U4 SYSTEMS OF CONSANGUINITY AND AFFINITY 



special term is applied to each of them. Persons who stand to Ego in unequal 

 deo-rees, and who are related to him in different ways, are thus placed upon tlie 

 same level in the rank of their relationship. It makes no difference that it is a 

 false use of terms, for example, to call my father's brother '^ly father, when he is not 

 my father in our sense of progenitor, since it is the Indian method of classification, 

 and with that alone we are now concerned. Thirdly, the several collateral lines 

 in every case are ultimately merged in the lineal line, by means of which the pos- 

 terity of my collateral consanguine! become my posterity. Fourthly, the relation- 

 ship of cousin is the most remote collateral degree which is recognized : conse- 

 quently, none of the descencUmts of an original pair can fall without this collateral 

 relationship. The number of recognized consanguinei is exceedingly multiplied by 

 the operative force of the last two provisions. Fifthly, the children of brothers are 

 brothers and sisters to each other; the children of sisters are brothers and sisters 

 to each other ; but the children of a brother and sister stand to each other in a dif- 

 ferent and more remote relationship. Sixthly, the relationship of uncle is restricted 

 to the mother's brothers, and to the brothers of such other persons as stand to Ego 

 in the relation of a mother. Seventhly, the relationship of aunt is restricted to tlie 

 sister of a father, and to the sisters of such other persons as stand to Ego in the 

 relation of a father. Eighthly, the relationships of nephew and niece are restricted, 

 where Ego is a male, to the children of his sisters, and to the children of such col- 

 lateral persons as stand to him in the relation of a sister. But when Ego is a 

 female they are restricted to the children of her brother, and to the children of 

 such other persons as stand to her in the relation of a brother. Ninthly, the cor- 

 relative relationships are strictly applied ; the person whom I call grandson calls 

 me grandfather; the one I call nephew calls me uncle; the one I call father-in-law 

 calls me son-in-law; and so on through every recognized relationship. To each of 

 the foregoing propositions there are some exceptions, but they are few in number. 

 Lastly, whilst this system of relationship recognizes and upholds the bond of con- 

 sanguinity to an unprecedented extent, it contradicts, and attempts apparently to 

 thwart, the natural outflow of the streams of the blood. At the same time the 

 principles upon which it rests are enfoi-ted with rigorous precision. 



An analysis of this system of relation!?hip will develop its fundamental conceptions 

 in the form of independent propositions, by means of which a comparison can be- 

 made between the several forms as they now exist in the branches of the family. 

 This comparison will determine whether or not the system is one and the same 

 throughovit the family. At the same time the featiu-es in which there is a devia- 

 tion from imiformity will be separated from those which are constant. It will then 

 be seen whether these deviations invade any characteristics of the system which 

 must be regarded as fundamental, or simply represent an amovmt of contraction 

 and expansion which must be considered inseparable from its complicated structure. 

 It is, therefore, important that this analysis should be rigorous and exact; and that 

 the points of disagreement should be not less definitely traced. Among the more 

 important questions involved in the final comparison to be made are the two 

 following : first, whether or not the forms Avhich prevail in the several branches of 

 the Ganowanian family are identical in whatever is ultimate or radical; and secondly, ' 



