324 PROCEEDINGS OF SECTION F. 
Father and mother... ... The head 
Children ae si ... The neck 
First grade (grandchildren) The shoulders 
Second grade oe ... The elbow 
Third grade ... oh ... The wrist 
Fourth grade oti ... The knuckle 
Fifth grade ... oe .... The middle joint of the middle finger 
Sixth grade ... ee ... The first joint of the middle finger 
In the next stage there is no joint but a nail, and it was called 
the “ naghel-maghe,” or nail kindred, because there the kindred 
ended, sib or relationship was contained between the nail and 
the head (f). 
There is no allocation in the Salic law of the brideprice of 
«u woman on her first marriage (g). The brideprice evidently 
was for the purchase of a woman from her kindred, or for com- 
pensation to them for her loss. This comes out clearly in the 
Anglo-Saxon custom, which in the absence of direct evidence of 
detail, may be looked at for the general Teutonic practice. The 
betrothal, which was the essential part of marriage, was ar- 
ranged by the respective kindreds (maeg) of the bridegroom 
and the bride ; the brideprice was agreed upon, the bridegroom ’s 
maeg guaranteed it, and the bride’s kindred might also require 
a guarantee for her good treatment if she were taken into 
“another thene’s land (#). Indeed, as in other transactions, 
it was the group which acted for the individual, protected him 
or her against wrong, or avenged his or her death. 
It is quite clear, from the law of the Reippus, that it was the 
kindred of the widow, on the mother’s side, who had a claim to 
the brideprice, and the same principle may be fairly assumed 
to have governed the price at her first marriage. It is clearly 
laid down, that the line of maternal descent is to be followed, 
the one exception being the brother of the deceased husband. 
As to this, it may not be an unreasonable conjecture that he 
was included for the reason that in past times he had a personal 
claim over the widow (z). The practice of the levirate seems 
to have been common in Teutonic tribes before they came under 
the control of the Christian church. The numerous successive 
enactments which forbid marriage between persons within cer- 
tain degrees of relation show what the previous practice was, 
(f) This must be a relic of the very early times, and it is perhaps worth noting as an 
instance of similarity of practice in tribes in, or emerging from, savagery, that the 
system of counting by the parts of the human body was also practised by the native 
tribes of the colony of Victoria. Their enumeration commenced at the little finger of one 
hand and went over the head to the little finger on the other hand. 
(g) *‘ Canciani.’’ Vol. IL., p. 85, footnote 8, and quoting Eccard, says :—‘‘ De puellz 
vero pretio, quod mireris, Lex Salica nihil habet.” 
(h) ‘Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen,’”’ Dr. Reinhold Schmid, Leipzig, 1858, p. 390. 
(i) In some Australian tribes there is group marriage between two or more brothers 
and their respective wives; in other tribes the practice still exists, but it is carried on suh 
rosa; in other tribes again there is no such practice, but the surviving brother takes his 
deceased brother’s widow. This is a good example of the manner in which a custom dies 
out when there is a social advance, however small in degree. 
