OF THE HUMAN FAMILY. Xfl 



to be incapable of throwing any light upon the question whether a classificatory 

 form ever becomes changed into a descriptive, or the reverse. It is more difficult, 

 where the primitive system was classificatory, to ascertain the probable direction 

 of the change. The uncivilized nations have remained substantially stationary in 

 their condition through all the centuries of their existence, a circumstance 

 eminently favorable to the permanency of their domestic institutions. It is not 

 supposable, however, that they have resisted aU modifications of their system of 

 consanguinity. The opulence of the nomenclature of relationships, which is 

 characteristic of the greater portion of the nations whose form is classificatory, 

 may tend to show that, if it changed materially, it would be in the direction of 

 a greater complexity of classification. It is extremely difficult to arrive at any 

 general conclusions upon this question with reference to either form. But it may 

 be affirmed that if an original system changes materially, after it has been adopted 

 into use, it is certain to be done in harmony with the ideas and conceptions which 

 it embodies, of which the changes will be further and logical developments. 



It should not be inferred that forms of consanguinity and affinity are either 

 adopted, modified, or laid aside at pleasure. The tables entirely dispel such a 

 supposition. When a system has once come into practical use, with its nomen- 

 clature adopted, and its method of description or of classification settled, it would, 

 from the nature of the case, be very slow to change. Each person, as has else- 

 Avhere been observed, is the centre around whom a group of consanguinei is 

 arranged. It is my father, my mother, my brother, my son, my uncle, my cousin, 

 with each and every human being ; and, therefore, each one is compelled to 

 understand, as well as to use, the prevailing system. It is an actual necessity to 

 all alike, since each relationship is personal to Erjo. A change of any of these 

 relationships, or a subversion of any of the terms invented to express them, would 

 be extremely difficult if not impossible; and it would be scarcely less difficult to 

 enlarge or contract the established use of the terms themselves. The possibility of 

 this permanence is increased by the circumstance that these systems exist by usage 

 rather than legal enactment, and therefore the motive to change must be as 

 imiversal as the usage. Their use and preservation are intrusted to every person 

 who speaks the common language, and their channel of transmission is the blood. 

 Hence it is that, in addition to the natural stability of domestic institutions, there 

 are special reasons which contribute to their permanence, by means of which it is 

 rendered not improbable that they might survive changes of social condition 

 sufficiently radical to overthrow the primary ideas in which they originated. 



These preliminary statements being made, it is now proposed to explain and 

 compare the systems of relationship of the several nations and families represented 

 in the tables. In doing this the order therein adopted will be followed. Invoking 

 the patient attention of the reader, I will endeavor to perform this task with as 

 much brevity and clearness as I may be able to command. 



