OPTHEHUMANFAMILY. 29 



CHAPTER IV. 



SYSTEM OF RELATIONSHIP OF THE ARYAN F A M I L Y— Continued. 



Forms of Consanguinity of the remaining Aryan Nations — Reasons for their ascertainment — Original System deter- 

 mined by a comparison of tlieir Radical Characteristics — I. Hellenic Nations : Ancient Greek — System less accessi- 

 ble than the Roman — Descriptive in Form — Modern Greek — System founded upon the Roman — II. Romaic Nations 

 — Italian System — Illustrations of its Method — French — Illustrations of same — Spanish and Portuguese, not ex- 

 ceptional — III. Teutonic nations — English System — Illustrations of its Method — Prussian and Swiss — Illustrations 

 of their Forms — Holland Dutch — Method Imprecise — Belgian — The same — Westphalian — Illustrations of its 

 Form — Danish and Norwegian — Free from Roman Influence — Illustrations of its Form — Swedish— Agrees with 

 the Danish — Icelandic — Its form purely Descriptive — Illustrations — IV. Sanskrit— Illustrations of its Method — 

 v. Sclavonic Nations— Polish System — Peculiar Method of designating Kindred— Presence of a Non-Aryan 

 Element — Illustrations of its Form — Bohemian — Bulgarian— Illustrations of its Method— Russian— Illustrations 

 of its Method— Special Features in the Slavonic System — Their Ethnological Uses— Lithuanian — Presump- 

 tively Original Slavonic Form— Schedule Imperfect — VI. Celtic Nations— Erse System— Purely Descriptive- 

 Typical Form of Aryan Family — Illustrations of its Method — Gaelic and Manx — The same — Welsh — Its Nomen- 

 clature developed beyond Erse and Gaelic — VII. Persian Nation — System Descriptive — Illustrations of 

 its Method — VIII. Armenian Nation — System Descriptive— Identical with the Erse in its minute Details — 

 Illustrations of its Method— Results of Comparison of Forms— Original System of the Aryan Family Descrip- 

 tive — Limited amount of Classification of Kindred not Inconsistent with this Conclusion — Secondary Terms 

 represent the amount of Modification— System Affirmative in its Character — A Domestic Institution— Stability 

 of its Radical Forms. ' 



The several forms of consanguinity which prevail among the remaining Aryan 

 nations wUl be presented and compared with the Eoman, and also with each other, 

 for the purpose of ascertaining whether they are identical. After this the common 

 system, thus made definite, can be compared with those of other families of man- 

 kind. It will be sufficient for the realization of these objects to exhibit, with the 

 utmost brevity, the characteristic features of the system of each nation, and to 

 indicate the points of difference between them and the Roman. This method will 

 supersede the necessity, except in a few cases, of entering upon details. 



I. Hellenic nations. 1. Ancient Greek. 2. Modern Greek. 



1. Ancient Greek.. — The same facilities for ascertaining the classical Greek 

 method of arranging and designating kindred do not exist, which were found in 

 the Institutes and Pandects, for the Roman. An approximate knowledge of the 

 Grecian form can be drawn from the nomenclature, and from the current use of 

 its terms in the literature of the language. For the most part these terms are 

 compounds, and still indicate, etymologically, particular persons, as well as express 

 particular relationships. They were evidently developed subsequently to the 

 separation of the Hellenic nations from their congeners, since they are not found in 

 the cognate languages. The multiplication of these terms also tends to show that 

 che Greeks of the classical period had no formal scientific method of designating 

 tonsanguinei like the Roman, but attempted, as a substitute, the discrimination 



