OF THE HUMAN FAMILY. 49 



descriptive phrases are used concurrently to designate each respectively. It might 

 be a reasonable supposition that an elaborate nomenclature of relationships was 

 developed in the formative period of the primitive speech of the family, yielding 

 synonyms more or less in number ; and that some of these terms had fallen out of 

 certain dialects of the language after their separation, and had been retained by 

 others. But the constancy of the primary terms in all these dialects, and the 

 ascertained subsequent development of several of the secondary, such as uncle and 

 cousin, forbid this supposition. There is nothing in the original nomenclature, or 

 in its subsequent growth, which seems to favor an assumption that the present has 

 advanced or receded from a primitive form that was radically different. On the 

 contrary, the evidence from the Sanskrit and Scandinavian, and conclusively from 

 the Celtic and Armenian, tends to show that the system of the Aryan family, im- 

 mediately before its subdivision commenced, was purely descriptive, whatever it 

 might have been at an anterior epoch. The changes that have occurred are ex- 

 plainable by the changes of condition through which the branches of this family 

 have passed. And when the amazing extent of these changes is considered it is 

 chiefly remarkable that the primitive system of consanguinity should still so clearly 

 manifest itself. 



If each distinct idea or conception embodied in the common system of relation- 

 ship of the Aryan family were detached by analysis from its connections, and placed 

 as a separate proposition, the number would not be large ; and yet when associated 

 together they are sufficient to create a system, and to organize a family upon the 

 bond of kindred. A system thus formed became, when adopted into practical use, 

 a domestic institution, which, after its establishment, would be upheld and sustained 

 by the ever-continuing necessities that brought it into being. Its mode of trans- 

 mission, like that of language, was through the channels of the blood. It becomes, 

 then, a question of the highest moment whether its radical forms are stable ; and 

 whether they are capable of self-perpetuation through indefinite periods of time. 

 The solution of these problems will decide the further, and still more important 

 question, whether or not these systems, through the identity of their radical features, 

 can deliver any testimony concerning the genetic connection of the great families 

 of mankind, as well as of the nations of which these families are severally com- 

 posed. Without entering upon the discussion of these topics, which is reserved 

 until the facts with reference to the systems of other families have been presented, 

 it may be observed that the perpetuation of the descriptive system through so many 

 independent channels, and through the number of centuries these nations have 

 been separated from each other, was neither an accidental nor a fortuitous occur- 

 rence. There are sufficient reasons why the Erse, the Icelandic, and the Armenian 

 forms are still identical down to their minute details ; why the system of the re- 

 maining nations of this family has departed so slightly from the original common 

 form ; and why it has moved independently, in each dialect and stock-language, 

 in the same definite direction. 



The systems of the Semitic and Uralian families remain to be noticed, which, as 

 they are also descriptive, properly precede the classificatory. 



7 January, 1839. 



