #el! in common #a! not gi;en place, except in part, to owners#ip in se;eralty. %ystematic sla;ery originate! in t#is stat(s. It stan!s !irectly connecte! wit# t#e pro!(ction of property. >(t of it came t#e patriarc#al family of t#e Hebrew type, an! t#e similar family of t#e atin tribes (n!er paternal power, as well as a mo!ifie! form of t#e same family among t#e 9recian tribes. *rom t#ese ca(ses, b(t more partic(larly from t#e increase! ab(n!ance of s(bsistence t#ro(g# fiel! agric(lt(re, nations began to !e;elop, n(mbering many t#o(san!s (n!er one go;ernment, w#ere before t#ey wo(l! be rec2one! by a few t#o(san!s. "#e localiBation of tribes in fixe! areas an! in fortifie! cities, wit# t#e increase of t#e n(mbers of t#e people, intensifie! t#e str(ggle for t#e possession of t#e most !esirable territories. It ten!e! to a!;ance t#e art of war, an! to increase t#e rewar!s of in!i;i!(als prowess. "#ese c#anges of con!ition an! of t#e plan of life in!icate t#e approac# of ci;iliBation, w#ic# was to o;ert#row gentile an! establis# political society. &lt#o(g# t#e in#abitants of t#e 6estern #emisp#ere #a! no part in t#e experience w#ic# belongs to t#is stat(s, t#ey were following !own t#e same lines on w#ic# t#e in#abitants of t#e 'astern #a! passe!. "#ey #a! fallen be#in! t#e a!;ancing col(mn of #(man race by :(st t#e !istance meas(re! by t#e $pper %tat(s of barbarism an! t#e s(per? a!!e! years of ci;iliBation. 6e are now to trace t#e growt# of t#e i!ea of property in t#is stat(s of a!;ancement, as s#own by its recognition in 2in!, an! by t#e r(les t#at existe! wit# respect to its owners#ip an! in#eritance. "#e earliest laws of t#e 9ree2s, 0omans an! Hebrews after ci;iliBation #a! commence!, !i! little more t#an t(rn into legal enactments t#e res(lts w#ic# t#eir pre;io(s experience #a! embo!ie! in (sages an! c(stoms. Ha;ing t#e final laws an! t#e pre;io(s arc#aic r(les, t#e interme!iate c#anges, w#en not expressly 2nown, may be inferre! wit# tolerable certainty. &t t#e close of t#e ater 3erio! of barbarism, great c#anges #a! occ(rre! in t#e ten(re of lan!s. It was gra!(ally ten!ing to two forms of owners#ip, namely, by t#e state ari! by in!i;i!(als. /(t t#is res(lt was not f(lly sec(re! (ntil after ci;iliBation #a! been attaine!. an! among t#e 9ree2s were still #el!, as we #a;e seen, some by t#e tribes in common, some by t#e p#ratry in common for religio(s (ses, an! some by t#e gens in common; b(t t#e b(l2 of t#e lan!s #a! fallen (n!er in!i;i!(al owners#ip in se;eralty. In t#e time of %olon, w#ile &t#enian society was still gentile, lan!s in general were owne! by in!i;i!(als, w#o #a! alrea!y learne! to

A7A mortgage t#em;[1] b(t in!i;i!(al owners#ip was not t#en a new t#ing. "#e 0oman tribes, from t#eir first establis#ment, #a! a p(blic !omain, t#e Ager Romanus2 w#ile lan!s were #el! by t#e c(ria for religio(s (ses, by t#e gens, an! by in!i;i!(als in se;eralty. &fter t#ese social corporations !ie! o(t, t#e lan!s #el! by t#em in common gra!(ally became pri;ate property. Iery little is 2nown beyon! t#e fact t#at certain lan!s were #el! by t#ese organiBations for special. (ses, w#ile in!i;i!(als were gra!(ally appropriating t#e s(bstance of t#e national areas. "#ese se;eral forms of owners#ip ten! to s#ow t#at t#e ol!est ten(re, by w#ic# lan! was #el!, was by t#e tribe in common; t#at after its c(lti;ation began, a portion of t#e tribe lan!s was !i;i!e! among t#e gentes, eac# of w#ic# #el! t#eir portion in common; an! t#at t#is was followe!, in co(rse of time, by allotments to in!i;i!(als, w#ic# allotments finally ripene! into in!i;i!(al owners#ip in se;eralty. $nocc(pie! an! waste lan!s still remaine! as t#e common property of t#e gens, t#e tribe an! t#e nation. "#is, s(bstantially, seems to #a;e been t#e progress of experience wit# respect to t#e owners#ip of lan!. 3ersonal property, generally, was s(b:ect to in!i;i!(al owners#ip. "#e monogamian family ma!e its first appearance in t#e $pper %tat(s of barbarism, t#e growt# of w#ic#, o(t of a pre;io(s syn!yasmian form was intimately connecte! wit# t#e increase of property, an! wit# t#e (sages in respect to its in#eritance. <escent #a! been c#ange! to t#e male line; b(t all property, real as well as personal, remaine!, as it #a! been from time immemorial #ere!itary in t#e gens. >(r principal information concerning t#e 2in!s of property, t#at existe! among t#e 9recian tribes in t#is perio!, is !eri;e! from t#e Homeric poems, an! from t#e early laws of t#e perio! of ci;iliBation w#ic# reflect ancient (sages. Mention is ma!e in t#e Ilia! of fences[2] aro(n! c(lti;ate! fiel!s, of an enclosure of fifty acres, #alf of w#ic# was fit for ;ines an! t#e remain!er for tillage [3] an! it is sai! of "y!e(s t#at #e li;e! in a mansion ric# in reso(rces, an! #a! corn?pro!(cing fiel!s in ab(n!ance.[4] "#ere is no reason to !o(bt t#at lan!s were t#en fence! an! meas(re!, an! #el! by in!i;i!(al owners#ip. It in!icates a large !egree of progress in a 2nowle!ge of property an! its (ses. /ree!s of #orses were alrea!y !isting(is#e! for partic(lar excellence.[5] Her!s of cattle an! floc2s of s#eep possesse! by in!i;i!(als are mentione!, as )s#eep of a ric# man stan!ing co(ntless in t#e fol!.8[6] Coine! money was still (n? 2nown, conse5(ently tra!e was by barter of commo!ities, as in!icate! by t#e following lines: )"#ence t#e long? #aire! 9ree2s bo(g#t wine, some for brass, some for s#ining iron, ot#ers for #i!es, some for t#e oxen t#emsel;es, an! some for sla;es.8 [7] 9ol! in bars, #owe;er, is name! as passing. by weig#t an! estimate! by talents. [8] Man(fact(re! articles of gol!, sil;er, brass an! iron, an! textile fabrics of linen an! woollen in many forms, toget#er wit# #o(ses an! palaces, are mentione!. It will not be necessary to exten! t#e ill(strations. "#ose gi;en are s(fficient to in!icate t#e great a!;ance society #a! attaine! in t#e $pper %tat(s of barbarism, in contrast wit# t#at in t#e imme!iately pre;io(s perio!. &fter #o(ses an! len!s, floc2s an! #er!s, an! exc#angeable commo!ities #a! become so great in 5(antity, an! #a! come to be #el! by in!i;i!(al owners#ip, t#e 5(estion of t#eir in#eritance wo(l! press (pon #(man attention (ntil t#e rig#t was

A7place! (pon a basis w#ic# satisfie! t#e growing intelligence of t#e 9ree2 min!. &rc#aic (sages wo(l! be mo!ifie! in t#e !irection of later conceptions. "#e !omestic animals were a possession of greater ;al(e t#an all 2in!s of property pre;io(sly 2nown p(t toget#er. "#ey ser;e! for foo!, were exc#angeable for ot#er commo!ities, were (sable for re!eeming capti;es, for paying fines, an! in sacrifices in t#e obser;ance of t#eir religio(s rites. Moreo;er, as t#ey were capable of in!efinite m(ltiplication in n(mbers, t#eir possession re;eale! to t#e #(man min! its first conception of wealt#. *ollowing (pon t#is, in co(rse of time, was t#e systematic c(lti;ation of t#e eart# w#ic# ten!e! to i!entify t#e family wit# t#e soil, an! ren!er it a property?ma2ing organiBation. It soon fo(n! expression, in t#e atin, 9recian an! Hebrew tribes, in t#e family (n!er paternal power, in;ol;ing sla;es an! ser;ants. %ince t#e labo(r of t#e fat#er an! #is c#il!ren became incorporate! more an! more wit# t#e lan!, wit# t#e pro!(ction of !omestic animals, an! wit# t#e creation of merc#an!ise, it wo(l! not only ten! to in!i;i!(aliBe t#e family, now monogamian, b(t also to s(ggest t#e s(perior claims of c#il!ren to t#e in#eritance of t#e property t#ey #a! assiste! in creating. /efore lan!s were c(lti;ate!, floc2s an! #er!s wo(l! nat(rally fall (n!er t#e :oint owners#ip of persons (nite! in a gro(p, on a basis of 2in, for s(bsistence. &gnatic in#eritance wo(l! be apt to assert itself in t#is con!ition of t#ings. /(t w#en lan!s #a! become t#e s(b:ect of property, an! allotments to in!i;i!(als #a! res(lte! in in!i;i!(al owners#ip, t#e t#ir! great r(le of in#eritance, w#ic# ga;e t#e property to t#e c#il!ren of t#e !ecease! owner, was certain to s(per;ene (pon agnatic in#eritance. "#ere is no !irect e;i!ence t#at strict agnatic in#eritance e;er existe! among t#e atin, 9recian or Hebrew tribes, excepting in t#e re;ersion, establis#e! ali2e in 0oman, 9recian an! Hebrew law; b(t t#at an excl(si;e agnatic in#eritance existe! in t#e early perio! may be inferre! from t#e re;ersion. 6#en fiel! agric(lt(re #a! !emonstrate! t#at t#e w#ole s(rface of t#e eart# co(l! be ma!e t#e s(b:ect of property owne! by in!i;i!(als in se;eralty, an! it was fo(n! t#at t#e #ea! of t#e family became t#e nat(ral centre of acc(m(lation, t#e new property career of man2in! was ina(g(rate!. It was f(lly !one before t#e close of t#e ater 3erio! of barbarism. & little reflection m(st con;ince any one of t#e powerf(l infl(ence property wo(l! now begin to exercise (pon t#e #(man min!, an! of t#e great awa2ening of new elements of c#aracter it was calc(late! to pro!(ce. ';i!ence appears, from many so(rces, t#at t#e feeble imp(lse aro(se! in t#e sa;age min! #a! now become a tremen!o(s passion in t#e splen!i! barbarian of t#e #eroic age. =eit#er arc#aic nor later (sages co(l! maintain t#emsel;es in s(c# an a!;ance! con!ition. "#e time #a! now arri;e! w#en monogamy, #a;ing ass(re! t#e paternity of c#il!ren, wo(l! assert an! maintain t#eir excl(si;e rig#t to in#erit t#e property of t#eir !ecease! fat#er.8[9] In t#e Hebrew tribes of w#ose expe!ience in barbarism ;ery little is 2nown, in!i;i!(al owners#ip of lan!s existe! before t#e commencement of t#eir ci;iliBation. "#e p(rc#ase from 'p#ron by &bra#am of t#e ca;e of Mac#pela# is an ill(stration.[10] "#ey #a! (n!o(bte!ly passe! t#ro(g# a pre;io(s experience in all respects similar to t#at of t#e &ryan tribes; an! came o(t of barbarism, li2e t#em, in, possession of t#e !omestic animals an! of t#e cereals, toget#er wit# a 2nowle!ge of iron en! brass, of gol! an! sil;er, of fictile wares an! of textile

A74 fabrics. /(t t#eir 2nowle!ge of fiel! agric(lt(re was limite! in t#e time of &bra#am. "#e reconstr(ction of Hebrew society, after t#e 'xo!(s, on t#e basis of consang(ine tribes, to w#ic# on reac#ing 3alestine territorial areas were assigne!, s#ows t#at ci;iliBation fo(n! t#em (n!er gentile instit(tions, an! below a 2nowle!ge of political society. 6it# respect to t#e owners#ip an! in#eritance of property, t#eir experience seems to #a;e been coinci!ent wit# t#at of t#e 0oman an! 9recian tribes, as can be ma!e o(t, wit# some !egree of clearness, from t#e legislation of Moses. In#eritance was strictly wit#in t#e p#ratry, an! probably wit#in t#e gens, namely, )t#e #o(se of t#e fat#er.8 "#e arc#aic r(le of in#eritance among t#e Hebrews is (n2nown, except as it is in!icate! by t#e re;ersion, w#ic# was s(bstantially t#e same as in t#e 0oman law of t#e "wel;e "ables. 6e #a;e t#is law of re;ersion, an! also an ill(strati;e case, s#owing t#at after C#il!ren #a! ac5(ire! an excl(si;e in#eritance, !a(g#ters s(ccee!e! in !efa(lt of sons. Marriage wo(l! t#en transfer t#eir property from t#eir own gens to t#at of t#eir #(sban!Fs, (nless some restraint, in t#e case of #eiresses, was p(t on t#e rig#t. 3res(mpti;ely an! nat(rally, marriage wit#in t#e gens was pro#ibite!. "#is presente! t#e last great 5(estion w#ic# arose wit# respect to gentile in#eritance. It came before Moses as a 5(estion of Hebrew in#eritance, an! before %olon as a 5(estion of &t#enian in#eritance, t#e gens claiming a paramo(nt rig#t to its retention wit#in its members#ip; an! it was a!:(!icate! by bot#, in t#e same manner. It may be reasonably s(ppose! t#at t#e same 5(estion #a! arisen in t#e 0oman gentes, an! was in part met by t#e r(le t#at t#e marriage of a female wor2e! a deminutio capitis$ an! wit# it a forfeit(re of agnatic rig#ts. &not#er 5(estion was in;ol;e! in t#is iss(e; namely, w#et#er marriage s#o(l! be restricte! by t#e r(le forbi!!ing it wit#in t#e gens, or become free; t#e !egree, an! not t#e fact of 2in, being t#e meas(re of t#e limitation. "#is last r(le was to be t#e final o(tcome of #(man experience wit# respect to marriage. 6it# t#ese consi!erations in min!, t#e case to be cite! s#e!s a strong lig#t (pon t#e early instit(tions of t#e Hebrews an! s#ows t#eir essential similarity wit# t#ose of t#e 9ree2s an! 0omans (n!er gentilism. Kelop#e#a! !ie! lea;ing !a(g#ters, b(t no sons, an! t#e in#eritance was gi;en to t#e former. &fterwar!s, t#ese !a(g#ters being abo(t to marry o(t of t#e tribe of Cosep#, to w#ic# t#ey belonge!, t#e members of t#e tribe ob:ecting to s(c# a transfer of t#e property, bro(g#t t#e 5(estion before Moses, saying: )If t#ey be marrie! to any of t#e sons of t#e other tribes of t#e c#il!ren of Israel, t#en s#all t#e in#eritance be ta2en from t#e in#eritance of o(r fat#ers, an! s#all be p(t to t#e in#eritance of t#e tribe w#ere(nto t#ey are recei;e!: so s#all it be ta2en from t#e loti of o(r in#eritance.8[11] &lt#o(g# t#is lang(age is b(t t#e statement of t#e res(lts of a propose! act, it implies a grie;ance; an! t#at grie;ance was t#e transfer of t#e property from t#e gens an! tribe to w#ic# it was concei;e! as belonging by #ere!itary rig#t. "#e Hebrew lawgi;er a!mits t#is rig#t in t#e lang(age of #is !ecision. )"#e tribe of t#e sons of Cosep# #at# spo2en well. "#is is t#e t#ing w#ic# t#e or! !ot# comman!, concerning t#e !a(g#ters of Kelop#e#a!, saying: et t#em marry to w#om t#ey t#in2 best: only to t#e family of t#e tribe of t#eir fat#er s#all t#ey marry. %o s#all not t#e in#eritance of t#e c#il!ren of Israel remo;e from tribe to tribe: for e;ery one of t#e c#il!ren of Israel s#all 2eep #imself to t#e in#eritance of t#e tribe of #is fat#ers. &n! e;ery !a(g#ter t#at possesset# an in#eritance in any

A7G tribe of t#e c#il!ren of Israel s#all be wife (nto one of t#e family of t#e tribe of #er fat#er, t#at t#e c#il!ren of Israel may en:oy e;ery man t#e in#eritance of #is fat#ers.8[12] "#ey were re5(ire! to marry into t#eir own p#ratry +supra$ p. AG8., b(t not necessarily into t#eir own gens. "#e !a(g#ters of Kelop#e#a! were accor!ingly )marrie! to )t#eir fat#erFs brot#erFs sons,8 w#o were not only members of t#eir own p#ratry, b(t also of t#eir own gens. "#ey were also t#eir nearest agnates. >n a pre;io(s occasion, Moses #a! establis#e! t#e r(le of in#eritance an! of re;ersion in t#e following explicit lang(age. )&n! t#o( s#alt spea2 (nto t#e c#il!ren of Israel, saying, EIf a man !ie an! #a;e no son, t#en yo( s#all ca(se #is in#eritance to pass (nto #is !a(g#ters. &n! if #e #a;e no !a(g#ter, t#en yo( s#all gi;e #is in#eritance (nto #is brot#ers. &n! if #e #a;e no bret#ren, t#en ye s#all gi;e #is in#eritance (nto #is fat#erFs bret#ren. &n! if #is fat#er #a;e no bret#ren, t#en ye s#all gi;e #is in#eritance (nto #is 2insman, t#at is next to #im of #is family, an! #e s#all possess it.8[13] "#ree classes of #eirs are #ere name!; first, t#e c#il!ren of t#e !ecease! owner; secon!, t#e agnates, in t#e or!er of t#eir nearness; an! t#ir!, t#e gentiles, restricte! to t#e members of t#e p#ratry of t#e !ece!ent. "#e first class of t#e #eirs were t#e c#il!ren; b(t, t#e inference wo(l! be t#at t#e sons too2 t#e property, s(b:ect to t#e obligation of maintaining t#e !a(g#ters. 6e fin! elsew#ere t#at t#e el!est son #a! # !o(ble portion. In !efa(lt of sons, t#e !a(g#ters recei;e! t#e in#eritance. "#e secon! class were t#e agnates, !i;i!e! into two gra!es; first, t#e bret#ren of t#e !ece!ent, in !efa(lt of c#il!ren, recei;e! t#e in#eritance; an! secon!, in !efa(lt of t#em, t#e bret#ren of t#e fat#er of t#e !ece!ent. "#e t#ir! were t#e gentiles, also in t#e or!er of t#eir nearness, namely, )#is 2insman t#at is next to #im of #is family.8 &s t#e )family of t#e tribe8 is t#e analog(e of t#e p#ratry +supra$ p. AG,., t#e property, in !efa(lt of c#il!ren an! of agnates, went to t#e nearest p#rator of t#e !ecease! owner. It excl(!e! cognates from t#e in#eritance, so t#at a p#rator, more !istant t#an a fat#erFs brot#er, wo(l! in#erit in preference to t#e c#il!ren of a sister of t#e !ece!ent. <escent is s#own to #a;e been in t#e male line, an! t#e property m(st remain #ere!itary in t#e gens. It will be notice! t#at t#e fat#er !i! not in#erit from #is son, nor t#e gran!fat#er from #is gran!son. In t#is respect an! in nearly all respects, t#e Mosaic law agrees wit# t#e law of t#e "wel;e "ables. It affor!s a stri2ing ill(stration of t#e (niformity of #(man experience an! of t#e growt# of t#e same i!eas in parallel lines in !ifferent races. &t a later !ay, t#e e;itical law establis#e! marriage (pon a new basis in!epen!ent of gentile law. It pro#ibite! its occ(rrence wit#in certain prescribe! !egrees of consang(inity an! affinity, an! !eclare! it free beyon! t#ose !egrees. "#is (proote! gentile (sage in respect marriage among t#e Hebrews; an! it #as now become t#e r(le of C#ristian nations. "(rning to t#e laws of %olon concerning in#eritances, we fin! t#em s(bstantially t#e same as t#ose of Moses. *rom t#is coinci!ence, an inference arises t#at, t#e antece!ent (sages, c(stoms an! instit(tions of t#e &t#enians an! Hebrews were m(c# t#e same in relation to property. In t#e time of %olon, t#e t#ir! great r(le of in#eritance was f(lly establis#e! among t#e &t#enians. "#e sons too2 t#e estate of

A77 t#eir !ecease! fat#er e5(ally; b(t c#arge! wit# t#e obligation of maintaining t#e !a(g#ters, an! of apportioning t#em s(itably on t#eir marriage. If t#ere were no sons, t#e !a(g#ters in#erite! e5(ally. "#is create! #eiresses by in;esting woman wit# estates, w#o li2e t#e !a(g#ters of Kelop#e#a!, wo(l! transfer t#e property, by t#eir marriage, from t#eir own gens to t#at of t#eir #(sban!. "#e same 5(estion came before %olon t#at #a! been bro(g#t before Moses, an! was !eci!e! in t#e same way. "o pre;ent t#e transfer of property from gens to gens by marriage, %olon enacte! t#at t#e #eiress s#o(l! marry #er nearest male agnate, alt#o(g# t#ey belonge! to t#e same gens, an! marriage between t#em #a! pre;io(sly been pro#ibite! by (sage. "#is became s(c# a fixe! r(le of &t#enian law, t#at M. <e Co(langes, in #is original an! s(ggesti;e wor2, expresses t#e opinion t#at t#e in#eritance passe! to t#e agnate, s(b:ect to t#e obligation of marrying t#e #eiress. [14] Instances occ(rre! w#ere t#e nearest agnate, alrea!y marrie!, p(t away #is wife in or!er to marry t#e #eiress, an! t#(s gain t#e estate. 3rotomac#(s, in t#e '(b(li!es of <emost#enes, is an example. [15] /(t it is #ar!ly s(pposable t#at t#e law compelle! t#e agnate to !i;orce #is wife an! marry t#e #eiress, or t#at #e co(l! obtain t#e estate wit#o(t becoming #er #(sban!. If t#ere were no c#il!ren, t#e estate passe! to t#e agnates, an! in !efa(lt of agnates, to t#e gentiles of t#e !ecease! owner. 3roperty was retaine! wit#in t#e gens as inflexibly among t#e &t#enians as among t#e Hebrews an! t#e 0omans. %olon t(rne! into a law w#at, probably, #a! before become an establis#e! (sage. "#e progressi;e growt# of t#e i!ea of property is ill(strate! by t#e, appearance of testamentary !ispositions establis#e! by %olon. "#is rig#t was certain of (ltimate a!option; b(t, it re5(ire! time an! experience for its !e;elopment. 3l(tarc# remar2s t#at %olon ac5(ire! celebrity by #is law in relation to testaments, w#ic# before t#at were not allowe!; b(t t#e property an! #omestea! m(st remain in t#e gens of t#e !ece!ent. 6#en #e permitte! a person to !e;ise #is own property to any one #e please!, in case #e #a! no c#il!ren, #e #ono(re! frien!s#ip more t#an 2ins#ip, an! ma!e property t#e rig#tf(l possession of t#e owner. [16] "#is law recogniBe! t#e absol(te in!i;i!(al owners#ip of property by t#e person w#ile li;ing, to w#ic# was now s(pera!!e! t#e power of !isposing of it by will to w#omsoe;er #e please!, in case #e #a! no c#il!ren; b(t t#e gentile rig#t to t#e property remaine! paramo(nt so long as c#il!ren existe! to represent #im in t#e gens. "#(s at e;ery point we meet t#e e;i!ence t#at t#e great principles, w#ic# now go;ern society, were elaborate! step by step procee!ing in se5(ences, an! ten!ing in;ariably in t#e same (pwar! !irection. &lt#o(g# se;eral of t#ese ill(strations are !rawn from t#e perio! of ci;iliBation, t#ere is no reason for s(pposing t#at t#e laws of %olon were new creations in!epen!ent of antece!ents. "#ey rat#er embo!ie! in positi;e form t#ose conceptions, in relation to property, w#ic# #a! gra!(ally !e;elope! t#ro(g# experience, to t#e f(ll meas(re of t#e laws t#emsel;es. 3ositi;e law was now s(bstit(te! for c(stomary law. "#e 0oman law of t#e "wel;e "ables +first prom(lgate! --, /. C.. [17] contain t#e r(les of in#eritance as t#en establis#e!. "#e property passe! first to t#e c#il!ren, e5(ally wit# w#om t#e wife of t#e !ece!ent was a co? #eiress; in !efa(lt of c#il!ren an! !escen!ants in t#e male line, it passe! to t#e agnates in t#e or!er bf t#eir

A78 nearness; an! in !efa(lt of agnates it passe! to t#e gentiles.[18] Here we fin! again, as t#e f(n!amental basis of t#e law, t#at t#e property m(st remain in t#e gens. 6#et#er t#e remote ancestors of t#e atin, 9recian an! Hebrew tribes possesse!, one after t#e ot#er, t#e t#ree great r(les of in#eritance (n!er consi!eration, we #a;e no means of 2nowing, excepting t#ro(g# t#e re;ersion. It seems a reasonable inference t#at in#eritance was ac5(ire! in t#e in;erse or!er of t#e law as it stan!s in t#e "wel;e "ables; t#at in#eritance by t#e gentiles prece!e! in#eritance by t#e agnates, an! t#at in#eritance by t#e agnates prece!e! an excl(si;e in#eritance by t#e c#il!ren. <(ring t#e ater 3erio! of barbarism a new element, t#at of aristocracy, #a! a mar2e! !e;elopment. "#e in!i;i!(ality of persons, an! t#e increase of wealt# now possesse! by in!i;i!(als in masses, were laying t#e fo(n!ation of personal infl(ence. %la;ery, also, by permanently !egra!ing a portion of t#e people, ten!e! to establis# contrasts of con!ition (n2nown in t#e pre;io(s et#nical perio!s, "#is, wit# property an! official position, gra!(ally !e;elope! t#e sentiment of aristocracy, w#ic# #as so !eeply penetrate! mo!ern society, an! antagoniBe! t#e !emocratical principles create! an! fostere! by t#e gentes. It soon !ist(rbe! t#e balance of society by intro!(cing (ne5(al pri;ileges, an! !egrees of respect, for in!i;i!(als among people of t#e same nationality, an! t#(s became t#e so(rce of !iscor! an! strife. In t#e $pper %tat(s of barbarism, t#e office of c#ief in its !ifferent, gra!es, originally #ere!itary in t#e gens an! electi;e among its members, passe!, ;ery li2ely, among t#e 9recian an! atin tribes, from fat#er to son, as a r(le. "#at it passe! by #ere!itary rig#t cannot be a!mitte! (pon existing e;i!ence; b(t t#e possession of eit#er of t#e offices of archon$ phylo*basileus, or basileus among t#e 9ree2s, an! of princeps an! re" among t#e 0omans, ten!e! to strengt#en in t#eir families t#e sentiment of aristocracy. It !i! not, #owe;er, become strong eno(g# to c#ange essentially t#e !emocratic constit(tion of t#e early go;ernments of t#ese tribes, alt#o(g# it attaine! a permanent existence 3roperty an! office were t#e fo(n!ations (pon w#ic# aristocracy plante! itself. 6#et#er t#is principle s#all li;e or !ie #as been one of t#e great problems wit# w#ic# mo!ern society #as been engage! t#ro(g# t#e inter;ening perio!s. &s a 5(estion between e5(al rig#ts an! (ne5(al rig#ts, between e5(al laws an! (ne5(al laws, between t#e rig#ts of wealt#, of ran2 an! of official position, an! t#e power of :(stice an! intelligence, t#ere can be little !o(bt of t#e (ltimate res(lt. &lt#o(g# se;eral t#o(san! years #a;e passe! away wit#o(t t#e o;ert#row of pri;ilege! classes, excepting in t#e $nite! %tates, t#eir b(r!ensome c#aracter (pon society #as been !emonstrate!. %ince t#e a!;ent of ci;iliBation, t#e o(tgrowt# of property #as been so immense; its forms so !i;ersifie!, its (ses so expan!ing an! its management so intelligent in t#e interests of its owners, t#at it #as become, on t#e part of t#e people, an (nmanageable power. "#e #(man min! stan!s bewil!ere! in t#e presence of its own creation. "#e time will come, ne;ert#eless, w#en #(man intelligence will rise to t#e mastery o;er property, an! !efine t#e relations of t#e state to t#e property it protects, as well as t#e obligations an! t#e limits of t#e rig#ts of its owners. "#e

A7, interests: of society are paramo(nt to in!i;i!(al interests, an! t#e two m(st be bro(g#t into :(st an! #armonio(s relations. & mere property career is not, t#e final !estiny of man2in!, if progress is to be t#e law of t#e f(t(re as it #as been of t#e past. "#e time w#ic# #as passe! away since ci;iliBation began is b(t a fragment of t#e past !(ration of manFs existence; an! b(t a fragment of t#e ages yet to come. "#e !issol(tion of society bi!s fair to become t#e termination of a career of w#ic# property is t#e en! an! aim; beca(se s(c# a career contains t#e elements of self? !estr(ction. <emocracy in go;ernment, brot#er#oo! in society, e5(ality in rig#ts an! pri;ileges an! (ni;ersal e!(cation, fores#a!ow t#e next #ig#er plane of society to w#ic# experience, intelligence an! 2nowle!ge are stea!ily ten!ing. It will be a re;i;al, in a #ig#er form, of t#e liberty, e5(ality an! fraternity of t#e ancient gentes. %ome of t#e principles, an! some of t#e res(lts of t#e growt# of t#e i!ea of property in t#e #(man min! #a;e now been presente!. &lt#o(g# t#e s(b:ect #as been ina!e5(ately treate!, its importance at least #as been s#own. 6it# one principle of intelligence an! one p#ysical form, in ;irt(e of a common origin, t#e res(lts of #(man experience #a;e been s(bstantially t#e same in all times an! areas in t#e same et#nical stat(s. "#e principle of t#e intelligence, alt#o(g# con!itione! in its powers wit#in narrow limits of ;ariation, see2s i!eal stan!ar!s in;ariably t#e same. Its operations, conse5(ently, #a;e been (niform t#ro(g# all t#e stages of #(man progress. =o arg(ment for t#e (nity of origin of man2in! can be ma!e, w#ic#, in its nat(re, is more satisfactory. & common principle of intelligence meets (s in t#e sa;age, in t#e barbarian, an! in ci;iliBe! man, It was in ;irt(e of t#is t#at man2in! were able to pro!(ce in similar con!itions t#e same implements an! (tensils, t#e same in;entions, an! to !e;elop similar instit(tions from t#e same original germs of t#o(g#t. "#ere is somet#ing gran!ly impressi;e in a principle w#ic# #as wro(g#t o(t ci;iliBation by assi!(o(s application from small beginnings; from t#e arrow #ea!, w#ic# expresses t#e t#o(g#t in t#e brain of a sa;age, to t#e smelting of iron ore, w#ic# represents t#e #ig#er intelligence of t#e barbarian, an!, finally, to t#e railway train in motion, w#ic# may be calle! t#e tri(mp# of ci;iliBation. It m(st be regar!e! as a mar;ello(s fact t#at a portion of man2in! fi;e t#o(san! years ago, less or more, attaine! to ci;iliBation. In strictness b(t two families, t#e %emitic an! t#e &ryan, accomplis#e! t#e wor2 t#ro(g# (nassiste! self? !e;elopment. "#e &ryan family represents t#e central stream of #(man progress, beca(se it pro!(ce! t#e #ig#est type of man2in!, an! beca(se it #as pro;e! its intrinsic s(periority by gra!(ally ass(ming t#e control of t#e eart#. &n! yet ci;iliBation m(st be regar!e! as an acci!ent of circ(mstances. Its attainment at some time was certain; b(t t#at it s#o(l! #a;e been accomplis#e! w#en it was, is still an extraor!inary fact. "#e #in!rances t#at #el! man2in! in sa;agery were great, an! s(rmo(nte! wit# !iffic(lty. &fter reac#ing t#e Mi!!le %tat(s of barbarism, ci;iliBation #(ng in t#e balance w#ile barbarians were feeling t#eir way by experiments wit# t#e nati;e metals, towar! t#e process of smelting iron ore. $ntil iron an! its (ses were 2nown, ci;iliBation was impossible. If man2in! #a! faile! to t#e present #o(r to cross t#is barrier, it wo(l! #a;e affor!e! no :(st ca(se for s(rprise. 6#en we recogniBe t#e !(ration of manFs existence (pon t#e eart#, t#e

A8H wi!e ;icissit(!es t#ro(g# w#ic# #e #as passe! in sa;agery an! in barbarism, an! t#e progress #e was compelle! to ma2e, ci;iliBation mig#t as nat(rally #a;e been !elaye! for se;eral t#o(san! years in t#e f(t(re, as to #a;e occ(rre! w#en it !i! in t#e goo! pro;i!ence of 9o!. 6e are force! to t#e concl(sion C#at it was t#e res(lt, as to t#e time of its ac#ie;ement, of a series of fort(ito(s circ(mstances. It may well ser;e to remin! (s t#at we owe o(r present con!ition, wit# its m(ltiplie! means of safety an! of #appiness, to t#e str(ggles, t#e s(fferings, t#e #eroic exertions an! t#e patient toil of o(r barbaro(s, an! more remotely, of o(r sa;age ancestors. "#eir labo(rs, t#eir trials an! t#eir s(ccesses were a part of t#e plan of t#e %(preme Intelligence to !e;elop a barbarian o(t of a sa;age, an! a ci;iliBe! man o(t of t#is barbarian.

Footnotes
1 3l(tarc#, in )%olon,8 c. x;. ! )Ilia!,8 ;, ,H. " lb., ix, 477. # lb., xi;, 1D1. $ lb., ;, DG4. % lb., i;, -AA, /(c2leyFs trans. & lb., ;ii, -7D, /(c2leyFs trans. ' )Ilia!,8 xii, D7-. ( "#e 9erman tribes w#en first 2nown #istorically were in t#e $pper %tat(s of barbarism. "#ey (se! iron, b(t in limite! 5(antities+ possesse! floc2s an! #er!s, c(lti;ate! t#e cereals, an! man(fact(re! coarse textile fabrics of linen an! woollen; b(t t#ey #a! not t#en attaine! to t#e i!ea of in!i;i!(al owners#ip in lan!s. &ccor!ing to t#e acco(nt of Caesar, elsew#ere cite!, t#e arable lan!s were allotte! ann(ally by t#e c#iefs, w#ile t#e past(re lan!s were #el! in common. It wo(l! seem, t#erefore, t#at t#e i!ea of in!i;i!(al property in lan!s (n2nown in &sia an! '(rope in t#e Mi!!le 3erio! of barbarism b(t came in !(ring t#e ater 3erio!. 1) )9enesis,8 xxiii, 1A. 11 )=(mbers,8 xx;i, -. 1! )=(mbers,8 xxx;i, 4?,. 1" )=(mbers8 xx;ii, 8?11 1# )"#e &ncient City, ) ee & %#epar!Fs e!., %malIFs trans., p. ,, 1$ )<emost#enes against '(b(l,8 -1. 1% 3l(tarc#, )Iita %olon,8 c. D1.

A81
1& i;y, iii. 4-. 47.

1' 9ai(s, )Inst.,8 iii, 1, ,, 17.

The .nd of the 4oo5