OF THE HUMAN FAMILY. 4(59 



and l)y lines of desccut, of the r(>lationship of each and every person to tlic central 

 E(jo. It is, therefore, a natural system, founded upon the nature of descents, and 

 may be supposed to have been of spontaneous growth. But it manifestly proceeds 

 upon the assumption of the existence of marriage between single pairs, and of the 

 certainty of parentage through this marriage relation. Hence it must have come 

 into existence after the establishment of marriage between single pairs. 



The systems of relationship of these families are identical. There are some 

 discrepancies in the several forms in each family, but the character and extent 

 of the coincidences are such as to leave no doubt that in general plan and in 

 fundamental conceptions the system is one and the same amongst them all. The 

 Celtic, the Scandinavian, and the Sanskritic forms are in closer agreement with the 

 Arabic and the Esthonian than they are with the Romaic the Germanic or the 

 Slavonic, whilst all alike proceed upon the idea of a rigorous discrimination of the 

 degrees of consanguinity according to their value, and in maintaining the natural 

 distinctions between the several lines of descent. 



Whether the possession of the same system furnishes any evidence of the imity 

 of origin of these families, and to what extent it may be supposed to have a bearing 

 upon this question, it is not necessary here to inquire, as it is not proposed to draw 

 any inference as to these families from this identity of forms. It may be remarked, 

 however, that if the system is to be regarded as exclusively natural and spontaneous, 

 the argument for unity of origin would be without force; since, as such, it would be 

 tlie form to which all nations must insensibly gravitate under the exercise of ordinary 

 intelligence. But if to reach the descriptive system these families have struggled out 

 of a previous system, altogether different, through a series of customs and insti- 

 tutions which existed antecedently to the attainmeirt of the state of marriage 

 between single pairs, then it becomes a result, or ultimate consequence of customs 

 and institutions of man's invention, rather than a system taught by nature. The 

 evidence dra^vn from the classificatory system tends to show that marriage between 

 single pairs was unknown in the primitive ages of mankind. If this conclusion 

 is sustained, a strong presumption arises that these families once possessed, the 

 classificatory system, and that it was overthrown by the progressive development of 

 their institutions. Considered in this light it is the institution of marriage be- 

 tween single pairs which teaches the descriptive system of relationship ; whilst this 

 form of marriage has been taught by nature through the slow growth of the 

 experience of ages. In the second place the adoption and maintenance of the 

 descriptive system required both intelligence and discernment which endowed it 

 with affirmative elements. The joint possession of the same system by the three 

 families implies a similar antecedent condition, and a similar progressive experience, 

 which cannot be divested of a deep significance. Moreover the preservation of this 

 form for so many centuries, through so many independent channels, and under such 

 eventful changes of condition, is, in itself, a remarkable fact. It is now, and has 

 been for ages, a transmitted system. It is not at all improbable that marriage in 

 its high sense was the culminating institution by means of which these families 

 emerged from barbarism, and commenced their civilized career. 



On the other hand, the classificatory system contains one principal and one sub- 



