OF THE HUMAN FAMILY. 25 



is forcibly illustrated by these computations.^ It is both a singular and an extra- 

 ordinary fact, that the blood and physical organization of so many millions of 

 ancestors should be represented in the person of every human being. The specific 

 identity of the individual of the present with the ancestor of the past generation 

 illustrates the marvellous nature of a structural organization, which is capable 

 of transmission through so many ancestors, and of reproduction as a perfect whole 

 in one individual after the lapse of indefinite periods of time. 



In the mode of computing the degrees of consanguinity the Aryan nations dificr 

 among themselves. It is apparent that the relationships which collaterals sustain 

 to each other are in virtue of their descent from common ancestors. It is also 

 obvious that each step in ascending from ancestor to ancestor in the lineal line, 

 and in descending from parent to child, in either of the collateral lines, is a degree. 

 Hence in tracing the connection between Ego and any given person in a collateral 

 line, we must first ascend from Ego to the common ancestor, and then descend to 

 the person whose relationship is sought, counting each intervening person as one 

 degree, or unit of separation ; and the aggregate of these units will express, numeri- 

 cally, the nearness, and, upon this basis, the actual value of the relationship. The 

 difterence made was upon the starting-point, whether it should commence with Ego, 

 or with the common ancestor. The Roman civilians reckoned from the former ; 

 thus, if the degree of the relationship of the first cousin were sought, it would be 

 estimated as follows : From Ego to father, pater, is one ; from father to grandfather, 

 avus, who is the common ancestor, is two ; from grandfather down to paternal 

 \\nc\e, pair uus, is three; and from paternal uncle to cousin, j5«/to;' fillus, is four; 

 therefore he stands to Ego in the fourth degree of consanguinity. Under this 

 method the first person is excluded and the last is included. This Avas also the 

 manner of computing degrees among the Hebrews.^ But the canon law, and after 

 it the common law, adopted the other method. It commenced with the common 

 ancestor, and counted the degrees in the same manner, down to the person most 

 remote from the latter, whether Ego or the person whose relationship was to be 

 determined ; thus, a first cousin stands in the second degree, since both the cousin 

 and Ego are removed two degrees from the common ancestor ; the son of this cousin 

 is in the third degree, as he is three degrees from the common ancestor, which 



« These figures bear directly upon one of the great problems in ethnology ; namely, the multi- 

 plicity of the typical faces and forms of mankind. If a fragment of a people became insulated, as 

 the Erse in Ireland, or repelled immigration to their territories by peculiar manners and customs, as 

 the Hebrews, it matters not whether the original elements of population were simple or mixed, if 

 the blood was left free to intermingle, the physical peculiarities of the people would rapidly assimi- 

 late, so that in a few centuries there would be developed a national face and form, which would be 

 common, distinctly marked, and typical. The only conditions necessary to produce this result, in 

 any number of cases, are an absolute respite from foreign admixture, with freedom of intermarriage 

 among all classes. Under these conditions, which have been occasionally attained, typical faces and 

 forms, such as the Hebrew, the Irish, and the German, could be multiplied indefinitely ; and the 

 differences among them might become very great, in the course of time, through congenital pecu- 

 liarities, modes of subsistence, and climatic influences ; not to say, processes of degradation of one 

 branch or family, and of elevation in another. 



" Selden's Uxor Hebraica, I. c. 4. 

 4 May, 1868. 



