326 PROCEEDINGS OF SECTION F. 
The following is the sequence of individuals, and the complete 
text is given in Appendix B :— 
(1) The eldest son (12) of the widow’s sister (7). 
(2) The eldest son (15) of the widow’s sister’s daughter (13). 
(3) The son (14) of the male cousin (8) of the widow on the 
mother’s side. 
(4) The brother of the widow’s mother (1). 
(5) The brother of the widow’s deceased husband (4), pro- 
vided that he has not succeeded to the property of the deceased. 
(6) He who is nearest after the above-mentioned, taken con- 
secutively down to the sixth “joint” of kindred, if he have not 
succeeded to the property of the deceased husband. 
(7) Failing these, the King’s purse. 
The difference between this law and that of the other version 
is the introduction of the male cousin (8) and his son (14), 
instead of the female cousin and her son. The former certainly 
belong to the kindred counted through the female line, and 
this is probably a survival of the old custom. 
But the commentators seem not to be satisfied with it (7), 
and have introduced further corrections, which are shown in the 
diagram by the individuals numbered (6), (10), (11), being the 
widow’s son, her brother, and her son. I find it difficult to 
understand how under female descent the widow’s son can be 
one of the group which would have a claim upon her Reippus. 
Her brother under the customs of tribes having that form of 
descent, would certainly be of that group. His son would also 
come in under the arrangement which admitted (14). But 
there seems to be a further departure from the original prin- 
ciple of a group of kindred, bound together by female descent, 
who claimed a compensation for the loss of one of their 
members. 
Eccard suggests that “ parentella” in the third clause of this 
law (Appendix B) implies “ familia, cognatio, consanguinitas,” 
but he naturally refers to the Roman customs with which he 
was well acquainted, while he had no knowledge of the customs 
of tribes with maternal descent. His suggestion does not seem 
to fit this case. The cognati were all those who sprung from 
one person, whether male or female. The consanguinei were 
those who had a common father, while those who had a com- 
mon mother only were the uterini. As to the familia, it was 
that which distinguished certain of the cognati from the above 
definition, namely, those who had their descent through males, 
and were of the same familia (0). That which we have 
(x) *‘Canciani,”’ Vol. II., p. 88, footnote 4, quoting Eccard, who refers to the Codex 
Guelferbytanus, which I have not been ab e ’0 consult, 
(0) ** Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities.’’ William Smith. Second Edition, 
1878, p. 309. 
