OF THE HUMAN FAMILY. 35 



In tlic first collateral lino, male, the series is as follows : Brother, lujilwir, 

 (jrnii-iicj^ilnic, and (jrcaf-ijreut-nejjlicic ; or a s(n"ies of nephews, one beyond the 

 other, which is analogous to the common English and French usage. The 

 second collateral runs as follows : Unde, cousin, coushis son, and coushis grandson. 

 Cousin is thus made a second starting point, and his descendants are referred to 

 him as the root, instead of the uncle. In the third, and more remote collateral 

 lines, the Roman form is followed. The German is a very perfect system, but its 

 excellence is due to its fidelity to its Roman model. 



3. Holland Dutch. — As presented in the table the manner of designating 

 kindred is rather the common form of the people than the statutory method. It 

 will be perceived, by consulting the table, that the system is defective in arrange- 

 ment, and imprecise in the discrimination of relationships. The absence of Roman 

 influence, which has been so apparent in the previous cases, is quite observable. 

 The terms neef and nicht are applied indiscriminately to a nephew and niece, to a 

 grandson and granddaughter, and to each of the four classes of cousins.' These 



' The term nepos, and its cognates, in the dialects of the Aryan language has a singular history, 

 which if fully elaborated would be found instructive. Some of the facts are patent. This term exists 

 in nearly all the dialects of the language, from which it is inferable that it was indigenous in the pri- 

 mitive speech. The terms for grandfather and uncle are different in the several stock-languages, from 

 which it is also inferable that the terms for these relationships, where found, were developed subse- 

 quently to the separation of these nations from each other, or from the parent stem. Consequently 

 nefios, and its cognates, must have existed as a term of relationship without a correlative. While the 

 relationships of grandfather and grandson, and of uncle and nephew, were in process of being sepa- 

 rated from each other, and turned into proper correlation, the use of wepos must have fluctuated. 

 Among the Romans, as late as the fourth century, it was applied to a nephew as well as a grandson, 

 although both avus and avunculus had come into use. Eutropius in speaking of Octavianus calls 

 him the nephew of Coesar, "Ceesaris nepos" (Lib. VII. c. i.). Suetonius speaks of him as so7-o7-is 

 neiws (Ccesar, c. Ixxxiii.), and afterwards (Octavianus, c. vii.), describes Cssar as his greater uncle, 

 major avunculus, in which he contradicts himself When 7ie2MS was finally restricted to grandson, 

 and thus became the strict correlative of avus, the Latin language was without a term for nephew, 

 whence the descriptive phrase fralris vel sororis filius. In English nejjhew was applied to grand- 

 son as well as nephew as late as 1611, the period of King James' translation of the Bible. Niece is 

 so used by Shakspeare in his will, in which he describes his granddaughter, Susannah Hall, as " my 

 niece." But iu English, and likewise in French and German, nepjhew, neveu, and neffe were finally 

 restricted to the sons of the brothers and sisters of Ego, and thus became respectively the correlative 

 of uncle. This, in turn, left these dialects without any term for grandson, which deficiency was sup- 

 plied by a descriptive phrase, except the German, which in eiikel found an indigenous terra. In 

 Greek, however, anepsios appears to have been applied to a nephew, a grandson, and a cousin, and 

 finally became restricted to the last. Necf in Holland Dutch still expresses these three relationships 

 indiscriminately. In Belgian and Flatt Dutch nichte is applied to a female cousin as well as niece. 

 These uses of the term tend to show that its pristine use was sufficiently general to include grandson, 

 nephew, and cousin, but without giving any reason to suppose that it was ever as general as the 

 words relative or kinsman. The difi'erence in the relationships of these persons to Ego was undoubt- 

 edly understood, and each made specific by description. A term of relationship once invented and 

 adopted into use becomes the repository of an idea ; and that idea never changes. Its meaning, as 

 indicated by its use, may become enlarged or restricted among cognate nations after their separation 

 from each other, or in the same nation in the course of ages ; but the subversion of its meaning or 

 use is next to impossible. A term invented to express a particular relationship cannot be made to 

 express two as distinct and dissimilar as those for grandson and nephew ; and, therefore, its exclusive 



