32 SYSTEMS OF C N S A N G UI X I T Y AND AFFINITY 



the uncle is made the root of this branch of the line, and afterward the consin is 

 made the second starting-point. As ^mcle and cousin are common terms, explana- 

 tory words are required to show whether they belonged to the father's or to the 

 mother's side. The following is the series in the third collateral: Grand-oncle, 

 fils du grand-onde, and j^eiit-Jils du (jrand-oiicle. In the fourth and fifth collateral 

 lines the descriptive method was necessarily adopted. 



Among the Aryan nations the French alone, with the exception of the ancient 

 Sanskrit speaking people of India, possess original terms for elder and younger 

 brother, and for elder and younger sister. It is a noticeable feature for the reason 

 that in the Turanian, Malayan, and American Indian families the fraternal and sororal 

 relationships are universally conceived in the twofold form of elder and younger. 



3. Spanish. 4. Portuguese. — There is nothing in the systems of these nations 

 which is exceptional to the general plan of consanguinity of the Aryan family, or 

 that requires special notice. 



III. Teutonic Nations. 1. English. 2. Prussian, and German-Swiss. 3. Hol- 

 land-Dutch. 4. Belgian. 5. AYestphalian. 6. Danish and Norwegian. 7. Swedish. 

 8. Icelandic. 



These nations possess the same system of relationship. Presumptively they 

 commenced with the same primitive form, wherefore a comparison of their several 

 forms, as they now exist independently of each other, should shoAV, first, what is 

 still common among them all, and consequently radical ; secondly, that Avhich has 

 been developed independently in each ; thirdly, the portion that has been borrowed 

 from the Roman ; and, lastly, the true character of the original system. 



1. English. — The English legal method of indicating relationships is founded 

 upon the Roman. It has followed the latter very closely, borrowing a portion of 

 its nomenclature, and also its method. In the Diagram Plate III. this form is 

 shown in detail, but limited to the relatives on the father's side. A similar dia- 

 gram, with slight changes, would show the same lines on the mother's side. 



In daily life, however, this formal plan is not resorted to for the near relation- 

 ships. The common terms are employed in all cases as far as they are applicable; 

 while for such kindred as are not thus embraced, descriptive phrases are used. 

 The first collateral line gives for the series hrother, nepheic, great-nepheio, and 

 greaf-great-jiejjhew ; the second, uncle, cousin, cousin's son, and. cousuis grandson ; 

 the third collateral, great-uncle, great-uncle's son, second cousin, and second cousin's 

 son. These illustrations reveal a tendency to avoid the full descriptive phrases. 

 If, however, the terms uncle, aunt, and cousin, which are borrowed, through 

 Norman sources, from the Latin speech, were struck out of the nomenclature, 

 nephew alone of the secondary terms would remain ; and their loss would render 

 compulsory the original descriptive form by a combination of the primary terms. 

 Of discarded Anglo-Saxon terms one, at least, ea/«\ uncle, Avas in general use before 



' TIic word 77epherv, as used by our early English ancestors, must have had two correhitivcs, iniric, 

 and grandfaiher, or the diffei'ence in these relationships, as in the case of nejihew and rjran(hon, was 

 not discriminated. In King Alfred's Orosius earn is used as frequently for grandfather as for uncle. 

 Vide Bohn's Ed, pp. 297, 284, 497. 



